Another Gould blunder
Roger Schlafly
Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
authors alive in Gould ...
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
and...@my-deja.com
I doubt this will truly surprise anyone in talk.origins. But
mathematical errors are no obstacle to those who insist on defending
any claim by a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist.
Andy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Roger Schlafly
> I doubt this will truly surprise anyone in talk.origins. But
> mathematical errors are no obstacle to those who insist on defending
> any claim by a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist.
It won't surprise them, but they'll defend Gould anyway because
he symbolizes leftist Darwinism.
sc...@home.com
Actually, this finding does not surpise me. But what
are the odds that if there are six possible shell shapes
that all six would be "discovered" by evolution?
Perhaps someone could whip us up a spreadsheet?
Scott
Mark VandeWettering
The interpretation of Wolfram's work on cellular automata presented by
this article is rather fanciful.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark VandeWettering
Isn't it amazing how Andy and Roger are so sure that Wolfram is
right and Gould is wrong, even without hearing any details about
the nature of this supposed mathematical error? I suppose that if
one relies on Forbes to give you scientific news, it isn't so
surprising.
Wolfram is an odd character. Unquestionably a "very smart guy",
he does seem to have a particularly peculiar personality. Perhaps
it is just my inherent distrust of those people who proclaim their
own work as revolutionary. The bold claim that in 50 years his work
will have spawned more advances than the rest of traditional science
combined seems like a reckless statement.
Nevertheless, if Wolfram's estimate of his own work's value is on
target, I guess Gould could do worse than to be corrected by him.
After all, it will pretty much make Wolfram the smartest person who
ever lived. I don't think I'd mind being corrected by such a person.
Mark
>Andy
Honus
>
> From the current Forbes ASAP:
<snip>
> http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
Also from the article:
"Wolfram won't describe all of his discoveries,..."
Then what's the point? And what's the mathematical error? All I hear is
talk.
"...but he does toss out a few extraordinary examples:
A challenge to natural selection as the
defining force in
evolution
Why time goes only one way
How to grow artificial organisms
An explanation of stock market behavior
How complex systems, from thunderstorms to
galaxies,
exhibit intelligence
New ways to design and build integrated
circuits and
computers at the atomic level
Why leaves, trees, seashells, snowflakes
(and almost
everything else) take the shapes they do"
Wow. This guy'll make us forget Newton.
About the only thing that he hasn't got covered is where that other sock
goes when it vanishes from the dryer.
--
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins
catshark
Honus <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > From the current Forbes ASAP:
>
> <snip>
>
> > http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
>
> Also from the article:
>
> "Wolfram won't describe all of his discoveries,..."
>
> Then what's the point? And what's the mathematical error? All I hear
is
> talk.
>
> "...but he does toss out a few extraordinary examples:
>
> A challenge to natural selection as the
> defining force in
> evolution
> Why time goes only one way
> How to grow artificial organisms
> An explanation of stock market behavior
I assume, then, since he is so smart and can work this out
mathmatically, he is richer than Bill Gates, right?
> How complex systems, from thunderstorms
to
> galaxies,
> exhibit intelligence
> New ways to design and build integrated
> circuits and
> computers at the atomic level
> Why leaves, trees, seashells, snowflakes
> (and almost
> everything else) take the shapes they
do"
>
> Wow. This guy'll make us forget Newton.
>
> About the only thing that he hasn't got covered is where that other
sock
> goes when it vanishes from the dryer.
>
> --
>
> We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
> believed in.
> Some of us just go one god further.
>
> Richard Dawkins
>
>
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <3A319F3E...@my-dejanews.com>,
If you're going to take Wolfram's word for it, he'll have humiliated most
of the scientific establishment by the time his work is widely known and
understood.
Was it yours and Roger's point that Gould is no different than any other
scientist?
Have you convinced Roger that microevolution is bogus yet, Andy?
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
catshark
What is most interesting about this is what it reveals about your
*personal* animus towards Gould. I doubt that I need to point out that
it is the non-scientist author of this profile who concludes that Gould
is "humiliated" by Wolfram's work. Gould has written over and over
again about how the correction of previous error is the very essence of
science . While I'm sure (it comes through in all his essays) that
Gould is human enough to find it uncomfortable if it is his *own* error
that is being corrected, I am also sure that he will find the
possibility that Wolfram is right fascinating. And Gould, in any case,
would not be alone. From the article:
>Wolfram has been challenging the mathematical center of each of the
>major scientific disciplines in turn: biology, chemistry, physics,
>philosophy (sic), evolution, fluid dynamics, cosmology, human
>cognition, music theory, the material sciences—the list grows by the
>night.
What is revealing is your willingness to clutch at *any* straw to
attack Gould. In typical creationist fashion, as long as anything is,
in any way "against" your perceived "enemies", you'll throw it out
there, even if it, itself, totally contradicts your own beliefs. It is
clear just from this article that Wolfram accepts evolution:
>In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down
>evolution to a few robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to
>fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular
>automata. Complexity is destiny—and Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've
>come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all
>that important."
It is only the *mechanism* of evolution that Wolfram questions.
Indeed, his work seems mostly to be about self-organizing systems,
contadicting creationists favorite arguments about life being too
complex to have arisen out of nothing and their misreading of the
2LoT. Also from the article:
>There is one implication of Wolfram's work that he chooses to dismiss,
>but others may not. Is it a coincidence that the designers of the Life
>game began to talk of God when they saw the implications of their
>creation? Wolfram says "there's no place for God" in his new science.
>But what about just outside? What will theologians say when they see a
>theory that proposes that the entire universe—with its perplexing
>combination of good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark—could
>have been started by a First Mover using a dozen rules?
In other words, Wolfram, if correct, will demonstrate that there is no
need for a designer-god, such as is found in the Bible, one that
cobbles together each species to set of specifications. Rather, all
that is needed, at most, is a deist god that creates the original
conditions with a few simple rules and sets it in motion to work out
all the permutations with no further attention needed.
If Wolfram is proved right, it will be a *far* greater blow to belief
in the Bible than anything Darwin (or Gould) ever did. Is that really
what you meant to celebrate?
---
Mike Haubrich
"catshark" <cats...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90tjmn$jqe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >night.
>
> What is revealing is your willingness to clutch at *any* straw to
> attack Gould. In typical creationist fashion, as long as anything is,
> in any way "against" your perceived "enemies", you'll throw it out
> there, even if it, itself, totally contradicts your own beliefs. It is
> clear just from this article that Wolfram accepts evolution:
>
> >In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down
> >evolution to a few robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to
> >fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular
> >come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all
> >that important."
>
> It is only the *mechanism* of evolution that Wolfram questions.
> Indeed, his work seems mostly to be about self-organizing systems,
> contadicting creationists favorite arguments about life being too
> complex to have arisen out of nothing and their misreading of the
> 2LoT. Also from the article:
>
> >There is one implication of Wolfram's work that he chooses to dismiss,
> >but others may not. Is it a coincidence that the designers of the Life
> >game began to talk of God when they saw the implications of their
> >creation? Wolfram says "there's no place for God" in his new science.
> >But what about just outside? What will theologians say when they see a
> >combination of good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark-could
> >have been started by a First Mover using a dozen rules?
>
> In other words, Wolfram, if correct, will demonstrate that there is no
> need for a designer-god, such as is found in the Bible, one that
> cobbles together each species to set of specifications. Rather, all
> that is needed, at most, is a deist god that creates the original
> conditions with a few simple rules and sets it in motion to work out
> all the permutations with no further attention needed.
>
> If Wolfram is proved right, it will be a *far* greater blow to belief
> in the Bible than anything Darwin (or Gould) ever did. Is that really
> what you meant to celebrate?
Has anyone ever heard the statement that because scientists argue, evolution
is a fallacy?
Mike Haubrich
"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:3A31AE9B...@my-dejanews.com...
Darwinism? Leftist?
