Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

My Long-Awaited Riview of _Species_ by Wilkins

66 views
Skip to first unread message

Will in New Haven

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 1:29:11 PM8/8/12
to
You can see it here:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R12EKKLC6E2A8H

--
Will in New Haven

Message has been deleted

Steven L.

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 2:20:23 PM8/8/12
to
On 8/8/2012 1:51 PM, nmp wrote:
> Will in New Haven:
>
>> You can see it here:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/R12EKKLC6E2A8H
>
> "And his use of the language was fine,although he is an Australian."
>
> Ouch.

Gee, I'm relieved to see that Mr. Wilkins managed to overcome THAT
handicap. :-)


--
Steven L.

Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 2:30:53 PM8/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>You can see it here:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/review/R12EKKLC6E2A8H

You didn't comment on Wilkins' closing sentence where he describes
just when biologists will agree on one single definition for the
species concept.

Your comments are very good. I would add that an essential part of
Wilkins' book is an exposition of the wide variety of species
definitions and the need for them at different times and in different
circumstances for different purposes.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 4:21:09 PM8/8/12
to
nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Will in New Haven:
>
> > You can see it here:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/review/R12EKKLC6E2A8H
>
> "And his use of the language was fine,although he is an Australian."
>
> Ouch.

Indeed.
Wilkins' English is clearly much better than Will's,

Jan

prawnster

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 6:46:53 PM8/8/12
to
On Aug 8, 11:30 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Your comments are very good.  I would add that an essential part of
> Wilkins' book is an exposition of the wide variety of species
> definitions and the need for them at different times and in different
> circumstances for different purposes.

Yes, Darwinists certainly do like to redefine "species" when it's
convenient for them. But, ya know, science is like that: you can
never really know anything and truth is always this elusive thing
dancing just beyond your grasp and nothing can ever really be proven
and it's all relative and thus evolution is science, ya know?

I won't be reading Mr. Wilkins' book because I have no interest in
reading about how sophists persistently redefine terms such that they
can never lose an argument. Boring!

Alan

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 7:06:58 PM8/8/12
to

"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:40fb42b4-cc4b-44db...@i10g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
You know I find the creationists position on "scientific truth" extremely
silly. On the one hand you want "truth". As in fixed and final. And then, on
the other hand, you criticise evolutionists for being dogmatic. Make up
your mind. Which one do you find most annoying - the acceptance of
uncertainty, or dogmatic statements when certain things (like the theory of
evolution, and gravity) have been established beyond reasonable doubt?

Alan


Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 7:38:35 PM8/8/12
to
That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
really knows what he is talking about. Remember, a stopped clock is
right twice a day. Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
mind works, is sometimes right.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 8:10:26 PM8/8/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 8, 11:30?am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Your comments are very good. ?I would add that an essential part of
>> Wilkins' book is an exposition of the wide variety of species
>> definitions and the need for them at different times and in different
>> circumstances for different purposes.

>Yes, Darwinists certainly do like to redefine "species" when it's
>convenient for them. But, ya know, science is like that: you can
>never really know anything and truth is always this elusive thing
>dancing just beyond your grasp and nothing can ever really be proven
>and it's all relative and thus evolution is science, ya know?

>I won't be reading Mr. Wilkins' book because I have no interest in
>reading about how sophists persistently redefine terms such that they
>can never lose an argument. Boring!

You pretend stupidity long enough and it will come true.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Nick Keighley

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 6:50:45 AM8/9/12
to
On Aug 9, 12:06�am, "Alan" <observa_spam_su...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "prawnster" <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote in message
don't you know how to conjugate "dogmatic"?

I hold reasonable opinions
you are dogmatic
they are self opiniated ignoramuses

Walter Bushell

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 8:02:23 AM8/9/12
to
In article <c1u528lncc84tb6cg...@4ax.com>,
Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
> particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
> really knows what he is talking about. Remember, a stopped clock is
> right twice a day. Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
> mind works, is sometimes right.

A clock that runs backwards is, in fact, more often correct than on
that is stopped or a bit fast or slow, albeit a clock that is a bit
fast or slow is more useful.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 8:10:07 AM8/9/12
to
I tell people "I'm Australian. We don't even speak *one* language well.
I'm a submonoglot". Of course I'm showing this by mixing Latin and
Greek.

One reviewer (in a science journal) noted that despite my being a
philosopher he only had to use a dictionary occasionally when reading my
book...
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 8:21:27 AM8/9/12
to
Like this conjugation too:

I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist.
[Bernard Wooley]

Perseus

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 1:13:02 PM8/9/12
to
On Aug 9, 11:50�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
that's true. It is an old ironic dictum.

It is good to remind phrases like these.

Perseus

Perseus

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 1:15:07 PM8/9/12
to
On Aug 9, 1:21�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

very good also.
Perseus


Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 1:45:52 PM8/9/12
to
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:46:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>I won't be reading Mr. Wilkins' book

Willful ignorance is an undoubted comfort for you.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 1:48:04 PM8/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:21:27 +1000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
I am firm, you are opinionated, he is pigheaded.

(Seems to work with regard to shrimpie...)

