[Osx-nutters] Denial

[David Cake]

At 11:53 PM +0100 16/8/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Aug-16, at 22:36, mmalc crawford wrote:
>
>>  On Aug 16, 2007, at 10:09 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>
>>>	Again - scientific debate continues on details, actual
>>>  scientific consensus on big question unlikely to chance.
>>>
>>  Hasn't anyone mentioned evolution here yet?
>>  Maybe I did at some stage?
>>
>>  Unfortunately, Stefano is sounding very like one of the ID types who's
>>  trying to say the whole Darwinian theory is wrong because biologists
>>  are in disagreement about specific details, or because they revise
>>  part of the evolutionary tree, or because a particular "missing link"
>>  hasn't been found... I'm sure irreducible complexity will come along
>>  at some point...
>
>Well I'm sorry that you see it that way.
>
>I've repeated myself several times to bring focus to the problem of 
>making forecasts, but y'all don't seem to notice this little point.

	Or we do, but just don't see it the same way you do.
	It just comes out as you having a really peculiar 
understanding of science no matter how I parse it.
	My intuitive guess is that ultimately, your objections could 
be solidly numerically demolished with Bayesian stats, but that 
analysis is only necessary because you have constructed an odd 
special category of prediction that no one else really recognises as 
an issue.

>It's as if those Darwinian biologists came up with a forecast that in 
>a thousand years we will become dumb mutants and so we must start 
>instituting controlled breeding programmes to avert disaster, just
>because their models predict it.

>
>And you Malc are not allowed to breed as you've got the wrong genes, 
>and David meanwhile has the genes for breeding so we need him to take 
>20 Thai chicks.

	<quagmire "All right!"> *bobs head*

	Cheers
		David