Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Toby Cockcroft: "Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation"
• Previous message: John O'Meara: "Michael Coe's Book on Mayan Decipherment"

In article <3210F4BB.15D5@byu.edu>,
Shannon Adams <shannon_adams@byu.edu> wrote:
[ Mr. Firl wrote:]
>> It may be irritating that your ancestors 2 generations back didn't know
>> about microbes; if it helps any, my ancestors from 5 generations back
>> didn't either. So what?

[And Ms. Adams replied:]
>But the important question for many people is not HOW the person became sick
>(because of the spread of a virsus) but WHY that specific person became sick.

Isn't reductionist medical science better equipped to answer both the how
and why questions here? Understanding the particulars of disease transmission
and host susceptibility, it seems to me, is more predictive than
attributing illness to demonic spirits or unknown enemies, after the fact.

Plus, a biological approach has the added advantage of occasionally
affording a cure!

Bryant

• Next message: Toby Cockcroft: "Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation"
• Previous message: John O'Meara: "Michael Coe's Book on Mayan Decipherment"