On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:34:46 +0000 (UTC), J
im Menegay  wrote:

[snip]

> My immediate reaction was that Moran was obviously right and Edser
> was obviously wrong.  So I started out to write a note saying this.
> Have you ever had one of those experiences where you set out to prove
> something, but then you think of a potential counter-argument you have
> to crush, and that leads to more imagined counter-arguments, so that
> eventually you end up believing what you set out to disprove?  Well,
> that didn't exactly happen here.  Instead, I reject both thesis and
> antithesis.  Hegel fans should know what is coming next.  It all depends
> on your definition of "definition"...
> 
> There are three entities to consider:
> 1. The loose definition of the phenomenon.
> 2. The precise definition of the phenomenon.
> 3. The causal explanation of the phenomenon.
> 
> Entity #1 - the loose definition - makes no reference to causality.
> On the assumption that we expect to have competing theories, it 
> CAN'T refer to causality - it is the stadium within which the theories
> compete - it can't be biased.
> 
> Entity #2 and Entity #3 - the precise definition of the phenomenon and
> the causal explanation, together constitute the THEORY.  Why do you
> need theory before you can produce a precise definition?  Because the
> precise definition has to make reference to observations, and observations
> are "theory laden".  Also, because the kinds of observations that are
> required will depend on the causal structure.
>
> So Larry is right that the loose definition of the phenomenon is 
> independent of (and logically prior to) the theory.  But John is right 
> that the precise definition of the phenomenon is a creature of the theory.

Please give me a precise definition of evolution that works and is a 
"creature of theory." Please explain why your "precise"
definitions isn't 
mentioned in the textbooks on evolutionary biology. I'm sure you must have 
such a "precise" definition in mind because if you don't your posting 
doesn't make sense. It would be a great help to me if someone could come 
up with an example definition instead of making vague accusations against 
the standard one. (I'm expecting a comparision between your precise
definition of evolution and the "loose" one that evolutionary biologists
use. Which one is better, in your opinion, and why?)

> I encourage doubters to produce a list of phenomena and check this
> conceptual framework against their list.  My list included the origin
> of life, the origin of the moon, human monogamy, photosynthesis, and 
> others.  In each case, I notice that the competing theories (that I am
> aware of) agree on a loose definition of the phenomenon, but introduce
> more or less subtle differences in their precise definitions.  Particularly
> interesting to Einstein fans is one of Larry's examples - gravity.

I don't understand these sentences. Could you elaborate? Are you referring
to *definitions* of "the origin of life" etc. I would *define*
"the origin
of life" as "the point in time when the first life began."
Do you have 
something else in mind?

What about "gravity"? The word is normally *defined* as something like 
"the attractive force between massive bodies that is proportional to the 
product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their 
separation." This doesn't look to me like a definition that's a creature
of theory. What did you mean?



Larry Moran
---
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 2/1/04 2:59:32 PM