Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"

From: Don Pearce (donald_at_pearce.uk.com)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:54:33 GMT

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

>John Fields wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:36:33 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rubbish. Removal of two words does it.
>>
>> ---
>> It'll take a little more than that... :-)
>> ---
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "One of the principle understandings with the theory, is the
>> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^
>> principal outcomes of [np]
>
>We already addressed the "principle" one. I disagree with your
>"outcomes" suggestion. "Understandings" is much better in my view. I
>*meant* what I said. The theory gives *understandings* to what is going
>on, not outcomes. In fact, it is understandings to the outcomes. This
>why "outcomes" is wrong.
>

Understandings are agreements of principle between two parties. They
are nothing to do with understanding a theory.

>>
>>> explanations of why the behavior of men and women are fundamentally
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
>> explanation
>
>Nope. There are many explanations, not one.
> is

Then don't introduce them by saying "One of the principal
understandings is..."

>>
>>> different. Why have codes of conduct developed that are decidedly
>> ^^^^
>> which
>
>Splitting hairs. The sentence still makes perfect sense.
>
>>
>>> asymmetrical? How has culture evolved and why dose much of it appear
>>> to
>> ^^^^
>> does
>
>Ok. Spelling error.
>
>>
>>> have no apparent biological evolutionary advantage?"
>> ^^^^^^^^
>> [delete]
>
>Not at all. Again, I truly *meant* what I said. This *specifically*
>addresses the fact that it often seems that there is no biological
>evolutionary advantage, but when examined closely, there may well be. I
>am not making a claim that some conduct has no advantage, I am claiming
>that at first glance it seems that way, but the initial view is wrong.
>That is way "apparent" is there.
>

You miss the point. You say "much of it appear to have no apparent
biological evolutionary advantage...". Having said "appear" [sic], the
word "apparent" becomes redundant.

>So, it looks like you only caught a spelling error.
>
>Kevin Aylward

Would you like a critical dissection of even your first paragraph?

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Relevant Pages