Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA14212 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:13:17 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:16:07 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The "logic" meme Message-ID: <3B7DA5B7.1230.19D901C@localhost> In-reply-to: <003f01c12798$a44ce6a0$1088b2d1@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 17 Aug 2001, at 20:48, Dace wrote:
> Joe Dees:
> > > > Appeal to Authority is another one of those 2500 year old Greek
> > > > logical fallacies. In fact, my reply was logical, rational,
> > > > reasonable, coherent, cohesive and cogent, and specifically
> > > > addressed the referent conditions rather than someone else's
> > > > opinion of them.
> > >
> > > Appeal to Authority is a fallacy only when the "authority" turns
> > > out to have no expertise on the issue under discussion. If I
> > > appeal to the authority of a plumber on my leaky faucet, that is
> > > not a fallacy. But if I make my appeal to the authority of an
> > > electrician, this would then be a fallacy.
> > >
> > > Yes, your reply was logical. That's the problem. You're trying
> > > to argue against facts with logic. It won't work. This is what I
> > > mean about banging your head against a wall.
> > >
> > One argues logicallly based upon the facts;
> Not necessarily. One can argue illogically from facts or, in your
> case, logically from falsehoods. You can't overcome facts with logic.
> You can't assume protein-folding follows deterministically simply
> because it seems logical to you. When the evidence fails to support
> your thesis, your sense of its innate validity is meaningless.
The wishful interpretation you inflict upon the facts of protein folding
is what is unsupported; there is absolutely NO evidence that the
fact of protein folding necessutates the assumption of your crank
> > > > > > > DNA does not code for locks and keys to govern protein
> > > > > > > assembly. The folding of protein remains a mystery, as any
> > > > > > > biochemist can tell you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > If it codes for protein construction, then lock and key
> > > > > > configuration, being an aspect of overall configuration, is
> > > > > > necesarily a part of the whole.
> > > > >
> > > > > This statement is absolutely correct. *If* genes code for
> > > > > protein construction, *then* they would necessarily provide a
> > > > > lock and key configuration. However, genes do not encode for
> > > > > any such thing. They "encode" for a simple, linear sequence of
> > > > > amino acids. That's it, Joe. Bang your head against the brick
> > > > > wall all you want, it's not going to change the facts.
> > > > >
> > > > If DNA encodes for "simple, linear sequence(s) of amino acids",
> > > > then these themselves can only lock-and-key into proteins in
> > > > ways predetermined by their configuration.
> > >
> > > Do you realize you're making this up out of thin air? [snip]
> > Reread the above to see why your response does not address my
> > contention; if genes code for amino acid sequence construction, then
> > the locks and keys inherent in those configurations constrain
> > linkage possibilities; nothing has to be forced, just alternatives
> > excluded by being rendered configurationally impossible.
> The chemical "locks and keys" in a sequence of amino acids do not
> confine the folding process into one set of linkages in particular.
> Given the chemical properties of an amino acid chain, there are
> numerous possible configurations that could result. This was my
> original point. You're still avoiding the facts because they don't
> seem "logical" to you.
But, as has been pointed out by others, chaperones come into
> > > Invoking Occam here is a big mistake. The whole point of field
> > > theory in biology, all the way back to the 20s, was to reduce the
> > > number of "entities." Field theory is far more elegant than
> > > germ-plasm theory. All the complexity involved in storing
> > > blueprints in our chromosomes and somehow translating them into
> > > actual bodies is washed away with the concept of a holistic field
> > > governing development. This is not to suggest, of course, that
> > > elegance constitutes proof.
> > >
> > We already know that the genes are there;
> That we do. What we don't know is that they contain instructions for
> the creation of a transcomputational structure known as an "organism."
Actually, we do, for when we inject them into an empty ovum and
apply electric current, Dolly results.
> > we actually modify them, on occasion.
> And we've begun learning to create technology from this modification.
> As Francis Bacon once said, "Truth and utility are the same thing."
> This is a caricature of science.
The fact that genetic modification actually modifies the resultant
organisms cannot be avoided or overcome by any amount of huffy
anti-science pooh-poohing by one who would have us adopt
wholsale fantasies entirely bereft of any evidentiary support and
only pseudocorroborated by wishful and highly unlikely
interpretations of just-so stories.
> > To add another mechanism, whose existence
> > and efficacy have not even been demonstrated, to one actually
> > proven to exist and that has not been proven to fail to account for
> > the observed phenomena
> That it hasn't been disproven is indeed its only "evidence."
Neither has it been disproven that dwarfs are fellating centaurs
beneath the mpountains of the moon, but it is highly unlikely. The
genetic evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, has literally
MILLIONS (that's one followed by at least six zeroes) of successful
experimental results and actual technological implementations
> > is indeed to violate Occam's Razor. "God
> > made it all" would be simpler than evolution, I suppose, but that
> > wdoesn't make it correct.
> That God created the universe has never been disproven either. Some
> statements can't be "falsified" and are therefore unscientific. "DNA
> made it all" is no different from "God made it all."
Wrongo, boyo; when those sheep genes were injected in that
empty ovum and Dolly resulted, that's what logical, rational and
reasonable people (excluding enthralled memebots) would consider
proof. God-juice, on the other hand, has never been isolated, much
less employed. That you would equate these to demonstrates a
level of naivete that education may be unable to overcome, or else
a willful disregard for facts that your morphic filter squeams at.
> It's the same
> assertion in different guises. The meme adapts, Joe. When you
> outgrow one of its forms, it takes on a new one and sucks you right
> back in.
Nope; one has evidence to support it, and the other does not; a
distinction that makes no difference to superstitious and
> > Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> > > Hi Joe,
> > > You wrote,
> > >
> > > > Ted has mentioned both configurations (such as fish scale
> > > > colors) and actions (such as the opening of milk bottles by
> > > > birds) as possible examples of morphogenetic resonance. I
> > > > consider the first to be genetically determined and the second
> > > > to be learned behavior, but in no way can I conceive of such
> > > > disparate examples as issuing from a common cause.
> > >
> > > << Ok, I can agree on the first, but with the example of the
> > > birds, you gonna ran into serious trouble if the notions which
> > > Dace provided us are true. I know of that specific example, and if
> > > indeed birds took up the habit after four years, and all the
> > > previous birds were long dead, how do you explain than that the
> > > new generation got hold of such a habit !? There weren't any birds
> > > left from where young ones could possibly learn how to open milk
> > > bottles !
> > >
> > I think that they have a life span exceeding four years.
> Well, the ornithologists who studied this case disagreed. But then
> the logic in your hand is worth more than a few experts in the bush.
Prove that contention, complete with precise breed and
ornithologically based longevity characteristics, or withdraw it
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 2b29 : Sat Aug 18 2001 - 05:17:48 BST