I so often hear the conservatives say that liberals are ruled by emotion and
conservatives by the evidence.
This certainly contradicts that statement!
People that reject the silliness of Creation Science range the political
spectrum and are not limited to the "Left Wing."
J&S
"Honus" <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> About the only thing that he hasn't got covered is where that other sock
> goes when it vanishes from the dryer.
They get sucked into spinning micro black holes formed by severe static
discharges, and the ever amazing work of the sock gremlins. After transiting
several dimensions, they materialize as those unexplainable extra hangers
you find in your closet.
At least this is what my current work shows.
SILAS
Roger Schlafly
> it is the non-scientist author of this profile who concludes that Gould
> is "humiliated" by Wolfram's work. Gould has written over and over
> again about how the correction of previous error is the very essence of
> science . While I'm sure (it comes through in all his essays) that
> Gould is human enough to find it uncomfortable if it is his *own* error
> that is being corrected, I am also sure that he will find the
> possibility that Wolfram is right fascinating.
Gould may enjoy pointing out errors in others, but he is not one
to admit his own errors. Eg, the reviews of his Mismeasure book
pointed out a number of extremely serious scientific errors, but
he later published a new edition with the same errors and with
no specific rebuttal to the criticism.
> If Wolfram is proved right, it will be a *far* greater blow to belief
> in the Bible than anything Darwin (or Gould) ever did. Is that really
> what you meant to celebrate?
I favor truth, in whatever form. You apparently just rush to the defense
of anyone who attacks Biblical beliefs. In essence, you are saying:
"So what if Gould is wrong -- his critic is producing work that can
also be used to attack the Bible!"
If you want to attack the Bible, go ahead, but don't prop up bozos
like Gould.
Honus
> Has anyone ever heard the statement that because scientists argue, evolution
> is a fallacy?
Very nearly every day.
Axel Harvey
> Mike Haubrich wrote:
>
> > Has anyone ever heard the statement that because scientists argue, evolution
> > is a fallacy?
>
> Very nearly every day.
Then the fundamentalists must be right. I have met *very* rational
skeptics who reasoned precisely the same way about astrologers.
(They also had the same habit of referring to a standalone noun as if
it could be fallacious.)
catshark
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> catshark wrote:
> > it is the non-scientist author of this profile who concludes that
Gould
> > is "humiliated" by Wolfram's work. Gould has written over and over
> > again about how the correction of previous error is the very
essence of
> > science . While I'm sure (it comes through in all his essays) that
> > Gould is human enough to find it uncomfortable if it is his *own*
error
> > that is being corrected, I am also sure that he will find the
> > possibility that Wolfram is right fascinating.
>
> Gould may enjoy pointing out errors in others, but he is not one
> to admit his own errors. Eg, the reviews of his Mismeasure book
> pointed out a number of extremely serious scientific errors, but
> he later published a new edition with the same errors and with
> no specific rebuttal to the criticism.
>
As in, "I don't respond to every "reviewer" (or crank) and I'll let the
value of the work stand on its own and the chips fall where they may"?
> > If Wolfram is proved right, it will be a *far* greater blow to
belief
> > in the Bible than anything Darwin (or Gould) ever did. Is that
really
> > what you meant to celebrate?
>
> I favor truth, in whatever form. You apparently just rush to the
defense
> of anyone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
*You*, not I, were recommending Wolfram's work, so it was *you* that
was championing someone who attacks Biblical beliefs. (See the part of
my post that you snipped without acknowledgement.) I just wanted to
make sure you and everyone else understood that!
> In essence, you are saying:
> "So what if Gould is wrong -- his critic is producing work that can
> also be used to attack the Bible!"
>
Reading comprehention is not a strong suite of yours, is it? The point
was that *you* don't care whether Wolfram is right or wrong, as long as
he says Gould is wrong. And despite that "I favor truth, in whatever
form" hocum, you, I and everyone else here know if Wolfram's ideas (as
portrayed in this article) are ever widely accepted, there will soon
after be a crusade against Scientific Deism with you leading the charge.
And if I'm wrong about your not caring whether or not Wolfram is
correct about Gould's math, please detail the error he discovered and
his correction. The article didn't lay it out but in your great
reverence for truth you surely wouldn't have thrown this around without
making sure it was Gould that was wrong, rather than Wolfram. So let
us have the benefit of the footwork you did before posting this.
On the other hand, I and everyone else who accepts the premise of
science, including Gould, accepts the near certainty that some part of
every scientist's work will prove to be wrong. Gould doesn't have to
be defended if Wolfram is right. Being wrong is the the sine qua non
of being a scientist.
> If you want to attack the Bible, go ahead, but don't prop up bozos
> like Gould.
>
See above. It was *your* new best friend, Wolfram, whose ideas will,
if triumphant, trash the Bible. And if that article is your sole basis
for believing that Gould was wrong in his math about shells, then all
the other so-called errors in Gould that you claim must also be
suspect, since you clearly don't have a clue as to what Wolfram is
talking about. (Not that anyone does, at least in Wolfram's opinion.)
Based upon the above, if your posts have revealed a bozo amonst us,
Gould sure isn't the #1 suspect!
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Mike Haubrich"
<tui...@earthlink.net>:
<snip>
>Has anyone ever heard the statement that because scientists argue, evolution
>is a fallacy?
Yep. Ad nauseum.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Conrad Knauer
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162.html
[snip; numerous very bold claims on page 7]
> > An explanation of stock market behavior
>
> I assume, then, since he is so smart and can work this out
> mathmatically, he is richer than Bill Gates, right?
I find his claims very interesting; sort of like watching cold fusion
being announced. The hype is certainly there. Wolfram is already
saying that his (as yet unpublished) book is "a landmark in the history
of science".
While he may have good ideas, my gut reaction is to maintain a healthy
skepticism until his work has been reviewed by those more knowledgeable
than myself in the respective fields of science he claims to have
insights into.
CK
(who gets the same feeling reading the Forbes article as when he reads
'Get Rich Quick' Spam... not a good sign ;)
and...@my-deja.com
catshark <cats...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A327E05...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > catshark wrote:
> > > it is the non-scientist author of this profile who concludes that
> Gould
> > > is "humiliated" by Wolfram's work. Gould has written over and
over
> > > again about how the correction of previous error is the very
> essence of
> > > science . While I'm sure (it comes through in all his essays)
that
> > > Gould is human enough to find it uncomfortable if it is his *own*
> error
> > > that is being corrected, I am also sure that he will find the
> > > possibility that Wolfram is right fascinating.
> >
> > Gould may enjoy pointing out errors in others, but he is not one
> > to admit his own errors. Eg, the reviews of his Mismeasure book
> > pointed out a number of extremely serious scientific errors, but
> > he later published a new edition with the same errors and with
> > no specific rebuttal to the criticism.
> >
>
> As in, "I don't respond to every "reviewer" (or crank) and I'll let
the
> value of the work stand on its own and the chips fall where they may"?
Did Gould respond to *any* reviewer who pointed out errors in his
Mismeasure book?
Has Gould ever corrected any of his numerous errors identified by
others?
The answer is apparently no to both questions.
Andy
Adam Marczyk
Hey Andy, how many times have you ever admitted you were wrong?
> Andy
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Dick C.
<EKsY5.52415$II2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
>
>"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:3A31AE9B...@my-dejanews.com...
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > I doubt this will truly surprise anyone in talk.origins. But
>> > mathematical errors are no obstacle to those who insist on defending
>> > any claim by a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist.
>>
>> It won't surprise them, but they'll defend Gould anyway because
>> he symbolizes leftist Darwinism.
>>
>Silly troll.
>
>Darwinism? Leftist?
>
>I so often hear the conservatives say that liberals are ruled by emotion
>and conservatives by the evidence.
What is funny is that in the 60's there liberals were described as
bleeding hearts and the conservatives described as kneejerk reactionaries.