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 1:52:52 PM8/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:10:07 +1000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2012 1:51 PM, nmp wrote:
>> > Will in New Haven:
>> >
>> >> You can see it here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.amazon.com/review/R12EKKLC6E2A8H
>> >
>> > "And his use of the language was fine,although he is an Australian."
>> >
>> > Ouch.
>>
>> Gee, I'm relieved to see that Mr. Wilkins managed to overcome THAT
>> handicap. :-)
>
>I tell people "I'm Australian. We don't even speak *one* language well.
>I'm a submonoglot". Of course I'm showing this by mixing Latin and
>Greek.
>
>One reviewer (in a science journal) noted that despite my being a
>philosopher he only had to use a dictionary occasionally when reading my
>book...

Dammit, John, you *must* try harder; he shouldn't have been
able to understand more than 50%! ;-)

(I bought and read it when it came out, and I had no
particular problems understanding it. And I'm neither a
philosopher nor a scientist.)

jillery

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 12:47:22 PM8/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:02:23 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
That's the difference between accuracy and precision. For most time,
it's ok to be a bit wrong as long as it's consistently so.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 1:58:04 PM8/9/12
to
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:46:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Aug 8, 11:30�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Your comments are very good. �I would add that an essential part of
>> Wilkins' book is an exposition of the wide variety of species
>> definitions and the need for them at different times and in different
>> circumstances for different purposes.

>Yes, Darwinists certainly do like to redefine "species" when it's
>convenient for them.

Try "...when the evidence indicates.", although "evidence"
is something you don't quite seem able to grasp.

> But, ya know, science is like that: you can
>never really know anything and truth is always this elusive thing
>dancing just beyond your grasp and nothing can ever really be proven

Yes, far better if it simply decreed the Truth(TM) and
stoppered its ears with wax.

Oh, wait; that technique is already in use elsewhere...

jillery

unread,
Aug 9, 2012, 12:48:23 PM8/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:10:07 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2012 1:51 PM, nmp wrote:
>> > Will in New Haven:
>> >
>> >> You can see it here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.amazon.com/review/R12EKKLC6E2A8H
>> >
>> > "And his use of the language was fine,although he is an Australian."
>> >
>> > Ouch.
>>
>> Gee, I'm relieved to see that Mr. Wilkins managed to overcome THAT
>> handicap. :-)
>
>I tell people "I'm Australian. We don't even speak *one* language well.
>I'm a submonoglot". Of course I'm showing this by mixing Latin and
>Greek.
>
>One reviewer (in a science journal) noted that despite my being a
>philosopher he only had to use a dictionary occasionally when reading my
>book...


That's high praise. Even Stephen Hawking was reminded that every
mathematical formula he puts in his books reduces sales.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 10, 2012, 10:55:25 PM8/10/12
to
So because I'm ahead of everyone else, it's okay for me to be wrong all
the time? Awesome! I always knew it, of course...

Don Cates

unread,
Aug 10, 2012, 11:44:54 PM8/10/12
to
On 10/08/2012 9:55 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:02:23 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <c1u528lncc84tb6cg...@4ax.com>,
>>> Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
>>>> particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
>>>> really knows what he is talking about. Remember, a stopped clock is
>>>> right twice a day. Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
>>>> mind works, is sometimes right.
>>>
>>> A clock that runs backwards is, in fact, more often correct than on
>>> that is stopped or a bit fast or slow, albeit a clock that is a bit
>>> fast or slow is more useful.
>>
>>
>> That's the difference between accuracy and precision. For most time,
>> it's ok to be a bit wrong as long as it's consistently so.
>
> So because I'm ahead of everyone else, it's okay for me to be wrong all
> the time? Awesome! I always knew it, of course...
>
You're wrong about that.

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

jillery

unread,
Aug 11, 2012, 6:29:28 AM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:55:25 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:02:23 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <c1u528lncc84tb6cg...@4ax.com>,
>> > Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
>> >> particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
>> >> really knows what he is talking about. Remember, a stopped clock is
>> >> right twice a day. Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
>> >> mind works, is sometimes right.
>> >
>> >A clock that runs backwards is, in fact, more often correct than on
>> >that is stopped or a bit fast or slow, albeit a clock that is a bit
>> >fast or slow is more useful.
>>
>>
>> That's the difference between accuracy and precision. For most time,
>> it's ok to be a bit wrong as long as it's consistently so.
>
>So because I'm ahead of everyone else, it's okay for me to be wrong all
>the time? Awesome! I always knew it, of course...


I understand philosophers get special dispensation in these things.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 11, 2012, 4:10:13 PM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:55:25 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:02:23 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <c1u528lncc84tb6cg...@4ax.com>,
>> > Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
>> >> particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
>> >> really knows what he is talking about. Remember, a stopped clock is
>> >> right twice a day. Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
>> >> mind works, is sometimes right.
>> >
>> >A clock that runs backwards is, in fact, more often correct than on
>> >that is stopped or a bit fast or slow, albeit a clock that is a bit
>> >fast or slow is more useful.
>>
>>
>> That's the difference between accuracy and precision. For most time,
>> it's ok to be a bit wrong as long as it's consistently so.
>
>So because I'm ahead of everyone else, it's okay for me to be wrong all
>the time? Awesome! I always knew it, of course...

