Re: AAT: I just rediscovered my news filter
David L Burkhead (r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu)
18 Oct 1995 11:35:47 GMT
In article <460hv4$po3@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk writes:
>rdcsaunders@its.dundee.ac.uk (ROBERT SAUNDERS) wrote:
>
>But the point still is valid. Mathematical models aren't reality, and for
>me to give up the AAT the objection would have to be pretty convincing.
>
Actually, the point is _not_ valid, unless your point is that
bad science is a poor predictor of reality (since that latter is
almost a definition of the former, this is trivially true). A model
that ignores things that are already known (for instance, mammals,
regardless of whether they are "aquatic" or not have a "dive reflex"
as described in AAH), is just bad science. That doesn't invalidate
the process by which models that _don't_ ignore such data are built.
BTW, the "proof" was _not_ a "mathematical model" as the term is
usually used. It may have _used_ such models, but that doesn't mean
it _was_ one.
That you so faithfully cling to AAH despite the almost total lack
of evidence in its favor (although _claims_ abound), speaks more of a
"religious" conviction than anything having anything to do with
science. That's fine if that's your bag, but don't be surprised if
other folk want some actual evidence before falling in line.
David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com
--
Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine
Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831
|