I have seen nothing to change that.
The right wing is still full of knee jerk reactionaries. Looking at
Roger and Andy one can easily see their knees jerking and hitting the
undersides of their keyboard trays everytime they type.
The extreme right now tries to call anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan
liberal, and also tries to label them as knee jerk reactionaries.
Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
honesty.
>
>This certainly contradicts that statement!
>
>People that reject the silliness of Creation Science range the political
>spectrum and are not limited to the "Left Wing."
>
>
>
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Dik T. Winter
> Wolfram is an odd character. Unquestionably a "very smart guy",
> he does seem to have a particularly peculiar personality. Perhaps
> it is just my inherent distrust of those people who proclaim their
> own work as revolutionary. The bold claim that in 50 years his work
> will have spawned more advances than the rest of traditional science
> combined seems like a reckless statement.
That is nothing compared to Pertti.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Virgil
foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
> The extreme right now tries to call anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan
> liberal, and also tries to label them as knee jerk reactionaries.
> Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
> honesty.
Neither is the extreme left, or for that matter, the extreme "center".
"True Believers" of all sorts tend to have tunnel vision.
Dick C.
9BBB18.191...@news.frii.com>:
Quite true, although I would like an example of the extreme
center.
But, the right wing is composed of people who like to make claims
about the lack of honesty and morality of the others, in the
process acting like they are highly moral and honest.
Roger Schlafly
> ? As in, "I don't respond to every "reviewer" (or crank) and I'll let
> the
> ? value of the work stand on its own and the chips fall where they may"?
>
> Did Gould respond to *any* reviewer who pointed out errors in his
> Mismeasure book?
No. AFAIK, Gould never responded to any of the substantive
criticisms.
> Has Gould ever corrected any of his numerous errors identified by
> others?
> The answer is apparently no to both questions.
Anyone? I would suspect that he has had to correct some, but I
don't know.
Roger Schlafly
> ? Gould may enjoy pointing out errors in others, but he is not one
> ? to admit his own errors. Eg, the reviews of his Mismeasure book
> ? pointed out a number of extremely serious scientific errors, but
> ? he later published a new edition with the same errors and with
> ? no specific rebuttal to the criticism.
> As in, "I don't respond to every "reviewer" (or crank) and I'll let the
> value of the work stand on its own and the chips fall where they may"?
Ok, and they've fallen against him. The scientific consensus is
that the book is trash. The book is still used, tho, and that is
unfortunate because it misleads a lot of people.
> > I favor truth, in whatever form. You apparently just rush to the
> > defense of anyone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
>
> *You*, not I, were recommending Wolfram's work, so it was *you* that
> was championing someone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
If Wolfram attacks Biblical beliefs, it is news to me. But Wolfram's
religion is not at issue here. If he has a good scientific
explanation for shell shapes, more power to him. I certainly
would not disregard his science because of his religion or
lack thereof.
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> > *You*, not I, were recommending Wolfram's work, so it was *you* that
> > was championing someone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
>
> If Wolfram attacks Biblical beliefs, it is news to me. But Wolfram's
> religion is not at issue here. If he has a good scientific
> explanation for shell shapes, more power to him. I certainly
> would not disregard his science because of his religion or
> lack thereof.
Dammit, Roger, that was a brand-new irony meter I had.
catshark
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> catshark wrote:
> > ? Gould may enjoy pointing out errors in others, but he is not one
> > ? to admit his own errors. Eg, the reviews of his Mismeasure book
> > ? pointed out a number of extremely serious scientific errors, but
> > ? he later published a new edition with the same errors and with
> > ? no specific rebuttal to the criticism.
> > As in, "I don't respond to every "reviewer" (or crank) and I'll let
the
> > value of the work stand on its own and the chips fall where they
may"?
>
> Ok, and they've fallen against him. The scientific consensus is
> that the book is trash.
Scientific? Consensus?? Trash??? You do realize that that means you
will have to come up with more than one or two citations, don't you?
(Unless you think *you* constitute a consensus.) From scientists
saying it is trash. With sources that can be checked. Feel up to it,
or will this challange be quietly snipped from any future posts, as
have so many before? And while you're at it, do tell us all
those "errors" those "reviewers" have pointed out in The Mismeasure of
Man. Or would that be peeking under the sheet?
> The book is still used, tho, and that is
> unfortunate because it misleads a lot of people.
>
> > > I favor truth, in whatever form. You apparently just rush to the
> > > defense of anyone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
> >
> > *You*, not I, were recommending Wolfram's work, so it was *you* that
> > was championing someone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
>
> If Wolfram attacks Biblical beliefs, it is news to me.
Only if you didn't read the *whole* article! Which most people would
consider the bare minimum for any intelligent discourse about its
contents!
> But Wolfram's
> religion is not at issue here. If he has a good scientific
> explanation for shell shapes, more power to him. I certainly
> would not disregard his science because of his religion or
> lack thereof.
>
*If* Wolfram has a good scientific explaination for shell shapes?!?!
But *you* labled this thread "Another Gould Blunder"! Yet you admit
(Roger, you're slipping!) that you have no idea whether Wolfram is
right and, it follows as the night the day, you have no clue as to
whether Gould, in fact, blundered about shell shapes. But the reckless
charge you made nontheless! Now you know why no one takes all your
bluster about Gould's so-called errors seriously, except insofar as to
warn the unwary lest they be mislead!
(Sorry, I just finished watching Jeremy Brett in the Sherlock Holmes
Mysteries and Victorian high dudgeon is infectious.)
Really, Roger, you are going to have to do better if you are going to
keep your entertainment value!
catshark
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:3A32F5D0...@my-dejanews.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > *You*, not I, were recommending Wolfram's work, so it was *you*
that
> > > was championing someone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
> >
> > If Wolfram attacks Biblical beliefs, it is news to me. But Wolfram's
> > religion is not at issue here. If he has a good scientific
> > explanation for shell shapes, more power to him. I certainly
> > would not disregard his science because of his religion or
> > lack thereof.
>
> Dammit, Roger, that was a brand-new irony meter I had.
>
I've installed mine on its own switch on my surge protector and turn it
off before opening anything that has Gould in the title.
> --
> When I am dreaming,
> I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
> When I get up,
> I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
> --Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
>
> To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
>
>
--
catshark
Another indicia: that long promised massive opus needs just a little
more work before publication. Maybe next year.
Laurence A. Moran
You would know if you've read much of Gould's writings. The fact that
you don't know the answer reveals that you haven't read his essays and
scientific articles. Are you embarrassed by your ignorance or are you
proud of it?
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
>news:3A32F5D0...@my-dejanews.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> > *You*, not I, were recommending Wolfram's work, so it was *you* that
>> > was championing someone who attacks Biblical beliefs.
>>
>> If Wolfram attacks Biblical beliefs, it is news to me. But Wolfram's
>> religion is not at issue here. If he has a good scientific
>> explanation for shell shapes, more power to him. I certainly
>> would not disregard his science because of his religion or
>> lack thereof.
>
>Dammit, Roger, that was a brand-new irony meter I had.
I have the heavy duty expensive version. Even that one blew a fuse.
I may have to program it to shut off when it encounters a Schlafly post.
Larry Moran
and...@my-deja.com
Looks like you can't a single instance of Gould acknowledging one of
the many errors in his published writings.
Mark Isaak
>From the current Forbes ASAP:
>
>Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
>paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
>According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
>shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
>is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
>discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
>fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
>exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
>authors alive in Gould ...
>http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
Wolfram's work, based on what I read from the Forbes article, is even
more fatal to the complete body of Dembski's work.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the state of doubt
is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, knowledge arises when
this feeling gives way to one of assurance." - John Dewey
John Savard
<saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com> wrote, in part:
>I find his claims very interesting; sort of like watching cold fusion
>being announced. The hype is certainly there. Wolfram is already
>saying that his (as yet unpublished) book is "a landmark in the history
>of science".