Sure; any calculation of motion done using Newton's laws
rather than relativity is by definition wrong, and
scientists and engineers do it all the time. So you're in
good company. ;-)

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 11, 2012, 4:10:58 PM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:29:28 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
Actually, there's no need; philosophy "isn't even wrong".

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 6:17:15 AM8/12/12
to
In the good old times of navigating by chronometer
sea captains -never- adjusted their chronometers.
They just noted the readings, and calculated with those,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 6:17:16 AM8/12/12
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:02:23 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <c1u528lncc84tb6cg...@4ax.com>,
> > > Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
> > >> particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
> > >> really knows what he is talking about. Remember, a stopped clock is
> > >> right twice a day. Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
> > >> mind works, is sometimes right.
> > >
> > >A clock that runs backwards is, in fact, more often correct than on
> > >that is stopped or a bit fast or slow, albeit a clock that is a bit
> > >fast or slow is more useful.
> >
> >
> > That's the difference between accuracy and precision. For most time,
> > it's ok to be a bit wrong as long as it's consistently so.
>
> So because I'm ahead of everyone else, it's okay for me to be wrong all
> the time? Awesome! I always knew it, of course...

Be right sometimes too,
just to keep them guessing,

Jan

Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 9:34:34 AM8/12/12
to
The problem with philosophy is telling which is which.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 9:41:27 AM8/12/12
to
On 12 ao�t, 15:34, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:17:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lodder) wrote:
> >John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> >> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:02:23 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >In article <c1u528lncc84tb6cgph15cvjaqbmtpb...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >> That I once or twice indicated that Prawnster was correct in a
> >> > >> particular argument should never be taken as an indication that he
> >> > >> really knows what he is talking about. �Remember, a stopped clock is
> >> > >> right twice a day. �Even a clock that runs backward, the way prawnies
> >> > >> mind works, is sometimes right.
>
> >> > >A clock that runs backwards is, in fact, more often correct than on
> >> > >that is stopped or a bit fast or slow, albeit a clock that is a bit
> >> > >fast or slow is more useful.
>
> >> > That's the difference between accuracy and precision. �For most time,
> >> > it's ok to be a bit wrong as long as it's consistently so.
>
> >> So because I'm ahead of everyone else, it's okay for me to be wrong all
> >> the time? Awesome! I always knew it, of course...
>
> >Be right sometimes too,
> >just to keep them guessing,
>
> The problem with philosophy is telling which is which.

Do you mean philosophers seldom define what they are speaking of?

Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 10:30:15 AM8/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
John and I have a long history of teasing one another because we
differ on the notion of "emergence" and "information". We agree on
essentially everything else.

Philosophers do not bother defining commonly used technical
philosophical terms when writing for other philosophers. Scientists do
exactly the same, as does everybody.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 11:01:58 AM8/12/12
to
No problem if it's a Cretan philosopher,

Jan

Message has been deleted

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 12:06:30 PM8/12/12
to
On 12 août, 16:30, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
It is funny how much you want to show me that you "agree on
essentially everything else" with John. I understand you are friends
but do you think it is an obligation to agree on essentially
everything with our friends?

> Philosophers do not bother defining commonly used technical
> philosophical terms when writing for other philosophers. Scientists do
> exactly the same, as does everybody.

I don't agree with you that scientists do not bother defining commonly
used technical scientific term when writing for other scientists, at
least in high level scientific publications.
Let's take the example of this publication in Science on self-
assembly, "Self-Assembly at All Scales" by GM. Whitesides and B.
Grzybowski (Science 2002;295:2418-21). The authors specified that
"Self-assembly is not a formalized subject, and definitions of the
term "self-assembly" seem to be limitlessly elastic. As a result, the
term has been overused to the point of cliché". Then they judged
important to specify their definition of the term: "we limit the term
to processes that involve pre-existing components (separate or
distinct parts of a disordered structure), are reversible, and can be
controlled by proper design of the components. "Self-assembly" is thus
not synonymous with "formation"."


Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 12:41:55 PM8/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
John and I have been posting about all sorts of things here for many
years. When I write that we agree on almost everything, it is from
experience and not from the desire to cement a friendship with someone
whom I have never met. When he writes something that I disagree with
I certainly post back. I respond in that way to very little of what
he writes.

There are cases where the meaning of a technical word may be
misinterpreted or misunderstood. Thus you can find isolated examples
of scientists defining what they mean in some particular instance. Why
do you think that philosophers are different?





marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 12, 2012, 1:41:27 PM8/12/12
to
On 12 août, 18:41, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 4:19:45 AM8/13/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 12 ao�t, 16:30, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> > wrote:
If it bothers about just the right definitions
it isn't a scientist.
(and probably not even a philosopher)

Yes, it's as simple as that,

Jan

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 4:45:04 AM8/13/12
to
On Aug 13, 10:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > On 12 août, 16:30, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> > > wrote:
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry but I am not sure to understand your sentence: "it isn't a
scientist.(and probably not even a philosopher)".
"it" is not usually used for a person, then what do you mean exactly,
who are you talking about?

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 4:54:32 AM8/13/12
to
Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,

Jan

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 5:07:49 AM8/13/12
to
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appréciation un peu raciste,
que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les français, non?

Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 6:02:43 AM8/13/12
to

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
There's some good old fashioned racism.


marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 7:36:23 AM8/13/12
to
On Aug 13, 12:02 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in messagenews:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>
> There's some good old fashioned racism.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In France it is called parochialism: this does not denote an open mind.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 8:46:34 AM8/13/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
...
> > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> >
> > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appr�ciation un peu raciste,
> que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les fran�ais, non?

Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
raciste.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 9:35:53 AM8/13/12
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> ...
> > > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> > > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> > > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> > > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> > > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> > > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> > >
> > > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appr�ciation un peu raciste,
> > que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les fran�ais, non?
>
> Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
> raciste.

I've even heard Belgians proclaim themselves to be a race,
so indeed, why can't Australians too?

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 9:35:58 AM8/13/12
to
Ah, a real American.

'Culture'? Don't use such difficult words,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 9:36:02 AM8/13/12
to
> Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appr�ciation un peu raciste,
> que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les fran�ais, non?

Just a friendly hint,
supposing you want to be understood,

Jan


John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 10:29:20 AM8/13/12
to
J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> > > > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> > > > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> > > > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> > > > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> > > > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> > > >
> > > > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appréciation un peu raciste,
> > > que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les français, non?
> >
> > Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
> > raciste.
>
> I've even heard Belgians proclaim themselves to be a race,
> so indeed, why can't Australians too?
>
Because we know damn well we are about as mongrel a nation as it's
possible to be.

Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 10:40:49 AM8/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:35:53 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> ...
>> > > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
>> > > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
>> > > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
>> > > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
>> > > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
>> > > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
>> > >
>> > > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
>> > >
>> > > Jan
>> >
>> > Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appr�ciation un peu raciste,
>> > que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les fran�ais, non?
>>
>> Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
>> raciste.
>
>I've even heard Belgians proclaim themselves to be a race,
>so indeed, why can't Australians too?
>

But the race is not always to the swift.


marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 9:52:52 AM8/13/12
to
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I understood indeed it was "just a friendly hint". My problem of
understanding is less with the Anglo-saxons than with John's prose.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 11:09:58 AM8/13/12
to

"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1kosjkv.18q3q9v191eq7fN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> > > > > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> > > > > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> > > > > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> > > > > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> > > > > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> > > > >
> > > > > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appr�ciation un peu raciste,
> > > > que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les fran�ais, non?
> > >
> > > Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
> > > raciste.
> >
> > I've even heard Belgians proclaim themselves to be a race,
> > so indeed, why can't Australians too?
> >
> Because we know damn well we are about as mongrel a nation as it's
> possible to be.
>
You do have your own language though. Be prepared to accept the consequences.


Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 11:12:06 AM8/13/12
to

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:te4i28dor5j1065m0...@4ax.com...
Irrelevant, since no one ever gets to the finish line anyway.


Will in New Haven

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 11:45:23 AM8/13/12
to
On Aug 13, 9:35�am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
In a sense, they are. Perhaps the closest of the imagined races to
actually being genetically well-defined. That M130 marker is a pretty
good indicator, although it turns up occasionally in North America and
southern Asia.

But there are all those Europeans who should leave immediately
clouding the picture.

--
Will in New Haven


Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 12:07:33 PM8/13/12
to

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1korunx.1bm...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> > > > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> > > > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> > > > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> > > > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> > > > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> > > >
> > > > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appréciation un peu raciste,
> > > que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les français, non?
> >
> > Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
> > raciste.
>
> I've even heard Belgians proclaim themselves to be a race,
> so indeed, why can't Australians too?
>
"They aren't a race, so I'm not a racist".


Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 2:21:29 PM8/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
Neither the French nor the English are a "race". Cultural
bigotry, perhaps.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 2:24:10 PM8/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:35:53 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
Perhaps because even given the nebulous character of "race"
as applied to humans, neither is actually a race?

Of course, like UC, they can make any claims they wish, no
matter how divorced from reality.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 2:25:07 PM8/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:35:58 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Ah, a real bigot.

>'Culture'? Don't use such difficult words,
>
>Jan

Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 3:25:07 PM8/13/12
to

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...
Perhaps not. Claiming one perceived group thinks differently than another in
itself is not bigotry. Race is not well defined, and racism does not require
bigotry.


Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 3:37:11 PM8/13/12
to

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:8ehi28psiur1btp0m...@4ax.com...
As can Jan.


Glenn

unread,
Aug 13, 2012, 3:39:24 PM8/13/12
to

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:nihi28lbb5im26lbh...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:35:58 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Glenn <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> >> news:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> >> > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> >> > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> >> > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> >> > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> >> > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> >> > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> >> >
> >> > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> >> >
> >> There's some good old fashioned racism.
> >
> >Ah, a real American.
>
> Ah, a real bigot.
>
Why? Because you are an American?


