In article <8812qr$nr1$1 at news.panix.com>,
iayork at panix.com (Ian A. York) wrote:
> Kuhn was wrong.
>> His views made a big splash, but his predictions turned out to be
> wrong. When you actually look at the structure of scientific
revolutions,
> they don't always--or even often--follow Kuhn's predictions. If
you're
> going to quote philosophers of science, you might want to quote some
whose
> ideas aren't obselete.
>>> I've talked to a few people about the danger theory. This sort of
thing
> invariably comes up. It turns out that the "danger" signals they
cite are
> in fact the products of the day-to-day stresses of living, things that
> happen every day, every minute, and that we don't notice. A rat given
> warfarin will (if it's not resistant) bleed out, because of the tiny
> micro-damage to capillaries that happens all the time. Is that
> danger? Sure, if you think that DNA per se is a danger sign. Is it
> abnormal? No. It's "normal damage".
>> A signal that's there all the time is not a signal, it's background.
Be
> very careful about what you're defining as "danger"
>> Finally, you have misinterpreted the experiments. The DNA per se was
> *not* acting as a danger signal; unless, that is, you feel that DNA
inside
> a cell is a somehow abnormal, because the DNA iteself dd not trigger
an
> immune response.
>>> Tsk. Either you believe Kuhn, in which case the fact that history is
> against me makes me as likely to be right as wrong, or you don't
believe
> Kuhn, and you're playing silly little word games to try to strengthen
> your theory.
>> The immune system can't be encapsulated into 25 words, or 100 words.
It's
> a product of evolution that does the things it does without
consulting a
> little instruction slip. There *is* no fundamental principle to the
> immune system, other than "helping the host reproduce".
>>> If you want to play word games, go somewhere else. If you want to
discuss
> biology, go understand evolution, and then we'll talk.
>> But I wouldn't be idiot enough to demand you encapsulate evolution in
100
> words or less.
Ian
Ouch! That's shot me up good and proper. Lots of authoritative-
dismissive bullets there. I guess I shan't make you doubt your
perceptions.
As for "Kuhn was wrong" - I'll buy that if nothing changes in 10 years.
Jamie
--
Waterside Health Centre, SO45 5WX, UK
Home pages
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~greenprac/jamie/jamie%20main.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