But apparently it was only a *creationist* who claimed that Wolfram's
work on shells proved that Gould was wrong about anything, let alone
that this weakened the evidence in favor of evolution.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Roger Schlafly
> But apparently it was only a *creationist* who claimed that Wolfram's
> work on shells proved that Gould was wrong about anything, let alone
> that this weakened the evidence in favor of evolution.
Who was that? Do you have some reason to believe that the Forbes
ASAP reporter is a creationist?
At any rate, Wolfram's claim will rise or fall on its own merits.
It really doesn't matter if some creationist somewhere thinks he
has a good point. Someone is not wrong just because a creationist
might agree with him.
For more details on Wolfram's work, see his web site:
http://www.wolframscience.com
Adam Marczyk
And how many times have you, Andy, admitted you were wrong?
> Andy
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Mark VandeWettering
>Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>From the current Forbes ASAP:
>>
>>Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
>>paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
>>According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
>>shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
>>is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
>>discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
>>fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
>>exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
>>authors alive in Gould ...
>>http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
>
>Wolfram's work, based on what I read from the Forbes article, is even
>more fatal to the complete body of Dembski's work.
Heh. You noticed that as well?
According to Wolfram, apparently all that specified complexity is
just a natural and inevitable outcome of a very few basic rules.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Roger Schlafly
> > Looks like you can't a single instance of Gould acknowledging one of
> > the many errors in his published writings.
>
> And how many times have you, Andy, admitted you were wrong?
Not as many times as Gould, I hope.
Richard Harter
wrote:
Now be fair. I am confident that Andy would readily admit error if,
in his opinion, he were wrong.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
When writers refer to themselves as "we" and to the
reader as "you," it's two against one. - Judith Rascoe
David Kellogg
Not to pick nits, Andy, but you have repeatedly been shown wrong on a very
specific and resolvable question, namely the question of whether a Gould
sentence contains a dangling participle. I have yet to see a retraction.
>
>
>
> The answer is apparently no to both questions.
>
> Andy
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
David Kellogg
Assistant Director, University Writing Program
Duke University
(919) 660-4357; FAX (919) 660-4372
http://www.duke.edu/~kellogg
Roger Schlafly
> ? You would know if you've read much of Gould's writings. The fact that
> ? you don't know the answer reveals that you haven't read his essays and
> ? scientific articles. Are you embarrassed by your ignorance or are you
> ? proud of it?
>
> Looks like you can't a single instance of Gould acknowledging one of
> the many errors in his published writings.
Larry pretty good at digging up quotes. Prod him a couple of more
times, and I bet he comes up with something.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
>Vm...@frii.com (Virgil) wrote in <Vmhjr-
>9BBB18.191...@news.frii.com>:
>
>>In article <9005A3794dic...@207.225.159.6>,
>>foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>>
>>> The extreme right now tries to call anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan
>>> liberal, and also tries to label them as knee jerk reactionaries.
>>> Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
>>> honesty.
>>
>>Neither is the extreme left, or for that matter, the extreme "center".
>>"True Believers" of all sorts tend to have tunnel vision.
>
>Quite true, although I would like an example of the extreme
>center.
>But, the right wing is composed of people who like to make claims
>about the lack of honesty and morality of the others, in the
>process acting like they are highly moral and honest.
....as does the left wing; in fact, it's a defining trait of
the "political class".
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
<snip>
>Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
>honesty.
True, but incomplete. Unless, of course, Bill Clinton ("I
never had sex with that woman."; "What does 'is' mean?") and
Al Gore ("I invented the Internet."; "I sat on my mother's
lap while she sung me the 'Union Label' song.") are
considered "far right".
Perhaps "politician" should be substituted for "far right"?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu>:
<snip>
>
>Not to pick nits, Andy, but you have repeatedly been shown wrong on a very
>specific and resolvable question, namely the question of whether a Gould
>sentence contains a dangling participle. I have yet to see a retraction.
Oh, but dangling participles are *extremely* detrimental to
*any* scientific paper. Not as much as misapplied gerunds,
incomplete sentences or disagreement of person between
subject and verb, though...those are invariably fatal, and
cause the writer to become a laughingstock among his former
peers.
Dick C.
<pdr73tsmkam9qap7f...@4ax.com>:
>On 9 Dec 2000 19:07:15 -0500, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
>
><snip>
>
>>Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
>>honesty.
>
>True, but incomplete. Unless, of course, Bill Clinton ("I
>never had sex with that woman."; "What does 'is' mean?") and
>Al Gore ("I invented the Internet."; "I sat on my mother's
>lap while she sung me the 'Union Label' song.") are
>considered "far right".
>
>Perhaps "politician" should be substituted for "far right"?
You could if you wanted, but I was not talking about politicians.
>
>--
>
>(Note followups, if any)
>
>Bob C.
>
>Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
>(without the spaces, of course)
>
>"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
>to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
>--H. L. Mencken
>
catshark
Oh do! You *really* have to see it! From the site:
Two decades in the making
from scientist
and creator of "Mathmatica"
Stephen Wolfram
comes a landmark
in the history of science
[picture of a book cover]
*A New Kind of Science*
Projected release date: 2001
The scientist as Cecil B. DeMille! Deeply, deeply bizarre!
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
kisho...@yahoo.com
Each day I eat a chocolate from a box containing X dark chocolates and
Y white chocolates according to the following rules:
a. I pick a chocolate at random and if it is dark I eat it.
b. If it is white, I put it back in the box, and again pick a chocolate
at random and eat it regardless of the type.
What is the probability that the last chocolate eaten is dark?
kisho...@yahoo.com
rich hammett
> In article <3A32F5D0...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> catshark wrote:
>> > ? Gould may enjoy pointing out errors in others, but he is not one
>> > ? to admit his own errors. Eg, the reviews of his Mismeasure book
>> > ? pointed out a number of extremely serious scientific errors, but
>> > ? he later published a new edition with the same errors and with
>> > ? no specific rebuttal to the criticism.
>> > As in, "I don't respond to every "reviewer" (or crank) and I'll let
> the
>> > value of the work stand on its own and the chips fall where they
> may"?
>>
>> Ok, and they've fallen against him. The scientific consensus is
>> that the book is trash.
> Scientific? Consensus?? Trash??? You do realize that that means you
> will have to come up with more than one or two citations, don't you?
For Roger and andy, citations are Somebody Else's Problem.
rich
> --
> J. Pieret
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
MCKAY john
>Here is an interesting problem:
Whether a problem is "interesting" is a property of the reader.
>
>Each day I eat a chocolate from a box containing X dark chocolates and
>Y white chocolates according to the following rules:
--
But leave the wise to wrangle, and with me
the quarrel of the universe let be;
and, in some corner of the hubbub couched,
make game of that which makes as much of thee.
Roger Schlafly
> > > ? Ok, and they've fallen against him. The scientific consensus is
>
> Just in case you don't own a dictionary, Roger, here is the definition
> of "consensus" (from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of
> the English Language, Gramercy Books, New York): 1. majority of opinion
> 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
Thanks, but I own one.
> ...
> *Whatever* value the "citations" may or may not have, Roger, they
> clearly don't constitute proof of a "scientific consensus" against
> Gould, except in your fevered imagination.
Those articles were published in respectable journals. I can't
help it if you found wacky stuff on the same servers. If you
find some favorable Gould Mismeasure reviews, go ahead and post
the links.
ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
No, you are wrong. This is a tedious problem. It is a boring problem!
It is soporific!! It is danger of sending all rec.puzzles readers
to sleep for 100 years!! You are a public menace!!!!!! ZZZZzzzzzz....
David Kellogg
: On 10 Dec 2000 15:04:51 -0500, the following appeared in
: talk.origins, posted by David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu>:
: <snip>
:>
:>Not to pick nits, Andy, but you have repeatedly been shown wrong on a very
:>specific and resolvable question, namely the question of whether a Gould
:>sentence contains a dangling participle. I have yet to see a retraction.
