"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

> I pointed out that the "chaos" of "chaotic causation" is
> based on "lack of knowledge",

Stick with the definition I provided.  (Enough with this 
silliness.  You lost the argument, move on.)

> fails to find realization using standard meanings of terms.

Since when does science limit itself to, "standard meanings 
of terms."  (BTW, the tendency to base one's argument on the 
irrefutability of standard meanings is little more than a 
creationist's tactic.)

> According to Richard Dawkins evolution should not be 
> conceived as fundamentally random. Yes, there's random 
> variation, but, as he puts it in the Blind Watchmaker, 
> natural selection is "quintessentially nonrandom."

Crystals are nonrandom (orderly, symmetrical over space).  
Biological phenomena is complex.  Complexity 
(purposefulness, algorithmic) it seems, lies between 
randomness and order.  So the supposition that, "natural 
selection is 'quintessentially nonrandom,'" is nonsense.

> Your statement that NS includes random processes "part 
> and parcel" seems to mean that randomness depends NS, 
> which serves as a parent concept.

I never said randomness depends on NS.

> NS is originally contingent upon randomness as a source.

I don't disagree with this statement (nor would Darwin).



> > (You are displaying the problem: an 
> > inability/unwillingness to differentiate between chance 
> > and randomness.  This is the epitome of the
> > gambler's fallacy.)
> 
> You didn't provide a definition or description that 
> contained the capability to make a distinction; they 
> both have "lack of knowledge".

I addressed this issue explicitly.  Read it again.

> > > So there is your usage
> > > of chaotic causation and equating it with randomness.
> > > And chance as "lack of knowledge" thus unpredictable.
> > >
> > > The standard usage is that chaos is not predictable
> > > due to lack of information (initial conditions and so on).
> > > So it seems to me this topic suffered from inaccuracy.
> >
> > Now you're making a semantic argument.  I could care less
> > what word we use just as long as we don't use the different
> > meanings (1 and 2 above) interchangeably so that we can
> > avoid being drawn in by the psychological pull of the
> > gambler's fallacy.
> >
>  
> From my viewpoint this discussion has been about you incorrectly
> understanding meanings of words (semantics) and manufacturing
> false meanings and attributions and assigning them to other words.

Semantics.  As I stated above, "I could care less what 
word we use just as long as we don't use the different 
meanings (1 and 2 above) interchangeably so that we can 
avoid being drawn in by the psychological pull of the 
gambler's fallacy.



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 7/7/03 12:00:09 PM