= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
xamdam comments on Were atoms real? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (156)
Real-world example: The creationist science of baraminology takes assumption of kinds to its logical limits. Todd Charles Wood comes so close to admitting his baraminology work is excellent evidence for evolution. It's amazing how far people will take an obviously broken axiom without letting go of it.
Interesting. It's funny how the Bible really reinforces the idea of natural kinds -- a lot of the prohibitions can be interpreted, one way or another, as prohibitions against mixing things that are essentially different (wool and flax, men and women, fish and mammals.) It would make sense if essentialism was the way we "naturally" think, and it takes some scientific development to tease out where it doesn't make sense.
Though I'm just amazed at their trouble with grammar, first of all. Grrrr.
-- your local ex-rabbinical student :)
-men and women: men aren't supposed to dress like women and vice versa.
-fish and mammals: takes some unpacking and was probably the wrong way to phrase it. The fish you can eat should have scales and fins -- that sort of points to "good" fish being especially "fishy" fish. Fish that are kind of not like fish are not okay.
agreed, support your theory
yes, probably wrong way to phrase it, but I agree about the essentialism of "fish with scales" being "fishy fish" - that's a very sharp observation, actually.