: Oh, but dangling participles are *extremely* detrimental to
: *any* scientific paper. Not as much as misapplied gerunds,
: incomplete sentences or disagreement of person between
: subject and verb, though...those are invariably fatal, and
: cause the writer to become a laughingstock among his former
: peers.
Interestingly, among his other delusions, Andy seems actually to believe
that something like this should obtain (Andy: note the non-split
infinitive!).
Cheers,
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Kellogg Assistant Director
kel...@acpub.duke.edu University Writing Program
(919) 660-4357 Duke University
FAX (919) 660-4372 http://www.duke.edu/~kellogg/
Jonathan G. Dushoff
: Here is an interesting problem:
: Each day I eat a chocolate from a box containing X dark chocolates and
: Y white chocolates according to the following rules:
: a. I pick a chocolate at random and if it is dark I eat it.
: b. If it is white, I put it back in the box, and again pick a chocolate
: at random and eat it regardless of the type.
: What is the probability that the last chocolate eaten is dark?
I don't agree with mareg that this is a boring problem, but I think I do
agree that r.p. readers need to be protected from it, as it seems
possible to waste a great deal of time.
One thing that I find interesting is that the probability is always less
than 1/2, as long as there is at least 1 white chocolate (if my
calculations are correct). I wonder if anybody knows a simple proof for
the value of the relevant product.
Jonathan Dushoff
R. Tang
David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote:
>> Did Gould respond to *any* reviewer who pointed out errors in his
>> Mismeasure book?
>>
>> Has Gould ever corrected any of his numerous errors identified by
>> others?
>
>Not to pick nits, Andy, but you have repeatedly been shown wrong on a very
>specific and resolvable question, namely the question of whether a Gould
>sentence contains a dangling participle. I have yet to see a retraction.
Hmmmm....what about neotectonics and neo-silicates?
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Henry Barwood
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> From the current Forbes ASAP:
>
> Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
> paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
> According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
> shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
> is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
> discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
> fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
> exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
> authors alive in Gould ...
> http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
Nice selection of one paragraph from the 8 pages of the article. So
Steven Wolfram has reinvented chaos theory and it fits a sea shell.
Apparently you somehow feel that when Wolfram finally publishes his
opus, that it will mathematically define "God". Don't hold your breath.
Barwood
Jonathan G. Dushoff
kisho...@yahoo.com wrote:
: Here is an interesting problem:
By observation and induction, the answer is x/((x+y)*(y+1)). It seems
that such a simple answer should have a simple explanation, but none
leaps to mind.
Jonathan Dushoff
Jan Kristian Haugland
"Jonathan G. Dushoff" wrote:
Just use (1-1/n^2) = (1-1/n)(1+1/n)
and cancel terms (1+1/m)(1-1/(m+1)) = 1.
--
Jan Kristian Haugland
http://home.hia.no/~jkhaug00
Ken Cox
> Two decades in the making from scientist and creator of "Mathmatica"
> Stephen Wolfram comes a landmark in the history of science
> [picture of a book cover]
> *A New Kind of Science* Projected release date: 2001
I saw a capstone talk by Wolfram about a year and a half ago at
a conference. It was kind of odd; the talk was billed as being
about just this topic, his groundbreaking work in science, but
what he actually gave was a long demonstration of Mathematica.
He didn't talk about this new work at all. The audience got
kind of uncomfortable after a while.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Has anyone ever heard the statement that because scientists argue, evolution
> is a fallacy?
Yes. It is the primary line of "evidence" used by the creation
science program. Many of the main proponents of that program
are apparently incapable of distinguishing arguments against
evolution from arguments for creation, to the point where when
asked for the latter they give the former.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu> wrote:
> >Not to pick nits, Andy, but you have repeatedly been shown wrong on a very
> >specific and resolvable question, namely the question of whether a Gould
> >sentence contains a dangling participle. I have yet to see a retraction.
> Hmmmm....what about neotectonics and neo-silicates?
"Neosilicates" doesn't count, nor do "neoprene" and several other of
the provided examples, as they are not parallel to "neo-Darwinism".
However, "neotectonics" is, as is "neo-Laplacian" from astronomy. And
you're right, Andy's not taken those examples to heart and admitted that
he's wrong about the use of "neo-" in describing scientific theories.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Herman Rubin
<ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <9119d3$7p0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kisho...@yahoo.com writes:
>>Here is an interesting problem:
>No, you are wrong. This is a tedious problem. It is a boring problem!
>It is soporific!! It is danger of sending all rec.puzzles readers
>to sleep for 100 years!! You are a public menace!!!!!! ZZZZzzzzzz....
How can this be the case? I solved it (and I do not like
the way I did it) in a rather short time, with no elegance
in the method.
>>Each day I eat a chocolate from a box containing X dark chocolates and
>>Y white chocolates according to the following rules:
>>a. I pick a chocolate at random and if it is dark I eat it.
>>b. If it is white, I put it back in the box, and again pick a chocolate
>>at random and eat it regardless of the type.
>>What is the probability that the last chocolate eaten is dark?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com>:
[Repost; seems to have been eaten by the post-phage]
>From the current Forbes ASAP:
>
>Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
>paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
>According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
>shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
>is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
>discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
>fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
>exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
>authors alive in Gould ...
So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW,
shouldn't that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
uncritically? And BTW, do you even understand *what* Wolfram
is claiming; the actual mathematical argument, not the
synopsis in Forbes?
>http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
>nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote in
><pdr73tsmkam9qap7f...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On 9 Dec 2000 19:07:15 -0500, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
>>>honesty.
>>
>>True, but incomplete. Unless, of course, Bill Clinton ("I
>>never had sex with that woman."; "What does 'is' mean?") and
>>Al Gore ("I invented the Internet."; "I sat on my mother's
>>lap while she sung me the 'Union Label' song.") are
>>considered "far right".
>>
>>Perhaps "politician" should be substituted for "far right"?
>
>You could if you wanted, but I was not talking about politicians.
Aha. OK; I assume then you were talking about the fundie
whackos.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
This applies whether they're asked or not. Witness Erik.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu>:
>In talk.origins Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>: On 10 Dec 2000 15:04:51 -0500, the following appeared in
>: talk.origins, posted by David Kellogg <kel...@duke.edu>:
>
>: <snip>
>
>:>
>:>Not to pick nits, Andy, but you have repeatedly been shown wrong on a very
>:>specific and resolvable question, namely the question of whether a Gould
>:>sentence contains a dangling participle. I have yet to see a retraction.
>
>: Oh, but dangling participles are *extremely* detrimental to
>: *any* scientific paper. Not as much as misapplied gerunds,
>: incomplete sentences or disagreement of person between
>: subject and verb, though...those are invariably fatal, and
>: cause the writer to become a laughingstock among his former
>: peers.
>
>Interestingly, among his other delusions, Andy seems actually to believe
>that something like this should obtain (Andy: note the non-split
>infinitive!).
I've noticed.
And just what's wrong with "To boldly split infinitives that
no one has ever split before"?
;-)
John Wilkins
And it was Raup, not Gould, who did the shellscape work, and it was
popularised by Dawkins among others.
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Roger Schlafly
> >From the current Forbes ASAP:
> >Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
> >paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
> >According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
> >shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
> >is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
> >discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
> >fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
> >exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
> >authors alive in Gould ...
>
> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW,
> shouldn't that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
that unless he could back it up. Gould is obviously over his
head talking about shell shapes. I'd put my money on Gould.
> If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
> someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
> uncritically?
No, but Wolfram's book will be out soon. He has a web site too.
See wolframscience.com.
Alan Morgan
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >From the current Forbes ASAP:
>> >Take seashells. One of the most esteemed documents of modern
>> >paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells.
