So, I need some mnemonics. I'll try and perhaps you (or anyone) can criticize
my attempt.
0. Registration
1. Articulation
2. Dissolution
3. Dissembling
4. Assemblogia (?) Taxonomy of assemblages
5. Amplification (Contrast Inflation, Difference Expansion)
6. Layered Pruning
7. Lexicon for [Ac|De]
Excellent, in my opinion.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:49 AM David Eric Smith wrote:
> Yeah.
>
> Apart from questions about what mechanisms exist and how they work, which
> I understand and are the normal busine
ecember 13, 2021 7:32 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
Nick, the study I have seen did not involve human intervention with moth eggs.
Because the industrial revolution in England was contaminating the moth
environment with soot, including the tree bark upon which
o white if stimulation of the eggs was continued. How that
>>> > literature panned out, I don't know.
>>> >
>>> > N
>>> >
>>> > Nick Thompson
>>> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>> > https://wordpress.cla
t know.
>> >
>> > N
>> >
>> > Nick Thompson
>> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
>> > Sent:
wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
> > To: friam@redfish.com
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
> >
> > The creationists
ow.
>
> N
>
> Nick Thompson
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on D
o: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
The creationists have been peddling this rhetoric for a very long time. It's
important to read Popper's recant and clarification. From Popper's 1978 paper
"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind":
&quo
age-
From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:25 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
Thank you glen. This clarifies a lot and addresses Steve's question as well.
i included creationists with a great deal of trepidation
Right. Sorry if I painted you with that brush. I thought about adding an
addendum of my own opinion, but thought it important to clarify Popper without
muddying it with my own thoughts.
Now, I feel free to stir up the silt. *Some* concept (not nec. Popper's) of a
metaphysical program should wor
Thank you glen. This clarifies a lot and addresses Steve's question as well.
i included creationists with a great deal of trepidation, because i assumed it
would prompt immediate rejection of the entire question.
I do think there is some validity in considering the framework / testable
scienti
The creationists have been peddling this rhetoric for a very long time. It's
important to read Popper's recant and clarification. From Popper's 1978 paper
"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind":
"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution,
his theory of
“*Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.*”
Karl Popper.
I like this distinction but immediately wonder if it might provide some
analytical / research means that could be app
13 matches
Mail list logo
