Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:21:38 GMT

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:45:30 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>
>> It seems that you've done so prematurely, Bob. If we were talking
>> biology and binomial nomenclature I would agree. I we're talking
>> biological mechanics and mechanical definition I would disagree.
>
>Biological mechanics? We share 95 percent of our genome with
>chimpanzees. In other words, the basic DNA makeup of Mr. Chimp is almost
>the same as Mr. Man.
>
>In gross anatomical terms, we match major organ to major organ with Mr.
>Chimp. Our brains our different, to be sure, which accounts for why we
>talk and do mathematics and the chimp does not. We our different, but
>not that different.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, Bob. You lie somewhere
along that line. One would hardly expect us to share 0% of the genome
with other genomic entities. So in reference to your own transfinite
arguments, I don't see a distinction worth drawing between a 1%
sharing of an infinity and a 95% sharing of an infinity because you're
still stuck with an infinity in mechanical terms. Until you understand
the structural and mechanical significance of the 5% difference, I
suggest you just button the old lip.

Regards - Lester

Quantcast