>> >According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential
>> >shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms,
>> >is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
>> >discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in
>> >fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them
>> >exist in the world. ... humiliating one of the most popular science
>> >authors alive in Gould ...
>>
>> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
>> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW,
>> shouldn't that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
>
>Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
>that unless he could back it up. Gould is obviously over his
>head talking about shell shapes. I'd put my money on Gould.
You mean Wolfram. Anyway, why is Gould *obviously* in over his
head? Gould has studied more biology than Wolfram.
Einstein was a smart guy. Einstein didn't believe in quantum
mechanics. All the evidence says that he was dead wrong. Sometimes
smart guys are wrong.
Personally, finding a mathematical mistake in someone's PhD thesis
isn't exactly earth shattering. Most PhD's are not particularly
groundbreaking or meaningful and it wouldn't be too surprising if
later information overturned some of them. That is, after all,
what science is about.
>> If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
>> someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
>> uncritically?
>
>No, but Wolfram's book will be out soon. He has a web site too.
>See wolframscience.com.
I've been hearing that for a while. I've also heard that the
book will revolutionize science in the same way that Newton's
Principia did. This sort of hyperbole does not fill me with
confidence.
Alan
Roger Schlafly
> >> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
> >> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW,
> >> shouldn't that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
> >Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
> >that unless he could back it up. Gould is obviously over his
>
> Anyway, why is Gould *obviously* in over his
> head? Gould has studied more biology than Wolfram.
Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised
if Gould knows beans about that. Did you see the sample pages
from Wolfram's web site? They looked awfully good.
> Einstein was a smart guy. Einstein didn't believe in quantum
> mechanics. All the evidence says that he was dead wrong. Sometimes
> smart guys are wrong.
Sometimes smart guys are dead wrong, but I don't think that this is
a good example. Einstein raised some legitimate objections to the
Copenhagen Interpretation to QM. People still argue about this, but
I think everyone agrees that Einstein made a positive contribution.
> Personally, finding a mathematical mistake in someone's PhD thesis
> isn't exactly earth shattering. Most PhD's are not particularly
> groundbreaking or meaningful and it wouldn't be too surprising if
> later information overturned some of them. That is, after all,
> what science is about.
I think the error is worse than that, but we'll see.
> >> If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
> >> someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
> >> uncritically?
> >
> >No, but Wolfram's book will be out soon. He has a web site too.
> >See wolframscience.com.
>
> I've been hearing that for a while. I've also heard that the
> book will revolutionize science in the same way that Newton's
> Principia did. This sort of hyperbole does not fill me with
> confidence.
Clearly Wolfram has an ego. Probably one of the few people with an
ego bigger than Gould's.
David Iain Greig
>
>"Honus" <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> About the only thing that he hasn't got covered is where that other sock
>> goes when it vanishes from the dryer.
>
>They get sucked into spinning micro black holes formed by severe static
>discharges, and the ever amazing work of the sock gremlins. After transiting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*glingle*glingle*glingle*
>several dimensions, they materialize as those unexplainable extra hangers
>you find in your closet.
> At least this is what my current work shows.
>SILAS
>
Mark VandeWettering
>Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
>that unless he could back it up.
Do you think he can back up the following statements (extracted
from Wolfram's website)?
This long-awaited work from one of the world's most respected
scientists presents a series of dramatic discoveries never
before made public. Starting from a collection of simple
computer experiments-illustrated in the book by striking
computer graphics-Wolfram shows how their unexpected results
force a whole new way of looking at the operation of our
universe.
Wolfram uses his approach to tackle a remarkable array of
fundamental problems in science: from the origin of the
Second Law of thermodynamics, to the development of complexity
in biology, the computational limitations of mathematics,
the possibility of a truly fundamental theory of physics,
and the interplay between free will and determinism.
Written with exceptional clarity, and illustrated by more
than a thousand original pictures, this seminal book allows
scientists and nonscientists alike to participate in what
promises to be a major intellectual revolution.
By the way, just what of Wolfram's work have you studied?
>Gould is obviously over his
>head talking about shell shapes. I'd put my money on Gould.
*heh* Your Freudian slip is showing.
>> If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
>> someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
>> uncritically?
>
>No, but Wolfram's book will be out soon. He has a web site too.
>See wolframscience.com.
And we all know that because Gould _doesn't_ have a website,
there is no way he could be right...
*Sheesh*
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Alan Morgan
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Alan Morgan wrote:
>> >> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
>> >> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW,
>> >> shouldn't that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
>> >Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
>> >that unless he could back it up. Gould is obviously over his
>> >head talking about shell shapes. I'd put my money on Wolfram.[corrected]
>>
>> Anyway, why is Gould *obviously* in over his
>> head? Gould has studied more biology than Wolfram.
>
>Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
>biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised
>if Gould knows beans about that.
Gould is quite the polymath. While I'm sure that standard biology
courses don't teach how snail shells form, I'm equally sure that
standard math courses don't either. Both Gould and Wolfram have,
presumably, done some reading outside of their fields.
>Did you see the sample pages
>from Wolfram's web site? They looked awfully good.
Oh yay.
>> Einstein was a smart guy. Einstein didn't believe in quantum
>> mechanics. All the evidence says that he was dead wrong. Sometimes
>> smart guys are wrong.
>
>Sometimes smart guys are dead wrong, but I don't think that this is
>a good example. Einstein raised some legitimate objections to the
>Copenhagen Interpretation to QM. People still argue about this, but
>I think everyone agrees that Einstein made a positive contribution.
I was actually referring to Einstein's debates with Bohr over
non-determinism in QM. They can't both have been right.
>> Personally, finding a mathematical mistake in someone's PhD thesis
>> isn't exactly earth shattering. Most PhD's are not particularly
>> groundbreaking or meaningful and it wouldn't be too surprising if
>> later information overturned some of them. That is, after all,
>> what science is about.
>
>I think the error is worse than that, but we'll see.
It's a math error about Bahaman land snails for God's sake. On
it does not rest the entire edifice of evolutionary biology. If
the calculations in it prove to be invalid the only people who
will care are Gould and the four people who've quoted his paper
in their own research. Someone found an error in Newton's
Principia a few years back. That single work is far more significant
than Gould's entire output and yet the world continued on pretty
much as it always had.
>> >> If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
>> >> someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
>> >> uncritically?
>> >
>> >No, but Wolfram's book will be out soon. He has a web site too.
>> >See wolframscience.com.
>>
>> I've been hearing that for a while. I've also heard that the
>> book will revolutionize science in the same way that Newton's
>> Principia did. This sort of hyperbole does not fill me with
>> confidence.
>
>Clearly Wolfram has an ego. Probably one of the few people with an
>ego bigger than Gould's.
Gould thinks that punk eek is a significant contribution to
evolutionary theory (from what I've heard, most seem to disagree
with him). Wolfram thinks that his work will revolutionize all
of science. Why do you use the word "probably"?
Alan
WickedDyno
(Alan Morgan) wrote:
> In article <3A3571E9...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Alan Morgan wrote:
> >> >> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
> >> >> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW, shouldn't
> >> >> that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
> >> >Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
> >> >that unless he could back it up. Gould is obviously over his head
> >> >talking about shell shapes. I'd put my money on
> >> >Wolfram.[corrected]
> >>
> >> Anyway, why is Gould *obviously* in over his head? Gould has
> >> studied more biology than Wolfram.
> >
> >Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
> >biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised if
> >Gould knows beans about that.
>
> Gould is quite the polymath. While I'm sure that standard biology
> courses don't teach how snail shells form, I'm equally sure that
> standard math courses don't either. Both Gould and Wolfram have,
> presumably, done some reading outside of their fields.
Excuse me, Gould is NOT a polymath. I'm a fan of his popular writing,
and have a fair regard for his scientific work, but it is almost
entirely within the fields of biology and history of science.
He has stated as much a number of times.
