"John Edser"  wrote 

> > JE:-
> > Using McGinn's "epistemology" NS can _never_ constitute 
> > a testable theory of nature. 

> JMcG:-
> John, your thinking comprises numerous overarching analogies 
> and bad metaphors.  You use language badly and it causes you 
> to think your thinking is logical when in actuality it is 
> mostly nonsense..

> JE;-
> This dispute is very simple. JMcG's view of 
> infinite levels of selection where "NS has 
> no focus" yet, every level can be selected 
> "simultaneously" is obviously a contemptible
> self contradictory concept that has no hope of 
> ever achieving a testable status.

Testability is not a status.  Like I stated above, you use 
language badly and it gives you the illusion that what you 
are saying makes sense.  You don't even know how to express 
yourself accurately.  What you really mean is that single 
unit of selection is more concise.  In other words, if we 
ASSUME a unit of selection then measurement is easier.  
Nobody disputes this, you idiot.  The issue, you idiot, is 
whether or not natural selection ACTUALLY operates on one 
and only one particular level.  I agree that measuring NS 
is more concise when we employ one unit of selection.  But 
conciseness is only important when measuring evolution is 
the end one wants to achieve.  But even then there is no 
absolute basis for why one might employ one level rather 
than another toward any particular empirical end.

Theoretical accuracy and empirical conciseness are different 
concepts.  These concepts should NOT be used interchangeably.  
If you had a better grasp of the english language this would 
be obvious to you.

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 2/18/04 12:37:18 PM