johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gq82cc.pzj55nwk81hbN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:

Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> wrote:

johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gq7yv3.4bvej6ed465jN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:

(snipped)

To me, I am enlightened and everybody who disagrees with me is
stupid. I am in the Danae Party...

But doesn't that mean you always have to agree with Danae?

Nah. Sometimes she's stupid.

The problem is that Danae is going to kick you out of her party if
you disagree with her.

Maybe you could join the Lucy party. She seems more easygoing about
such matters.

Didn't even know you got "Non Sequitur" in Australia...

Double Felix wrote:

In article <NVFEd.214856$Oc.31319@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:

John Wilkins wrote:

[snip]

According to this site <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law>, case law
does have some limited role in assisting judicial decisionmaking in
civil cases, at least (from what I read) in the US. But I was not aware
of this until you mentioned it.

I am not going to bother with reading it. If it was decided on simple
negligence as you said then it was not landmark at all.

For the record, they can put it in Wikipedia if it isn't true. Tests
of it were reported on slashdot. Wrong information stayed for months
until the person who entered it corrected it.

[snip]

As opposed to the *years* it takes for wrong information to get
corrected in printed encyclopedias...

Or decades or never. Pick one and read all about the mythical
Solomon and biblical Israel. Even in entries having nothing to do with OT
material there are often mentions of biblical times.

Palestine as an entity was first mentioned by Herodotus. Rome split
it into separate units until Hadrian put it back together under the name
of Palestine. It is a region and has been for at least 2000 years. Israel
was created. Israel is a nation within Palestine. They turned on dime
setting Israel apart from Palestine.

There is not a one which recites other than the victor's political
version of the American Civil War even to the point of calling it a civil
war which it was not. Imagine trying to find other than a victor's version
of WWI or WWII.

Historians have a rule. Real history can't be done until 70 years
after the event. Meaning long enough that anyone who formed an opinion of
the events as they occurred is either dead or senile. That makes it 2015
before a real history of WWII can be done.

"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gq4n3j.1z0myaz1yac1drN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:

<<.....>>

3) They don't stick to science.

No. That's because they are philosophers. They also do
philosophy. You
know, metaphysics, analysis, logical formulation,
criticism and general
clear thinking. How much ot his stuff have you actually
*read* before
you attack it?

Science is a field of human endeavor, practiced by people
whom we call scientists. It has been a very 'productive'
human endeavor, as such things go. Pragmatically, it makes
a lot of sense. But much of what it concerns itself with
is, as one pragmatist would say, not 'momentous' . And it
has its limitations, as all human endeavors do.

'Scientism' is a belief system (or maybe it's a world-view
or maybe it's a ???). Some scientist believe or have
believed in scientism, and some don't or haven't, which
proves that one can do scientific work without accepting
that belief system at all. One of the things that
'scientism' asserts is that every other form of human
knowledge, be it from philosophy, literature, art, music
and, yes, religion, is an "orphan" (to use Giwer's term).
They might be interesting diversions, perhaps, but
ultimately not of any 'real' importance, because all the
'real' knowledge comes from science.

Giver obviously believes in 'scientism', and I am glad that
you (Wilkins) pushed his nose in for it.
Unfortunately, too many people, scientists and
non-scientists, think as he (Giwer) does, and, even worse,
think that science and 'scientism' are the same thing.
This has created all sorts of problems, such as the
situations which were the start of this thread.

John S. Wilkins wrote:

No. That's because they are philosophers. They also do philosophy. You
know, metaphysics, analysis, logical formulation, criticism and general
clear thinking.

If a philosopher says "biology doesn't appear designed," does that
constitute [JW]"clear thinking," even as biologists that have actually
studied biology are uniform in their agreement that biology exhibits the
appearance of having been the product of mind/intelligence?

[JW]"living things don't look designed to *me*"
Ref:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1gpz278.9neb261cvkl6gN%25johnSPAM%40wilkins.id.au

Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net

How much ot his stuff have you actually *read* before
you attack it?
...

John Wilkins wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:

r norman wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 03:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:

Jason Spaceman wrote:

Over 30 members of the University of Pennsylvania's Philosophy and
Biology departments have signed a letter urging the Dover school board
to change their ID policy.

Read it at
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002895.html#002895

I would be much happier of orphan subjects like philosophy, theology
and religion were all put into one department instead of being adopted
by real departments.

It should not be that hard to find a different way to divvy up
tuition fees so they can be funded.

One of my imfamous favorites was when I found little Debbie Lipstadt
identified as a sociologist. I looked it up and she was in the
department of Sociology and Religion and she taught religion.

If biologists only had signed it it would have much more impact than
lumping in unscientific philosophy teachers.

I'll let Dr. John stick up for his kind. However, if you google on
"Philosophy of Science" or "Philosophy of Biology" you will turn up an
impressive list of philosophers who have contributed to evolutionary
biology.

