Re: BELL CURVE CRITIC EXPOSED?
Martin Hutchison (email@example.com)
3 Feb 1995 08:56 MST
In article <dexter.791587839@aries>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Frosch) writes...
email@example.com (Martin Hutchison) writes:
> >Biologists agree, Zoologists agree, but granola crunchers are happy to say
> >"Hey, this one has a white paw(red tail, little spot patterns, whatever), let's
> >call it an endangered species and protect it".
> >There is clear consensus on how we classify species. You can ALWAYS find nuts &
> >flakes to dissagree with anything.
> who is 'we', who classifies species? from my knowledge of the
> field, there is not clear consensus, but a recognition of difficulty.
>There should always be a recognition of difficulty in everything, thus we
>continuously improve. That does not mean that when scientists debate aspects of
>stone age society that they debate the concept of evolution.
"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?
>Most(if not all) textbooks in the world use the same system for specieal
>classification, so that is the "we". Accept it or not, it is there. And if you
>wish to refute it, you prove that it's wrong or shut up. 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.