Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d99ls4$14r1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> JE:-
> Felsenstein and not myself is making the _contested_
> proposition of a zero biological cost ...
Not quite correct, John. ReMine CLAIMS that Felselstein proposed zero costs.
Felsenstein considers this a distortion. Why don't you read Felsenstein's
paper and reach your own opinion?
> JE:-
> ... so Felsenstein and not myself is
> required to clarify if that cost is just a zero gross total payment OR a
> cost that represents a net resultant zero relative cost where without
> exception, more than a zero payment has to be paid. However, Felsenstein
> _consistently refuses_ to define what his proposed zero relative net
> cost remains relative to.
And once again, Edser, by pure logic, without any data at all, has come
to the conclusion that Felsenstein's cost concept is a "relative net cost"
concept. And, not only that, Felsenstein "_consistently refuses_" to
specify "relative to what?". I'm just guessing here, John, but I bet
that if you read the paper and found evidence that Felsenstein's
argument does involve the hidden use of "relative net costs", that same
evidence would pretty much suggest what the costs are "relative to".
Or, perhaps you will find evidence that Felsenstein is actually suggesting
zero _absolute_ costs and has hallucinated an enormous perpetual motion
machine.
Or, perhaps you will find evidence that ReMine is lying (or misinterpreting)
and that Felsenstein is not proposing zero costs at all.
Or, perhaps you will find that Felsenstein is using the word "cost" in
a sense which is quite different from the sense in which ReMine uses it,
and even more dramatically different from the sense in which you use it.
Why, all sorts of things are possible. And, until you read the paper,
you will have no idea which of these possibilities is the case.
Of course, that - "having no idea" - is unlikely to deter you from another
go-around of this increasingly pointless conversation. So, go ahead John;
You can have the last word.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Stem cells in the news
- Next by Date: Re: History of genetic elements?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
