Re: Are we "special"?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Are we "special"?"
• Previous message: Velvy: "Re: history questions: meat, siberian land bridge, horses in the Americas"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Paul Crowley: "Re: Are we "special"?"

In article <01bbeab3$c2689520$LocalHost@dan-pc> "Rohinton Collins" <rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk> writes:
>Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ucf.edu> wrote in article
><58vtst$80k@news.cc.ucf.edu>...

>> I have decided henceforth to use the word "unsual" for the concept I
>> am trying to convey. "Special" seems to be a red flag. I do not
>> mean "unique". "Unusual" is about right.

>'Special' and 'unusual' are subjective adjectives Tom. 'Unique' is not.
>Only the latter may be used in useful scientific narrative.

Science's loss, I guess.
Since we have established that all species are unique, the adjective
"unique" has no force.

Can we say that Homo sapiens has language, and then ask the
question "what evolutionary circumstances led to the development
of language by Homo spapiens?" without treading on any toes?

Tom Clarke

• Next message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Are we "special"?"
• Previous message: Velvy: "Re: history questions: meat, siberian land bridge, horses in the Americas"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Paul Crowley: "Re: Are we "special"?"