1) That does not make them scientists.

It doesn't make them gourmet chefs or car mechanics either. They are
philosophers. Some of them are also practising scientists (for example,
David Sloan Wilson). Moreover, a considerable number of practising
scientists have done some serious philosophy, including, but not limited
to, JBS Haldane, Ernst Mayr, Gary Nelson, Donn Rosen, Stanley Salthe,
Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, Elisabeth Fox Keller, Michael
Ghiselin, Richard Dawkins, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and that's just what's
on my shelves in front of me. With some small effort, the list could be
expanded greatly.

2) They does not mean they have contributed to the science. For
example, Popper finally dropped his nonsense.

On the other hand, David Hull (who, amusingly, published his first paper
because Popper sent a seminar paper of his without asking to the BJPS)
not only contributed to the science by clarifying a number of important
issues, he was also elected President of the American Association of
Systematics, and inspired several scientists to go into the field (I
know from direct communication). Others who have been involved in
scientific communications include Elliot Sober and Peter Godfrey-Smith,
who have co-authored theoretical biology papers with actual scientists.
Oddly, the scientists themselves don't seem to have your scruples about
this.

That is three but if they are also scientists my comments do not
apply. I was talking only of merging departments because of the
traditional method of funding.

3) They don't stick to science.

No. That's because they are philosophers. They also do philosophy. You
know, metaphysics,

Metaphysics is gibberish like freudian psychology.

analysis, logical formulation, criticism and general
clear thinking.

Much better taught by example in science departments. And it avoids
the "rigorous creation" of total nonsense which is about all there is to
do these days.

How much ot his stuff have you actually *read* before
you attack it?

And that is why I was pointing out the real issue. The real issue is
tuition is divvied up by students who take the courses given by the
department. As philosophy, for example, gets dropped as a degree
requirement the department cannot be supported. In this case it is lumped
in with biology so they get a take from those who take biology.

I suggested simply the orphan departments be funded by other means
as it taints the department stuck with them.

John Wilkins wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:

r norman wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 03:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:

Jason Spaceman wrote:

Over 30 members of the University of Pennsylvania's Philosophy and
Biology departments have signed a letter urging the Dover school board
to change their ID policy.

Read it at
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002895.html#002895

I would be much happier of orphan subjects like philosophy, theology
and religion were all put into one department instead of being adopted
by real departments.

It should not be that hard to find a different way to divvy up
tuition fees so they can be funded.

One of my imfamous favorites was when I found little Debbie Lipstadt
identified as a sociologist. I looked it up and she was in the
department of Sociology and Religion and she taught religion.

If biologists only had signed it it would have much more impact than
lumping in unscientific philosophy teachers.

I'll let Dr. John stick up for his kind. However, if you google on
"Philosophy of Science" or "Philosophy of Biology" you will turn up an
impressive list of philosophers who have contributed to evolutionary
biology.

1) That does not make them scientists.

It doesn't make them gourmet chefs or car mechanics either. They are
philosophers. Some of them are also practising scientists (for example,
David Sloan Wilson). Moreover, a considerable number of practising
scientists have done some serious philosophy, including, but not limited
to, JBS Haldane, Ernst Mayr, Gary Nelson, Donn Rosen, Stanley Salthe,
Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, Elisabeth Fox Keller, Michael
Ghiselin, Richard Dawkins, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and that's just what's
on my shelves in front of me. With some small effort, the list could be
expanded greatly.

2) They does not mean they have contributed to the science. For
example, Popper finally dropped his nonsense.

On the other hand, David Hull (who, amusingly, published his first paper
because Popper sent a seminar paper of his without asking to the BJPS)
not only contributed to the science by clarifying a number of important
issues, he was also elected President of the American Association of
Systematics, and inspired several scientists to go into the field (I
know from direct communication). Others who have been involved in
scientific communications include Elliot Sober and Peter Godfrey-Smith,
who have co-authored theoretical biology papers with actual scientists.
Oddly, the scientists themselves don't seem to have your scruples about
this.

That is three but if they are also scientists my comments do not apply. I was
talking only of merging departments because of the traditional method of funding.

3) They don't stick to science.

No. That's because they are philosophers. They also do philosophy. You
know, metaphysics,

Metaphysics is gibberish like freudian psychology.

analysis, logical formulation, criticism and general
clear thinking.

Much better taught by example in science departments. And it avoids the
"rigorous creation" of total nonsense which is about all there is to do these days.

How much ot his stuff have you actually *read* before
you attack it?

And that is why I was pointing out the real issue. The real issue is tuition is
divvied up by students who take the courses given by the department. As
philosophy, for example, gets dropped as a degree requirement the department
cannot be supported. In this case it is lumped in with biology so they get a
take from those who take biology.

I suggested simply the orphan departments be funded by other means as it taints
the department stuck with them.