I'm not aware of any well-known polymaths since the death of Dr. Issac
Asimov.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Alan Morgan
I seem to recall that he reads Greek and Latin and perhaps a couple of
modern languages and he isn't averse to dropping literary or historical
references into his essays. His protestations that he isn't a polymath
struck me as somewhat feeble.
Okay, I'm waffling. Still, he wouldn't have to be a polymath to know
something about how shells form. Roger's statement that "Gould is
obviously in over his head" is based on his dislike for and disagreement
with Gould and not on any understand of what Gould's areas of expertise
are.
Alan
WickedDyno
(Alan Morgan) wrote:
Unsurprising for a historian of science
> and perhaps a couple of modern languages
Typical of well-educated individuals these days.
> and he isn't averse to dropping literary or historical references
> into his essays. His protestations that he isn't a polymath struck
> me as somewhat feeble.
None of that makes him a polymath.
Now, I'm not disrespecting Gould here. But a true polymath is a rare
and special person; not for nothing did Dr. Asimov's business card list
his occupation as "Natural Resource".
> Okay, I'm waffling. Still, he wouldn't have to be a polymath to know
> something about how shells form. Roger's statement that "Gould is
> obviously in over his head" is based on his dislike for and disagreement
> with Gould and not on any understand of what Gould's areas of expertise
> are.
Agreed.
catshark
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> catshark wrote:
> > > > ? Ok, and they've fallen against him. The scientific consensus
is
> > > > ? that the book is trash.
> >
> > Just in case you don't own a dictionary, Roger, here is the
definition
> > of "consensus" (from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of
> > the English Language, Gramercy Books, New York): 1. majority of
opinion
> > 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
>
> Thanks, but I own one.
>
> > ...
> > *Whatever* value the "citations" may or may not have, Roger, they
> > clearly don't constitute proof of a "scientific consensus" against
> > Gould, except in your fevered imagination.
>
> Those articles were published in respectable journals. I can't
> help it if you found wacky stuff on the same servers. If you
> find some favorable Gould Mismeasure reviews, go ahead and post
> the links.
>
>
Which raises an interesting question, Roger:
If all these articles came from "respectable journals", they would
presumably also to be found on respectable sites. How come so many of
the sites you found them on were the ones with the "wacky stuff" on
them? There's an old saying: "Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas".
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Dick C.
>On 10 Dec 2000 19:19:34 -0500, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
>
>>nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote in
>><pdr73tsmkam9qap7f...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On 9 Dec 2000 19:07:15 -0500, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by foo.d...@qwest.net (Dick C.):
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Of course, the far right is not known for their interest in personal
>>>>honesty.
>>>
>>>True, but incomplete. Unless, of course, Bill Clinton ("I
>>>never had sex with that woman."; "What does 'is' mean?") and
>>>Al Gore ("I invented the Internet."; "I sat on my mother's
>>>lap while she sung me the 'Union Label' song.") are
>>>considered "far right".
>>>
>>>Perhaps "politician" should be substituted for "far right"?
>>
>>You could if you wanted, but I was not talking about politicians.
>
>Aha. OK; I assume then you were talking about the fundie
>whackos.
Among others. :-). There are people on the far right that are not
neccessarily fundies.
>
>--
>
>(Note followups, if any)
>
>Bob C.
>
>Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
>(without the spaces, of course)
>
>"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
>to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
>--H. L. Mencken
>
>
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
David Kellogg
: In article <913v8q$1ce$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
: (Alan Morgan) wrote:
:> In article <3A3571E9...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
:> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
:> >Alan Morgan wrote:
:> >> >> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
:> >> >> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW, shouldn't
:> >> >> that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
:> >> >Wolfram is a smart guy. I don't think he'd say something like
:> >> >that unless he could back it up. Gould is obviously over his head
:> >> >talking about shell shapes. I'd put my money on
:> >> >Wolfram.[corrected]
:> >>
:> >> Anyway, why is Gould *obviously* in over his head? Gould has
:> >> studied more biology than Wolfram.
:> >
:> >Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
:> >biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised if
:> >Gould knows beans about that.
:>
:> Gould is quite the polymath. While I'm sure that standard biology
:> courses don't teach how snail shells form, I'm equally sure that
:> standard math courses don't either. Both Gould and Wolfram have,
:> presumably, done some reading outside of their fields.
: Excuse me, Gould is NOT a polymath. I'm a fan of his popular writing,
: and have a fair regard for his scientific work, but it is almost
: entirely within the fields of biology and history of science.
Hasn't he written on baseball?
: He has stated as much a number of times.
: I'm not aware of any well-known polymaths since the death of Dr. Issac
: Asimov.
: --
: | Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
: | SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
: | reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
: | to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
--
Cheers,
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Kellogg Assistant Director
kel...@acpub.duke.edu University Writing Program
(919) 660-4357 Duke University
FAX (919) 660-4372 http://www.duke.edu/~kellogg/
ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
jdus...@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Jonathan G. Dushoff) writes:
>kisho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>: Here is an interesting problem:
>
>: Each day I eat a chocolate from a box containing X dark chocolates and
>: Y white chocolates according to the following rules:
>
>: a. I pick a chocolate at random and if it is dark I eat it.
>: b. If it is white, I put it back in the box, and again pick a chocolate
>: at random and eat it regardless of the type.
>
>: What is the probability that the last chocolate eaten is dark?
>
>agree that r.p. readers need to be protected from it, as it seems
>possible to waste a great deal of time.
Sorry for the flippancy! I meant it looks more like a routine
exercise out of a book, oe even, (shudder), a homework problem,
rather than an interesting problem.
Derek Holt.
Ken Cox
> So you accept Wolfram's claim because...? Merely because he
> claims to have found an error in Gould's thesis (BTW,
> shouldn't that be "dissertation"?), and you dislike Gould?
> If someone claims to have found an error in the work of
> someone with whom you agree, do you *also* accept the claim
> uncritically?
No. Take, for example, the dozens of people who have pointed
out that what Andy called a dangling participle and a double
negative were nothing of the sort. Roger did not accept the
claim uncritically; instead he rejected (and continues to
reject) it uncritically. Roger is absolutely certain that the
only reason so many people agree on the relatively simple
grammatical points which Andy messed up is that all those
people are covering for Gould.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> And just what's wrong with "To boldly split infinitives that
> no one has ever split before"?
The story I've heard (though I don't know if it's an urban legend)
is that grammarians of the 18th and 19th century pushed that rule,
because they felt that the grammatical structure of Latin should
also apply to English. As one does not split a Latin infinitive
(for the very good reason that it cannot be split, since it is a
single word), English infinitives should similarly remain unsplit.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Do you think he can back up the following statements (extracted
> from Wolfram's website)?
>
> This long-awaited work from one of the world's most respected
> scientists presents a series of dramatic discoveries never
> before made public.
Well, the "long-awaited" and "never made public" parts are certainly
easy to back up. Wolfram has been promising his book Real Soon Now
for at least three years, possibly more.
Until it's actually published, "dramatic discoveries" will have to
wait. As for "most respected scientists" -- well, let's just say
that it's Wolfram's self-description, and pull a merciful curtain
over it at that point.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
David Kellogg
: Bob Casanova wrote:
:> And just what's wrong with "To boldly split infinitives that
:> no one has ever split before"?
: The story I've heard (though I don't know if it's an urban legend)
: is that grammarians of the 18th and 19th century pushed that rule,
It's not an urban legend -- it's pretty accurate (though I think the
_rationale_ for the rule disappeared from public view sometime in the 19th
century).
: because they felt that the grammatical structure of Latin should
: also apply to English. As one does not split a Latin infinitive
: (for the very good reason that it cannot be split, since it is a
: single word), English infinitives should similarly remain unsplit.
: --
: Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Laurence A. Moran
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
>biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised
>if Gould knows beans about that.
