From: Derek Gatherer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 11 Nov 2005 - 09:01:43 GMT
At 23:05 10/11/2005, Dace wrote:
> > It's impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the
> > determined believer.
Thank you, Dr Freud. How much do I owe you?
>Your entire approach is that of a true-believer. You're acting
>more like a lawyer defending his client (reductionism) than a scientist
>interested in arriving at the truth. At the very least, you should be
>recognizing that the holistic approach to life is as valid as the
>reductionistic approach. But you have no interest in comparing rival
>theories, only in tarring the one you don't like with guilt by association
>(as in equating field theory with creationism).
Well, okay then, Ted, tell me what evidence you would like to
see. You've been unimpressed with all my reference to Nobel-Prize
winning developmental biology, but there must be some conceivable set
of circumstances that would convince you that molecules are the key
to understanding life. Tell me what evidence you need to see, and
I'll try to dig it up for you. I have a very clear idea of the
evidence I would like to see for spooky fields, but I let you go first.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 11 Nov 2005 - 09:21:11 GMT