|
|
Re: The Real Place of Fuzziness in Anthropology
Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Thu, 15 Aug 1996 21:51:30 GMT
In article <4v01ll$15hk@auriga.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>[snip]
>>Len Piotrowski wrote:
>>>[Joel said:]
>>> >Suppose we take two genetically identical rats, keeping one in the lab and
>>> >releasing one (with a chip implanted so we can find it again) into the
>>> >wild.
>>> > What do we get? Two identical
>>> >rats?
>>>
>>> They are still genetically identical. What's changed?
>Joel's point, I believe, is that development involves not just genes in a
>vacuum, but an interaction between genes and environment. The same set
>of genes can react much differently to two different environments,
>resulting in differences between the genetically identical, individual
>organisms.
>[snip]
So much was obvious. The point I was trying to make is that reference to
"change" without explicitly referring to a target subject, context, and reason
is profoundly uninteresting. Asserting that "something" has changed
without stating what, why, and how simply invites a shrug. Chaos Theory's
affect on the shrug factor is about nill.
Cheers,
--Lenny__
|