J. J. Lodder

unread,
Aug 14, 2012, 3:23:11 AM8/14/12
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 13, 10:54 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > > I don't think philosophers are necessarily different. I was just
> > > > > > surprised when John replied "our argument does not greatly depend on
> > > > > > what those terms specifically mean" to one of my comments on his
> > > > > > article "When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?"
> > > > > > which was: a major concern is that you don't give your definition of
> > > > > > the term 'belief' while it is the main subject of your article.
> > > > >
> > > > > Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Je comprends mieux mais je trouve votre appr�ciation un peu raciste,
> > > > que ce soit pour les anglo-saxons ou pour les fran�ais, non?
> > >
> > > Jan has a problem with the Anglo-saxons. Even Australian ones. Un peu
> > > raciste.
> >
> > I've even heard Belgians proclaim themselves to be a race,
> > so indeed, why can't Australians too?
> >
> Because we know damn well we are about as mongrel a nation as it's
> possible to be.

About 10% of the population of France
is recent immigrants too,
and that has always been the case,
for as long as there are records,

Jan




Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 14, 2012, 1:48:03 PM8/14/12
to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:39:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
Just an observation of a repeated tendency.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 14, 2012, 1:47:16 PM8/14/12
to
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:25:07 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >
>> >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
>> >news:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>> >> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 12 ao�t, 18:41, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >term has been overused to the point of clich�". Then they judged
Race may not be well-defined (and as I understand it,
biologically it doesn't even exist among humans), but no
definition of race I've read anywhere would separate the
French from the English, leaving the posted comment a matter
of nothing more than observation - different cultures *do*
think differently. And "racism" is asserted far too
frequently when the actual term should be "culturism"; an
example is Anglos vs. Hispanics, both of which are the same
putative "race" - Caucasian.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 14, 2012, 1:48:59 PM8/14/12
to
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:23:11 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
No doubt, but what has "recent" to do with it?

jillery

unread,
Aug 14, 2012, 3:45:11 PM8/14/12
to
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:47:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
Yeppers. Like the biblical 'kind', or for the biblically sensitive,
'baramin', 'race' is one of those slippery words that can mean just
about anything. In the past, it often was described using trivial
attributes like skin color. More recently, it's described using
cultural attributes as you describe above. I have even heard of
religions being described as 'races'.

To the degree that 'race' focuses on apparent differences among
groups, and applies generalized characteristics of a group to
individuals in the group, its use is suggestive of bigotry.
Considering its past reputation, there are plenty of good reasons to
avoid its use now.

Glenn

unread,
Aug 14, 2012, 5:55:40 PM8/14/12
to

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:eb3l28pf6huj5j7mc...@4ax.com...
Putting the word in quote marks doesn't support your contentions. One can
quickly find history and definition of such terms as "racism" and "racial
discrimination" that include "Anglo Saxon" racism. And culture is not strictly
divorced from racism as regarded today, although it is a word you decided to use
in argument. I think it suffice to say that the Anglo-Saxon "world" is not
defined by a single culture, and "the French" are not defined as a single
culture in a geographic sense. "The French" can be regarded as an ethnic group,
as can "the English". Definitions and uses of the word "race" as applies to
"racism" is not separated from ethnic or cultural bias, and can be applied to
such concepts as "tribes" and "nationality"; there is a good reason why the word
is not well defined. Individuals decide what "race" is and who they discriminate
based on those ideas.
You say different "cultures" think differently. Does that mean that all French
individuals think alike? Are those that believe that French thinking is superior
to Jewish thinking, "bigots" or "racists? I think you placed yourself on a
dangerous path here, one that is liable to backfire on you. If how certain
individuals "think" is "different" from how another "thinks", it sounds less
like a "cultural" difference than a biological difference. Cultural differences
involve *what* is "thought of", not in the process of "how" people think.
However there has been much talk about those holding religious beliefs think
differently than more enlightened ones. There have been even been suggestions
that this is biological and evolutionary. Are these wordviews best described as
motivated by a fear or hatred? Remember, bigotry is identified by
discrimination, fear and hatred. Racism is not necessarily identified by the
inclusion of bigotry.

Here's one example of "Anglo-Saxon" racism:

"In a letter from Charles Darwin to John Fiske, dated from 1874, the naturalist
remarks: "I never in my life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker)
as you are."

Nineteenth-century enthusiasm for brain size as a simple measure of human
performance, championed by scientists including Darwin's cousin Francis Galton
and the French neurologist Paul Broca, led Fiske to believe in the racial
superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race". However, Fiske's racism was tempered by
commitment to African-American causes. Indeed, so anti-slavery was he that
twenty-three years after the cessation of the American Civil War, he declared
the North's victory complete "despite the feeble wails" of "unteachable
bigots."[2] In his book "The Destiny of Man" (1884), he devotes a whole chapter
to the "End of the working of natural selection upon man", describing it as "a
fact of unparalleled grandeur." In his view, "the action of natural selection
upon Man has ... been essentially diminished through the operation of social
conditions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fiske_%28philosopher%29



marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 15, 2012, 6:47:36 AM8/15/12
to
On 14 ao�t, 19:47, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:25:07 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> >news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> >> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >> >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> >> >news:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
Do you mean for example that French think differently than Anglo-
saxons?

