jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message 
news:...
> William Morse  wrote 
> 
> > > > JMcG:-
> > > > It's silly to suggest that "chance" can be causal.  
> > > > For example, you can employ statistics to better 
> > > > predict when a baseball player will hit a home run.  
> > > > But does chance hit the ball over the fence?  
> > > > No, the baseball player does.
> > > 
> > > JF:-
> > > In which case, what does he say about Brownian motion 
> > > or Mendelian segregation?  Thermal noise?
> > > 
> > > JE:-
> > > None of the above are being supposed to
> > > be _entirely_ i.e. alone, causative to a
> > > proposed, testable, scientific process 
> > > such as evolution.
> > 
> > Brownian motion is not a testable scientific process? 
> 
> First of all it's not a process, it's a phenomena. 
> 
> [moderator's argh: ARGH! It is most definitely NOT a
> "phenomena"; it is, if one accepts your argument, a
> phenomenon. - JAH]

Yikes, once again.  (I don't think I'm completely at 
blame here.  To some degree the fault lies with those darn 
greeks who didn't realize that the proper way to pluralize 
a word is to put an "s" at the end of it. :)  There's also 
another one down lower that you missed [and I changed].)

> The causation that is produced by "brownian motion," is too 
> small to be measured to a degree of certainty that us 
> humans are comfortable with.  Some people interpret this... 
> 
> 
> [moderator's note: This seems to me to be absurd; Brown
> himself dropped flecks of cork into water and observed
> the cork being buffeted about by an unknown force; are we
> then to define the cork's movement as "without causation"

Where did I supposedly state that this was, "without 
caustion."?  (And why the quote marks?  Who were you quoting?)

You said Brown saw the cork being buffetted by an "unknown 
force."  This is plainly fallacious.  The force involves 
kinetic energy. I don't see how we can say that this wasn't 
obvious to Brown.  The only thing that is distinctive about 
the "force" is that it is so small as to be immeasurable.  
If you, or Brown for that matter, are suggesting that forces 
that are small are categorically (qualitatively) distinct 
from the same forces that are larger (and therefore more 
measurable) I'd say you and Brown are a purveyors of nonsense.

> simply because that movement is a result of random statistical
> mechanics? - JAH]

Think about what you are saying here, Josh.  All you are doing 
is reasserting the Gambler's Fallacy: the phrase "random 
statistical mechanics" is nothing more than a more long-winded 
way of fallaciously asserting chance as a form of causation.  
(Baseball players hit balls over the fence, not statistics.  
Chance and statistics are concepts and not entities, therefore 
they can't be causal.)

> ...in a manner that I consider to be a quasi-spiritualistic:
> that this inability to measure somehow demonstrates 
> the existence of randomness (stochasticity) as a force of 
> nature, like gravity or electromagnetism.  I choose not to 
> interpret "brownian motion," as a force of nature.  As I 
> see it the unpredictablity of "brownian motion" is a very 
> predictable consequence of the fact that the phenomena is 
> too small to measure, as indicated by the Heisenberg 
> Uncertainty Principle (HUP).  
> 
> In accordance with HUP, the supposition that this phenomena 
> represents a force of nature, as Joe contends, or that it 
> is nothing more than an inescapable consequence of the 
> limits of measurement, as I contend, can never be proven 
> one way or another.  I think this is what John is saying.
> 
> > Mendelian segregation (probably the best argument against 
> > "gene centrism") is not random?
> 
> It depends what you mean by random.  If you consider 
> randomness a force of nature, similar to gravity or 
> electromagnetism, then IMO the answer is no.  Mendelian 
> segregation is not random (IMO nothing is).  However if 
> you consider mendelian segregation to be a predictable 
> consequence of the very real limits in our ability to 
> measure biological phenomena then the answer IMO is yes.  

You should note that when Joe asserts that Mendelian 
selection is not random he is very careful to avoid being 
explicit about which of a number of different interpretations 
of "random" he intends.  This way he's better able to preserve 
the illusion that what he's saying isn't perfect nonsense.

> 
> > All us engineers can safely start ignoring thermal noise 
> > in our designs because  it's not causative? 
> 
> Thermal noise is a phenomena.  The entities it refers to 
> are causative.  So as an engineer you would be derelict 
> of duty if you ignored this phenomena in your designs.  
> Chance, unlike thermal noise, is not a phenomena.  Chance 
> is a consequence of our inablity to measure aspects of 
> reality to 100% certainty.  Chance is not causative.   
> Chance is a concept.  Concepts are not causative.  Only 
> entities are causative.  
> 
> > And we could include entropy in Dr. Felsenstein's list, 
> > since that is also (well according to Boltzmann, but 
> > what did he know?) due to chance. 
> 
> It depends how one interprets the phrase, "due to chance."  
> Since I consider chance to be a concept and not a force of 
> nature the supposition that anything can be, "due to 
> chance," is a nonsense statement.  Again, "chance" IMO 
> doesn't hit home runs.  Baseball players do.  
> 
> > Now I suppose you will tell us that entropy is not a 
> > testable scientific process?
> 
> Entropy is testable.  But the supposition that it is, 
> "due to chance," is untestable unless one first specifies 
> whether they consider chance to be a force of nature or a 
> consequence of our inability to measure reality to 100% 
> certainty.  
> 
> What it really comes down to is that people believe what 
> they want to believe.

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 6/20/03 8:39:52 PM