Therefore it must be wrong. This was the reaction of several prominent anthropologists when Chuck Millikan, a California policeman, wrote to them to ask what they thought of the aquatic ape hypothesis, according to Elaine Morgan. Millikan was “a compulsive letter-writer,” said Morgan. He had been impressed by her ideas and wrote her to ask when her next book was coming out. There won’t be a next one, Morgan had replied, I’ve said all I have to say. Millikan’s response to this was to write prominent anthropologists asking them what they thought of her theory. When he sent Morgan their replies, she saw they had no good reasons for ignoring her. Emboldening and irritated, she wrote another book.
Let me invent a verb: to elaine morgan something is to have a big effect on something you shouldn’t have been able to influence. Elaine Morgan elaine morganed the study of evolution. She was far outside anthropology; she shouldn’t have been able to successfully promote a radical new view of evolution, but she did. Chuck Millikan elaine morganed Elaine Morgan; he shouldn’t have been able to persuade her to start writing again, but he did.
A excellent BBC documentary about the aquatic ape theory (part 1 of 6).
I read on of Morgan’s books years ago, and she struck me as a truly original thinker, another Jane Jacobs. I expect that the aquatic-ape hypothesis will eventually accepted in some form. Looking around the web, it seems that Morgan is a pariah in academic circles, and has suffered for this emotionally. Some academics seem to feel almost a revulsion for her. I’m not sure why. The cheerful, commonsense tone her books radiate may drive some batty; perhaps they prefer things mysterious and deep. Sometimes she gives the impression of throwing every conceivable scrap of evidence into her argument, which is a hallmark of crank arguments. She sometimes has gotten emotional in her online responses – that’s hardly unusual for academics, but is especially damaging for people who already carry the stigma of crankdom.
But in the end I think it comes down to her lack of academic credentials and the fact that she is challenging a hegemonic theory. Other examples occur to you no doubt.