Ernest Major

unread,
Aug 15, 2012, 12:52:30 PM8/15/12
to
In message <eb3l28pf6huj5j7mc...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova
<nos...@buzz.off> writes
>Race may not be well-defined (and as I understand it, biologically it
>doesn't even exist among humans), but no definition of race I've read
>anywhere would separate the French from the English, leaving the posted
>comment a matter of nothing more than observation - different cultures
>*do* think differently. And "racism" is asserted far too frequently
>when the actual term should be "culturism"; an example is Anglos vs.
>Hispanics, both of which are the same putative "race" - Caucasian.

Etymology does not constrain meaning. Racism, as the word is used, is
commonly based on ethnicity.
--
alias Ernest Major

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 15, 2012, 12:57:58 PM8/15/12
to
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:47:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.t...@wanadoo.fr:
Are the French and English different cultures? If so, then
yes.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 15, 2012, 1:03:18 PM8/15/12
to
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:55:40 -0700, the following appeared
Sure; one can find many such erroneous (biologically, which
was my meaning) terms.

> And culture is not strictly
>divorced from racism as regarded today, although it is a word you decided to use
>in argument. I think it suffice to say that the Anglo-Saxon "world" is not
>defined by a single culture, and "the French" are not defined as a single
>culture in a geographic sense. "The French" can be regarded as an ethnic group,
>as can "the English". Definitions and uses of the word "race" as applies to
>"racism" is not separated from ethnic or cultural bias, and can be applied to
>such concepts as "tribes" and "nationality"; there is a good reason why the word
>is not well defined. Individuals decide what "race" is and who they discriminate
>based on those ideas.
>You say different "cultures" think differently. Does that mean that all French
>individuals think alike? Are those that believe that French thinking is superior
>to Jewish thinking, "bigots" or "racists? I think you placed yourself on a
>dangerous path here, one that is liable to backfire on you. If how certain
>individuals "think" is "different" from how another "thinks", it sounds less
>like a "cultural" difference than a biological difference. Cultural differences
>involve *what* is "thought of", not in the process of "how" people think.

Nor did I intend that meaning, as was obvious to me. If it
wasn't so to you I apologize.

>However there has been much talk about those holding religious beliefs think
>differently than more enlightened ones. There have been even been suggestions
>that this is biological and evolutionary. Are these wordviews best described as
>motivated by a fear or hatred? Remember, bigotry is identified by
>discrimination, fear and hatred. Racism is not necessarily identified by the
>inclusion of bigotry.
>
>Here's one example of "Anglo-Saxon" racism:
>
>"In a letter from Charles Darwin to John Fiske, dated from 1874, the naturalist
>remarks: "I never in my life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker)
>as you are."
>
>Nineteenth-century enthusiasm for brain size as a simple measure of human
>performance, championed by scientists including Darwin's cousin Francis Galton
>and the French neurologist Paul Broca, led Fiske to believe in the racial
>superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race". However, Fiske's racism was tempered by
>commitment to African-American causes. Indeed, so anti-slavery was he that
>twenty-three years after the cessation of the American Civil War, he declared
>the North's victory complete "despite the feeble wails" of "unteachable
>bigots."[2] In his book "The Destiny of Man" (1884), he devotes a whole chapter
>to the "End of the working of natural selection upon man", describing it as "a
>fact of unparalleled grandeur." In his view, "the action of natural selection
>upon Man has ... been essentially diminished through the operation of social
>conditions."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fiske_%28philosopher%29

And this refutes my claim that current science doesn't
recognize different human races as biologically sound...how?
I made no claim regarding past errors.

Richard Norman

unread,
Aug 15, 2012, 1:24:19 PM8/15/12
to
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:47:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
"Thinking" encompasses a vast range of notions. There is no evidence
that brain mechanisms of French differ from those of the English (to
make the "anglosaxon" reference more explicit). However the French
early adapted the metric and then SI units while the English thought
differently about the issue and kept its specific system of weights
and measures, not to mention currency, much longer and some
differences still persist. It seems that French and English think
differently about joining the European Union and adopting the Euro as
currency. It seems that the French and English think differently
about who should "rightly" win the world cup.

If you really want to keep the Anglosaxon content, there was that
little issue between the William and Harold about who was thought to
be rightful King.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 15, 2012, 1:15:56 PM8/15/12
to
On 15 ao�t, 18:57, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:47:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr:
When you say that two groups of people from different cultures think
differently what do mean exactly? For instance do you mean that their
logic can be different?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 16, 2012, 2:31:48 PM8/16/12
to
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:52:30 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
Perhaps, but at the risk of sounding like UC I'd contend
that it's a poor choice, given that "race" itself is a
chimera. Of course, while "racism" is easy to understand,
even though "race" doesn't exist, using it to describe some
current bigotry actually based on religion or culture (or
both), such as that between various cultures of
mostly-Semitic Caucasians, or that between Anglo and
Hispanic Caucasians, seem lazy at best and perverse (and
agenda-driven) at worst.

I once had a discussion with another poster here regarding
the use of "genocide", in which I finally signed off at the
point where he responded "yes" to my question regarding
whether it applied to causing the death of everyone in a
randomly-selected block of apartments in a random city. IOW,
it was being used as a substitute for "mass murder" even
though there was no even partially-indentifiable genetic
group involved, probably to increase the "horror factor".

