Re: AAT Theory
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
7 Oct 1995 14:37:44 -0400
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) writes:
> Instead, we can argue about what number should be assigned. Same
>tune, different lyrics.
So it seems. do you seriously believe that numbers and measurement
are only for physicists?
> "half-scientific or pre-scientific fields such as yours"? You
>mean physics? Or did you even read my post where I _told_ you what my
I guess I forgot or didn't read it.
> And there _is_ a definition, of a "fruit"--the biological
>defintion--the ripened ovary of a flowering plant. It's when people
We went thorugh something like this before. Recognizing an apple
is easier than recognizing an apple tree for some people. And giving
latin names to things doesn't make science.
In the end we are still forced to deal with objects which we
are forced to recognize/perceive and usually through our
sense organs. The closer we are to the action the easier it is.
These ideas are better discussed in something like ai or
philosophy of science groups.
> No. Every one of those is a fruit. As are cucumbers, squash,
>pumpkins, tomatoes, snow peas (in the pod) and many other things that
>are considered "vegetables" in colloquial speech. There is no such
>"fuzziness" in scientific terminology.
You're deliberately ignoring the main problem. YOu can't define
any one of these things if you first require people to define
ovary, ripe, plant, etc. YOu are using one dragon to slay another.
That's the reason for the use of "voting" by people to try
to comprehend how people comprehend.
> But, the thing is, this was _not_ defined by voting. And anyone
I hate to do this, but yes it was defined by "voting". Indeed
everything in life is by voting. I didn't want to bring it
up because I didn't want people to try the Feyerabendian escape.
New scientific theories win by winning over the minds of
people; not people in the street but scientists. Hopefully,
the methods used by them are such that agreement points to
the most likely solution, and is the closest thing to truth
that we can agree on. It has a sort of hierarchical organization
with the "experts" on top with the general population at the
bottom (the usual triangular organization chart kind of thing.)
I could leave it here but then, that makes science like art,
fashion or voodoo. OF course, there's a difference, but it
gets more and more hazy. And some fields which we say are
scientific are somewhere in between the two extremes.
>... deleted
>to their diet quite readily. Humans, OTOH, _don't_ get added to diet.
>Thus, the claim above is once again demonstrably false.
I'll cut it short. Wolves will be eating humans if they could find
enough of them hanging around and (with the usual caveats.....)
It's getting tiring..
> Go to your local library and look up !Kung. Until very recently
In with the lions or is it poetic licence? Besides how do you
compare this with chimp size animals with small brains?
>to have food airlifted in, or perhaps get special permission from the
>government to let us hunt?
sorry. You have to go there naked. If you want sticks and stones
you have to find them there in the savannah. And naturally both
sexes must be there, and must also have children. YOu can hang around
the water hole during the day and hide (somewhere) at night :-)..
> Tell you what. If you can solve those problems, I'll take you up
>on your offer--_if_ you will likewise spend the same year
>standing/wading waist-deep in croc infested waters.
I don't expect to go where there are crocs. I never said that it
would be easier in croc infested waters. I don't expect that every
place in Africa was infested with crocs. On the other hand
the savannah animals would need to hang around water holes and
couldn't go too far from them, especially considering the liters
of water they'd be sweating during the day.
The ideal location would be some place where the ocean met the
forest where they could take advantage of both.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|