[Ian] > Your problem Platt is in seeing (actively choosing not to see) any > distinction between > > Being "part of an explanation". > And being "the explanation". > Reductionism at its greediest and most despicable.
Your problem is in not showing How to divorce a necessary part of an explanation >From the explanation. A distinction without a difference at its most sophistic and shameful. > Explicit and fully acknowledged in my mail (and by all the actual > neo-Darwinian scientist / writers) and ignored by the ignorant > (naturally). The recommendation was to read the blogs of others, not > mine. I know you already hang on my every word ;-) why would I need to > send you there ? How can I read the blogs of others you recommend on your blog without reading your blog? Oh well . . . Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