Bob Casanova

unread,
Aug 16, 2012, 2:39:06 PM8/16/12
to
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:15:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.t...@wanadoo.fr:

>On 15 ao�t, 18:57, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:47:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr:

>> >On 14 ao t, 19:47, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:25:07 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
>> >> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:

>> >> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>> >> >news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...

>> >> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
>> >> >> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:

>> >> >> >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message

<snip>

>> >> >> >> Les Anglos, ils ne pensent pas comme les Francais,

>> >> >> >There's some good old fashioned racism.

>> >> >> Neither the French nor the English are a "race". Cultural
>> >> >> bigotry, perhaps.

>> >> >Perhaps not. Claiming one perceived group thinks differently than another in
>> >> >itself is not bigotry. Race is not well defined, and racism does not require
>> >> >bigotry.

>> >> Race may not be well-defined (and as I understand it,
>> >> biologically it doesn't even exist among humans), but no
>> >> definition of race I've read anywhere would separate the
>> >> French from the English, leaving the posted comment a matter
>> >> of nothing more than observation - different cultures *do*
>> >> think differently.

>> >Do you mean for example that French think differently than Anglo-
>> >saxons?

>> Are the French and English different cultures? If so, then
>> yes.

No answer?

>> >> And "racism" is asserted far too
>> >> frequently when the actual term should be "culturism"; an
>> >> example is Anglos vs. Hispanics, both of which are the same
>> >> putative "race" - Caucasian.

>When you say that two groups of people from different cultures think
>differently what do mean exactly? For instance do you mean that their
>logic can be different?

Sometimes, if that logic (or putative logic) is informed by
culture, as is usual. And all thought is governed by
language.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Aug 16, 2012, 2:45:07 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 9, 8:21�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 12:06 am, "Alan" <observa_spam_su...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > > "prawnster" <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:40fb42b4-cc4b-44db...@i10g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Aug 8, 11:30 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> Your comments are very good. I would add that an essential part of
> > > >> Wilkins' book is an exposition of the wide variety of species
> > > >> definitions and the need for them at different times and in different
> > > >> circumstances for different purposes.
>
> > > > Yes, Darwinists certainly do like to redefine "species" when it's
> > > > convenient for them. �But, ya know, science is like that: you can
> > > > never really know anything and truth is always this elusive thing
> > > > dancing just beyond your grasp and nothing can ever really be proven
> > > > and it's all relative and thus evolution is science, ya know?
>
> > > > I won't be reading Mr. Wilkins' book because I have no interest in
> > > > reading about how sophists persistently redefine terms such that they
> > > > can never lose an argument. �Boring!
>
> > > You know I find the creationists position on "scientific truth" extremely
> > > silly. On the one hand you want "truth". As in fixed and final. And then, on
> > > the other hand, you criticise evolutionists for being dogmatic. �Make up
> > > your mind. �Which one do you find most annoying - the acceptance of
> > > uncertainty, or dogmatic statements when certain things (like the theory of
> > > evolution, and gravity) have been established beyond reasonable doubt?
>
> > don't you know how to conjugate "dogmatic"?
>
> > � �I hold reasonable opinions
> > � you are dogmatic
> > � they are self opiniated ignoramuses
>
> Like this conjugation too:
>
> I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist.
> [Bernard Wooley]

That should be "I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he
is 'round the twist."

Mitchell

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Aug 16, 2012, 2:47:12 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 9, 6:50�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
First person plural: "Great minds think alike."

Mitchell Coffey


marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Aug 16, 2012, 3:22:59 PM8/16/12
to
On 16 août, 20:39, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:15:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr:
There are surely some differences (eg, the language!) but our common
history, the mutual influence on their respective language etc. make
these differences not very deep.

> >> >> And "racism" is asserted far too
> >> >> frequently when the actual term should be "culturism"; an
> >> >> example is Anglos vs. Hispanics, both of which are the same
> >> >> putative "race" - Caucasian.
> >When you say that two groups of people from different cultures think
> >differently what do mean exactly? For instance do you mean that their
> >logic can be different?
>
> Sometimes, if that logic (or putative logic) is informed by
> culture, as is usual.

You don't think that logic (or mathematics) has the same structure
regardless of the culture?

> And all thought is governed by language.

I disagree as it has been proven, in particular in other animal
species, that it is possible to have thoughts without language: "from
studies of the cognitive capacities of pre-linguistic human infants,
of the 'silent' right cerebral hemisphere in human adults, and of
animals, including birds, rodents, dogs, and primates, there emerges
an impressive body of material that sheds new light on the question.
Topics covered include the ability of young pre-linguistic infants to
perceived causation and to make inferences concerning the structure of
the perceived world, the reasoning ability of patients with severe
language problems caused by brain damage to the left hemisphere, the
skills that animals and infants show in combining separate items of
spatial knowledge into an integrated spatial map, the capacity of
chimpanzees to add unequal arithmetic fractions, the forming of
perceptual categories by infants and what might be a contrasting
approach by pigeons, evidence for a variety of types of cognition
without conscious awareness in human patients, and what may be
homologous processes in animals". (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/
Weiskranz_88.html)

