"Peter F."  wrote 

> > As an unrepentant reductionists . . .



> You an unrepentant reductionist!?!
> 
> Seems not to be a correct self-characterization, 
> given your publicized philosophical opinion on (or 
> reasoning in terms of) different simultaneous rungs 
> of reproductive survivals (levels of selection).

Hey Peter,

Good question.  I am a reductionist.  As far as I'm 
concerned reductionism and science are two sides of 
the same coin.  I assume that biology is fully (100%) 
reducible to physical principles.  Moreover, IMO, 
anybody that does not assume this and that calls 
themselves a scientist is kidding themselves.  They 
are actually spiritualists (not that there's anything 
wrong with that, in and of itself).

Reductionism has everything to do with accuracy.  The 
realization that selection does not happen to or on a 
unit of selection is more accurate.  There is no 
conflict between my multi-unit approach and reductionism.  
In fact exactly the opposite is the case: there is, or 
is potential for, conflict between single unit of 
selection approach and reductionism.  And this is directly 
a result of the fact that it is less accurate (there is 
no getting around this).

I think you are making the classic mistake of confusing 
the conciseness of neoDarwistic single unit approach for 
scientific accuracy.  Be aware that a single unit 
approach is very inaccurate.  It only provides us the 
illusion of accuracy.  Since biological phenomena 
is complex, conciseness will *always* be at odds with 
accuracy.  The more concise our understanding of 
biological functionality the less accurate it will be.  
And higher degrees of accuracy can only come at the 
expense of conciseness.  Don't make the mistake of 
assuming that the conciseness of neoDarwinism indicates 
its accuracy or reducibilty.  Exactly the opposite is 
the case.

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/15/04 11:49:35 AM