No, Mark, as usual you set a whole new dimension. On 3/18/06, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Phlogiston was an element that helped scientists explain why things > burnt.. It worked for a while (the model could explain the observed > phenomona) until the observation was made that when weighing the > chemical products of burning found that things didn't add up. Its a > good example of selection at a non biological level. > > Chairs, tables, technical blueprints, whatever, all must survive the > tests of time in some way shape form. What you are claiming is that > political activties are more at play than ecological presures (yes > like market forces). This reminds me of Feyerband's scientific > relativism, you can say that galileo's ideas were adopted by their > truth content (or that they provided a reasonable model in which to > explain observation) or that he was good at selling telescopes to sea > merchants in his day and/or he published his works in italian and not > latin. If this is the position, then i'd have to disagree. No matter > how many paradigm shifts scientific modeling undergoes, its truth > content can be justified in terms of the things you can do with it > (fly, build bridges, make software). > > I dont see the irrelevance of the principle that darwin decides.. The > models you're vaguely half quoting survive or not, based their > applications. Newtonian mechanics might be mistaken in a fundamental > sense but its still useful. Merely saying its "fundamentally wrong" is > just sloppy, vague and fails to say anything. Yes there are those that > argue against certain interpretations of darwin, but very few agrue > against natural selection. > > Software, approaches to software, dvd formats, chairs, scientific > models, must all survive ecological pressures of some kind. This is > like like stating "there will or wont be a ship battle tommorrow", or > p == true || p == false. > > I think the thread had deviated from anything vaguely useful from a > genuine struts question long before i started waffling. But i dont > think its entirely irrelevant.. > > Mark > > > On 3/18/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You commit one of the largest howlers on the history of this list and > you > > just avoid it by saying this? You cannot even admit saying that > committers > > are not elected officials was a gaff of huge proportions? What we say > > around here to people like this is "Man up!" > > > > <cough> > > On 3/17/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think the flaw in my analogy is that nobody will starve if they > choose > > > not to eat at the Struts shelter :-) > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > </cough> > > > > > > > > -- > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > back." > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