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 18, 2012, 4:11:06 AM8/18/12
to
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 9, 8:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> > > don't you know how to conjugate "dogmatic"?
> >
> > > I hold reasonable opinions
> > > you are dogmatic
> > > they are self opiniated ignoramuses
> >
> > Like this conjugation too:
> >
> > I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist.
> > [Bernard Wooley]
>
> That should be "I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he
> is 'round the twist."
>
Bernard didn't pronounce the apostrophe. I know. I was there.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Walter Bushell

unread,
Aug 29, 2012, 10:32:56 AM8/29/12
to
In article <eb3l28pf6huj5j7mc...@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:25:07 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> >news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> >> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> >> >news:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> >> >> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 12 août, 18:41, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >On 12 août, 16:30, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT),
> >> >> > > >> marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >On 12 août, 15:34, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
> >> >> > > >term has been overused to the point of cliché". Then they judged
For example the subways of Paris are laid out with French logic, every
neighborhood served equally, but the NYC subways set up to serve
commuters which is the most desired (in terms of what people are
willing to pay for) function of a transit system. The French consider
this most illogical.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Aug 29, 2012, 7:04:29 PM8/29/12
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <eb3l28pf6huj5j7mc...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:25:07 -0700, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> > <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> > >news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> > >> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
...
> > >> Neither the French nor the English are a "race". Cultural
> > >> bigotry, perhaps.
> > >> --
> > >Perhaps not. Claiming one perceived group thinks differently than
> > >another in itself is not bigotry. Race is not well defined, and racism
> > >does not require bigotry.
> >
> > Race may not be well-defined (and as I understand it,
> > biologically it doesn't even exist among humans), but no
> > definition of race I've read anywhere would separate the
> > French from the English, leaving the posted comment a matter
> > of nothing more than observation - different cultures *do*
> > think differently. And "racism" is asserted far too
> > frequently when the actual term should be "culturism"; an
> > example is Anglos vs. Hispanics, both of which are the same
> > putative "race" - Caucasian.

Actually, in the nineteenth century, "race" applied to cultural groups
as equally as it applied to biological variations. Darwin, for example,
referred to the "civilised races" and the "Turkish races". The French
were often referred to as a race, as were the English, and less often
the British. Certainly the English called the Irish a race.

This discussion is complicated by the fact that after around 1920 or so
in US and US-influenced discussions, "race" became entirely a biological
thing. As a contrast, look at how race is used in, say, Brazil. It is
entirely a cultural marker there, and skin colour is not a reliable
indicator of one's racial classification. I suspect that the evolution
of genetics influenced how we started to talk about race, and that we
exported modern essentialisms back into the past.
>
> For example the subways of Paris are laid out with French logic, every
> neighborhood served equally, but the NYC subways set up to serve
> commuters which is the most desired (in terms of what people are
> willing to pay for) function of a transit system. The French consider
> this most illogical.


--

Burkhard

unread,
Aug 29, 2012, 7:17:08 PM8/29/12
to
Big debate in the UK if English-Scottish violence falls under the race
relation act, and can get more severe sentencing for racially aggravated
assault e.g. violence. I think the issue is still unsettled, with cases
going either way

<snip>

Walter Bushell

unread,
Aug 31, 2012, 2:34:45 PM8/31/12
to
In article <1koopg6.t6v...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> In the good old times of navigating by chronometer
> sea captains -never- adjusted their chronometers.
> They just noted the readings, and calculated with those,

Not even when they were in a known location and hence could adjust
accurately?

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 2, 2012, 8:17:14 AM9/2/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:32 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <eb3l28pf6huj5j7mc...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:25:07 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>>> news:n9hi28pu05ccvp9be...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:02:43 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
>>>> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1koqd71.3o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12 ao�t, 18:41, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12 ao�t, 16:30, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>>>>> marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 ao�t, 15:34, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>> term has been overused to the point of clich�". Then they judged
That's not how the NYC subways got laid out at all.

You need to learn more about the history of the NYC transit system.

The entire IND subway line system was a blatant political move by the
City to drive the privately owned IRT and BMT lines out of business.
The newer IND tracks were laid only a few blocks from the IRT and BMT
tracks, to draw business away from them, while entire neighborhoods
remained unserved by any lines. (Check a map of the IND lines in the
Bronx and Brooklyn.) The lower platform of the IND Times Square station
was never used for much, except to act as a barrier to prevent the IRT
from extending their Flushing line westward any further.

After the IRT and BMT went out of business, the City took them over,
which was their goal all along.

--
Steven L.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 7:13:33 AM9/3/12
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <1koopg6.t6v...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > In the good old times of navigating by chronometer
> > sea captains -never- adjusted their chronometers.
> > They just noted the readings, and calculated with those,
>
> Not even when they were in a known location and hence could adjust
> accurately?

No. (if he knew what he was doing)
Best practice is to tamper with it as little as possible.
So wind it according to presciption,
at the prescribed time, and that's all.
When in sight of Greenwich
simply note the chronometer time
at the drop of the ball.

All chronometers have a drift,
so it will get out of synch again anyway.[1]
You are calculating a lot to find the position,
so one more addition really doesn't matter.

Jan

[1] And you will have to keep track of the drift,
to see if it has long term changes.
This becomes more difficult
with a lot of adjustments in between.

0 new messages