This is a remarkable statement, even for Roger. Gould has written
several popular essays on the topic and I think any reasonable
person might conclude that Gould is knowledgeable in the area of
shell formation. One of my favorite essays is "Left Snails and
Right Minds" (published in DINOSAUR IN A HAYSTACK). It deals with
the handedness of snail shells as well as errors in science. I
know that Roger is passionately interested in both of these topics
(especially errors by Gould). I'm sure he will read the essay
immediately. I sure hope so, because there's a surprise in store
when it comes to understanding something about the biology of
snail shell handedness.
Here's a quotation for the Schlafly brothers .....
"I must also admit - and how wonderfully unburdening after
all these years of hiding such a shameful secret - that
my own first publication on snails included several
photographs of a newly discovered protoconch (embryonic
shell) of an important genus - all published from reversed
negatives. ... Baseball players make a proper distinction
between physical errors, which can happen to anyone at
any time and should engender no shame, and mental errors
- bonehead judgements, forgetting the rules - which should
never occur. Ordinary and honorable errors of fact are
unavoidable in science, a field that thrives on self-
correction, and properly defines its own progress by such
improvement. I have never written an essay, and never will,
without this analogue of a physical error. But printing a
snail backwards is a mental error. No excuses possible."
Larry Moran
P.S. Intelligent readers will recognize that Gould's first
sentence is an example of hyperbole. I only mention this
in case there are some non-intelligent readers out there.
Mark VandeWettering
>Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
>biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised
>if Gould knows beans about that. Did you see the sample pages
>from Wolfram's web site? They looked awfully good.
They look like the same stuff we've been hearing from Wolfram
for quite some time. Interesting? Perhaps. Earth shaking?
I'd say no.
>> Einstein was a smart guy. Einstein didn't believe in quantum
>> mechanics. All the evidence says that he was dead wrong. Sometimes
>> smart guys are wrong.
>
>Sometimes smart guys are dead wrong, but I don't think that this is
>a good example. Einstein raised some legitimate objections to the
>Copenhagen Interpretation to QM. People still argue about this, but
>I think everyone agrees that Einstein made a positive contribution.
I think despite your assertions to the contrary, that Gould as well
has made many positive contributions. Perhaps "everyone" wouldn't
agree, but the vast majority of reasonable people would.
>> Personally, finding a mathematical mistake in someone's PhD thesis
>> isn't exactly earth shattering. Most PhD's are not particularly
>> groundbreaking or meaningful and it wouldn't be too surprising if
>> later information overturned some of them. That is, after all,
>> what science is about.
>
>I think the error is worse than that, but we'll see.
Having read neither Gould's dissertation, nor Wolfram's refutation
of a particular claim made in it, I wonder why you feel qualified
to make that assertion.
>> I've been hearing that for a while. I've also heard that the
>> book will revolutionize science in the same way that Newton's
>> Principia did. This sort of hyperbole does not fill me with
>> confidence.
>Clearly Wolfram has an ego. Probably one of the few people with an
>ego bigger than Gould's.
*sigh*
Alan Morgan
Typical of well educated non-Americans, perhaps. I consider myself a
pretty well educated individual and I studied a small amount of Latin
(of which I remember essentially nothing) and, recently, enough Spanish
to be able to pick out one word in five on Telemundo and read books
written for six year olds with the help of a dictionary and a fair
amount of patience.
Alan
R. Tang
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote:
>Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>> Personally, finding a mathematical mistake in someone's PhD thesis
>>> isn't exactly earth shattering. Most PhD's are not particularly
>>> groundbreaking or meaningful and it wouldn't be too surprising if
>>> later information overturned some of them. That is, after all,
>>> what science is about.
>>
>>I think the error is worse than that, but we'll see.
>
>Having read neither Gould's dissertation, nor Wolfram's refutation
>of a particular claim made in it, I wonder why you feel qualified
>to make that assertion.
Because he's Schlafly. QED.
>>> I've been hearing that for a while. I've also heard that the
>>> book will revolutionize science in the same way that Newton's
>>> Principia did. This sort of hyperbole does not fill me with
>>> confidence.
>
>>Clearly Wolfram has an ego. Probably one of the few people with an
>>ego bigger than Gould's.
>
>*sigh*
But not as big as the Schlafly progeny.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Roger Schlafly
> >Sure Gould has studied snails and other biology. But do standard
> >biology courses teach him how shells form? I'd be very surpised
> >if Gould knows beans about that.
>
> This is a remarkable statement, even for Roger. Gould has written
> several popular essays on the topic and I think any reasonable
> person might conclude that Gould is knowledgeable in the area of
> shell formation. One of my favorite essays is "Left Snails and
> Right Minds" (published in DINOSAUR IN A HAYSTACK). It deals with
> the handedness of snail shells as well as errors in science. I
We'll see when Wolfram's book comes out. I sure Gould knows what
lots shells look like, but the question was about potential shell
shapes that do not occur in nature.
> know that Roger is passionately interested in both of these topics
> (especially errors by Gould). I'm sure he will read the essay
> immediately. I sure hope so, because there's a surprise in store
> when it comes to understanding something about the biology of
> snail shell handedness.
>
> Here's a quotation for the Schlafly brothers .....
> "I must also admit - and how wonderfully unburdening after
> all these years of hiding such a shameful secret - that
> my own first publication on snails included several
> photographs of a newly discovered protoconch (embryonic
> shell) of an important genus - all published from reversed
> negatives. ... Baseball players make a proper distinction
> between physical errors, which can happen to anyone at
> any time and should engender no shame, and mental errors
> - bonehead judgements, forgetting the rules - which should
> never occur. Ordinary and honorable errors of fact are
> unavoidable in science, a field that thrives on self-
> correction, and properly defines its own progress by such
> improvement. I have never written an essay, and never will,
> without this analogue of a physical error. But printing a
> snail backwards is a mental error. No excuses possible."
This is a good example of Gould admitting an error. It doesn't show
that he understands potential shell shapes, tho.
Virgil
<kel...@duke.edu> wrote:
> :> And just what's wrong with "To boldly split infinitives that
> :> no one has ever split before"?
>
> : The story I've heard (though I don't know if it's an urban legend)
> : is that grammarians of the 18th and 19th century pushed that rule,
>
> It's not an urban legend -- it's pretty accurate (though I think the
> _rationale_ for the rule disappeared from public view sometime in the 19th
> century).
The rule was still strongly in force at and after the midpoint of the
twentieth century. At least it was enforced by all the English teachers
that I wrote for.
Virgil
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> This is a good example of Gould admitting an error. It doesn't show
> that he understands potential shell shapes, tho.
It is stronger evidence that he does than that he does not.
Roger Schlafly
> > This is a good example of Gould admitting an error. It doesn't show
> > that he understands potential shell shapes, tho.
>
> It is stronger evidence that he does than that he does not.
That he published an article in which got the shells backwards?
If he can't get the shells that actually occur in nature
correct, then I don't know why that makes you think he is going
to get the potential shell shapes correct.
Laurence A. Moran
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <slrn93crh...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>,
>Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote:
>>Having read neither Gould's dissertation, nor Wolfram's refutation
>>of a particular claim made in it, I wonder why you feel qualified
>>to make that assertion.
>
> Because he's Schlafly. QED.
The question _was_ rhetorical. :-)
Charles H. Giffen
Ah, yes! My mother was just such an English teacher when I had to
take her class in 10th grade eons ago. She and all of my English
and grammar teachers railed against split infinitives. To this day,
I try diligently not to split an infinitive. Alas, there have been
occasional lapses, the most embarrassing of which was having made
a motion in a meeting long ago to which a colleague replied, "I
second everything but the split infinitive." Needless to say, my
efforts were redoubled after that.
--Chuck Giffen
Virgil
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
Did he in fact get any of the shell shapes wrong (except for the
reversed snails), or did he draw conclusions based on the supposed
sparsity of shapes occurring in nature, which sparsity Wolfram contests?