Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
JDay123 at BellSouth.net
Wed Oct 16 10:22:45 EST 2002
cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <3da610ab.35954736 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net> JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) writes:
><Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote:
><>>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
><>>The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
><>>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
><>>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
><>There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
><>science because by definition religion deals with things that are
><>supernatural and not natural.
><But you can argue religion before the law just as you can argue race
><before the law.
><>Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
><>supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
><>if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
><>be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
><I want you to believe that science is insufficient when it comes to
><addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
><can and does address those issues.
><>>Thereforescience is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
><>>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
>Law deals with issues people reagard as real. If people believe
>in hexes and space aliens and homeopathy and the Evil Eye, then
>there will be laws which touch on hexes and space aliens and homeopathy
>and the Evil Eye.
>The fact that different countries, cultures and laws define
>races differently is sufficent for regarding legal definitions
>of race as questionable, at best.
Of course you would conclude that law is questionable.
More information about the Neur-sci