This book first came out in 1971
Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
BTW: your "explanation" does not address the topic at hand. I do understand why you are trying to change the subject - but I will not let you (mainly because of your constant insults). This is the statement you need to defend:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
I can understand why you are avoiding this - random and directed are opposites.
I really don't think you understand what you are talking about and you surely have serious problems with understanding the meaning of words.
You are trying to imply natural selection is not random but you wrongheadedly used the term directed which implies working toward a goal (meaning you are saying non-radomness is directed rather than observed in the past tense). What you have done is claim the non-randomness is the result of direction - if this is true, you have just falsified a core principle of evolution.
no, he's resting....no wait, he's probably pining for the fjords
I don't live in a binary world (right/wrong, black/white, beleive/disblieve).
Jung had some "interesting" ideas but every idea he had was not nutty and there is supporting evidence for the concept of "collective unconscious" (which is far from the only concept Jung put forth). I find Jung compelling but I can't tell you if he is right or wrong (black or white, on or off) and neither can you.
The quest for knowledge includes the taking in of information - if you pass judgment on the information at the point of input you are acting on your inner desire for order not knowledge. You can chose not to accept Jung's ideas but you can not falsify the ideas so understand you are speaking in the realm of opinion (which is fine).
This book first came out in 1971
How very, em, liberal of you. :-)
I do believe in right and wrong, and I'm sure that's different from disbelieving in them.
I find Jung compelling but I can't tell you if he is right or wrong (black or white, on or off) and neither can you.
Sure I can. He's wrong.
You're a bit unusual on this web site, aren't you? We conservatives are supposed to be binary thinkers.
You can chose not to accept Jung's ideas but you can not falsify the ideas so understand you are speaking in the realm of opinion (which is fine).
I'm not a Popperian by any means, but I do think the very fact that his ideas can't be falsified makes them invalid on their face.
Ok, that hurt.
I do believe in right and wrong, and I'm sure that's different from disbelieving in them.
I also believe in right and wrong but in my life's experience I have found few things fall neatly into the two categories of "right" and "wrong".
Sure I can. He's wrong.
Can you prove this or do you always state your opinion as if it were well supported fact?
You're a bit unusual on this web site, aren't you? We conservatives are supposed to be binary thinkers
I think the only continuous goal I have had in my life it to try and remain different (I grow up the 60's/70's when that was very important). Hey I come from a family of Democrats - Most of my life I have hung with liberal types (musicians and artists) - I am politically conservative but unlike the stereotype most of the other aspects of my life are not conservative. I am artistically liberal, socially semi-liberal, intellectually liberal, but I am politically conservative.
I'm not a Popperian by any means, but I do think the very fact that his ideas can't be falsified makes them invalid on their face.
That's because you are ridged binary thinker. That's ok, there seems to be plenty of room in this world for all kinds of different thinkers...(how liberal of me)
Then there are an AWFUL lot of folks who do not know that, for just about any change, in any thing: living, inert, or an idea, is said to 'evolve'.
Nope, just trying to see which group will be out voted someday.....
After all, them 3rd worlders are WAY out birthing us "learned" folks....
We've not brought Lyndon LaRouche into the equation yet.........
Well...........
It MUST be true, for what ELSE can explain the thought processes of Liberals and most Democrats???
Does that mean, by the same reasoning, that we "C" types must accept evolutionary theory?
It is possible for words to have meanings in different contexts. Take the word "law" for example. Same word, somewhat different meaning depending on whether the subject is science or politics. Playing word games when the subject is biological evolution does not bring glory to your argument.
Yep. Pretty sharp of you to recognize the inevitability of it all :-)
Major head trauma?
I'm back and you flunk. I'm saying that nature is not directed and is not random. Nature is biased because chemistry and physics are lawful. Nature is in theory if not always in practice (see Chaos Theory) tractable to analysis. I fully expected you to continue to bludgeon with your ability to misunderstand. You did not disappoint, of course. The question is whether you have any other tricks.
The topic is not whatever you want it to be. The "random" or "directed" dichotomy is fraudulent and will be challenged every time.
You keep spewing insults and I will keep nailing your butt to the wall.
You try what you want. I explained it more than once now and you're still playing dumb. Variation may (or may not) be random. However, only an idiot Luddite would try to use a dictionary to claim that natural selection must be either random or God's Hammer.
I thought it was angels rearranging DNA. Hammers sound so... violent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.