Re: Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears
H. M. Hubey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
4 Nov 1995 00:52:44 -0500
email@example.com (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
> Which means, from a scientific definition point-of-view, that the term
>has no meaning at all.
It has the best of meaning from scientific defintion point of view
since that's exactly where it comes from and does its best job.
> The so-called "direction" is only known after the fact. There is no
>pre-determined "end-point". As a result, even though the starting
No it isn't. See Kojima's book. He's hiding the fact that
the equation for the probability density comes from another
equation (a deterministic one).
> Mark, I advise you to at least glance at some books written by Harvard
>paleontologist Steven Jay Gould.
I advise you to read Kojima and Roughgarden. I just read one
by Gould, Mismeasure of Man, and I'm not impressed. Anyone can
poke big holes through it, at least I can, and in a few weeks
I will be finished doing it. Don't worry the paper will be
available for you to read.
> Even if the Mongol hoards of creationists didn't exist, the use of the
>word "direction" should be abolished from SCIENTIFIC usage. Let the general
>public wrestle with the word if they want to.
Like evolution, it's your job to unconfuse the public. Direction and
determinism have their place. But first, the PAists should realize
that their mental models are deficient, and some evolutionists
should do the same.