A more biologically ignorant statement it is hard to conceive. Reduce the population of cod by half without changing any of its capacity determining variables, and you double the external resources per remaining cod. Their growth rate will therefore increase, compared to what it would have been. There are automatic restoring forces in biological niches. Equilibrium populations are set by balancing rates and approach from either direction on "S" curves. The forces acting temporarily on the population number and those acting on its equilibrium level are distinct. You might as readily say that power terms don't set equilibrium temperatures.
The salt example is a fallacy of composition, whereas you commit the fallacy of division. The reason neither work is the same - composition, classes, or wholes are not their members, but are distinct from them, and may introduce or change any attribute by their relation. The set of integers is not an integer, the attributes of infantry divisions are not the attributes of privates, etc. You are one of the only people in the world who does not know this, you are hopelessly wrong about it, and you have been given ample instruction to correct the mistake.
The rest is the weakness of pride.
The survival of the collective is still a sum of the survival of the individual cod. It is the survival probability of the individual cod that has changed.
And answer question 2, or explain why, in a set of three women, two women being whores does not permit one to say that "these women are whores", whereas, in a set of birds of three kinds, birds of two kinds being like rats permits one to say that "these birds are like rats".
The set of integers is not an integer, the attributes of infantry divisions are not the attributes of privates, etc. You are one of the only people in the world who does not know this, you are hopelessly wrong about it, and you have been given ample instruction to correct the mistake.
"Birds" is not "the set of birds". It's "birds". Coulter did not say "the set of birds", she said "birds", which is the plural of "bird", not the class Aves, not a species of birds or several species of birds. Capisci? The rest is the weakness of pride.
I can't imagine what you're proud of. Dogged persistence in pursuing a lost cause, perhaps?
And answer question 2, or explain why, in a set of three women, two women being whores does not permit one to say that "these women are whores", whereas, in a set of birds of three kinds, birds of two kinds being like rats permits one to say that "these birds are like rats".
The set of integers is not an integer, the attributes of infantry divisions are not the attributes of privates, etc. You are one of the only people in the world who does not know this, you are hopelessly wrong about it, and you have been given ample instruction to correct the mistake.
"Birds" is not "the set of birds". It's "birds". Coulter did not say "the set of birds", she said "birds", which is the plural of "bird", not the class Aves, not a species of birds or several species of birds. Capisci? The rest is the weakness of pride.
I can't imagine what you're proud of. Dogged persistence in pursuing a lost cause, perhaps?