Well Carrol the nature of a listsrv precludes posting extensive essays
- we must simplify somewhat or go onto the book publishing business.
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't just believe it, I know its correctness. But this post said
> nothing about it whatever.
> Human history, like biological evolution, has a huge element of
> contingency. Hence, as Gould says of evolution, if the tape of history
> were to be played over again, the results would almost certainly be
> Or were you referring to nature/nurture. The point there is that every
> gene is exprssed in an environment, and every organism creates as well
> as reacts to its environment. Hence no gene efer has the same effect
> twice. For example, a gene dtermines your fingerprints. The same gene
> dtermines your left and ritht prints, but left and right prints are
> never the same. Why? Well, when a cell divids in the womb, the two
> resulting cells then divide, BUT NEVER AT THE SAME TIME. Even during
> fraction of a second between divisions the environment in the womb
> changes (temperature, etc), with the result that gene is expressed
> somewhat differently on the left and on the right. This is why, for
> example, identical twins are never actually, identical.
> But what did trigger this question. I'm not objecting to sciencne, and
> I'm not necessarily objecting to any one particular philosophical
> positon. I'm objecting to oversimplfied history and oversimplfied
> expression of particular theories and thus of oversimplified and/or
> plain wrong expression of those theories.
> Diana Manister wrote:
>> Carrol, are you saying you don't believe in human evolution?
>> Sent from my iPod
>> On Jan 16, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Tom Colket wrote:
>>>> Diana wrote:
>>>> Most achievements would have emerged in time -- even without
>>>> we would not still think the sun revolved around the earth.
>>>> Individuals as I say are overrated.
>>>> I couldn't disagree with this more.
>>>> The importance of the individual is probably most obvious in the
>>>> No "Ninth Symphony" without Beethoven. No "Prufrock" and "The Waste
>>>> Land" (and this list) without Eliot.
>>> This is sort of weird. The 'reason' hheliocentrism would have
>>> emerged in
>>> time is that a Galileo woudl have emerged in time, so the question
>>> needs to be asked is what causes a Galileo to emerge.
>>> And while there would not be a Waste Land without Eliot, Eliot
>>> have written that poem had there not been a World War and had he not
>>> an unhappy marraige.
>>> You are debating a non-question, like the debate over nurture and