Re: BELL CURVE CRITIC EXPOSED?
8 Feb 95 22:11:34 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin Hutchison) writes:
>In article <dexter.791854229@aries>, email@example.com (Frosch) writes...
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin Hutchison) writes:
> > "biologists agree, zoologists agree..." what do they agree?
> > more than one poster has made the point that there is not a clear
> > and unambiguous definition of species. if you claim that "most
> > (if not all) textbooks in the world" use the same definition, what
> > is the definition they use? i have some trouble believing that you
> > have read "most (if not all) textbooks in the world" on this issue,
> > the linguistic difficulties alone are rather overwhelming.
> >Do you have trouble believing that my zool professor would not lie about what
> >is the accepted standard?
> i don't recall ever meeting your zoology professor, although i
> doubt that the person in question is infallible (does the pope teach
> zoology? anyone?). zoology professors aside, what is the definition
> of species, on which you claim most or all textbooks agree?
>What the hell make you so perfect to judge easily verifiable facts w/o one
>ounce of effort or thought?
>GO to your library, check out the Into. level Zool book, and read a few
>It is not my desire to prove that the universe exists to dolts.
in short, you can't provide a generally accepted single definition
> > >[...] The burden of proof is
> > >always on the challenger, not the other way around.
> > you have a strange concept as far as the burden of proof goes.
> > does that mean that if i claim god is a lesbian sadomasochist living
> > in san francisco and i know her address, i have no burden of proof,
> > but that you have to disprove it?
> >You aren't very bright, babes. You are challenging the accepted ideas about god
> >if you propose that it is really a "lesbian.....", so YOU prove your image of
> >god if you want to change convention.
> actually, she is a lesbian, and she gives a VERY good ... well,
> no, you don't want to know that.
>If you challenge convention, YOU must provide compelling proof.
sheesh. doesn't personal religious experience count for ANYTHING