James wrote in message <36059CCE.A6CCBC8E at nospam.com>...
>>All your points are well taken. I had thought of some of them
>myself, but not all of them. I think the big problem is that
>there is no way to place good odds on anything we are
>discussing. Without being able to assign numbers to anything I
>can't say (or refute) that it would or wouldn't have happened
>with 600,000 people. I can't even be certain at 5 billion...
>It just seems like an awful lot of people to me.
There are two mutually exclusive definitions of science -- explaining the
unknown in terms of the known, and explaining empirical evidence in terms of
imagined structures -- but this giggly thing, assigning numbers to something
not defined, does not come under the aegis of either.