<!-- received="Mon Nov 1 21:45:27 1995 EST" -->
<!-- sent="1 Nov 1995 21:45:27 -0500" -->
<!-- name="H. M. Hubey" -->
<!-- email="hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu" -->
<!-- subject="Re: Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears" -->
<!-- id="g(h<dg0" -->
<!-- inreplyto="Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears" -->
<title>sci.anthropology.paleo: Nov-95: Re: Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears</title>
<h1>Re: Tears and 'salt excretion'. Was Re: tears</h1>
H. M. Hubey (<i>hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu</i>)<br>
<i>1 Nov 1995 21:45:27 -0500</i>
<p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a href="date.html#123">[ date ]</a><a href="index.html#123">[ thread ]</a><a href="subject.html#123">[ subject ]</a><a href="author.html#123">[ author ]</a>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0124.html">Phillip Bigelow: "Re: Guide for anti-AATers"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0122.html">H. M. Hubey: "Re: Morgan Tears 3."</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
</ul>
<!-- body="start" -->
clarke@longwood.cs.ucf.edu (Tom Clarke) writes:<br>
<p>
<i>>I was staying out of the debates between Hubey and y'all since I find</i><br>
<i>>that Hubey generally hasn't quite mastered the science game yet :-)</i><br>
<i>>Then you had to go take my name in vain.</i><br>
<p>
I'm glad you decided to intervene :-)..<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>Actually as I contemplate the sentences above I'm not sure of your point.</i><br>
<p>
I think I understand what the problem is. <br>
<p>
I'll try to clarify it, for Mr. Burrett(sp?)<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>You, of course fixed on his careless use of the forbidden word "direction",</i><br>
<i>>which I think was a slip due to inexperience in the science wars :-)</i><br>
<p>
This knee-jerk reaction to the D-word is a residue of fighting<br>
off the creationists. In truth it's there because of the difficulty<br>
of convincing the creationists. So they have to fight tooth and<br>
nail every time they see the trigger words.<br>
<p>
The simple fact is that direction means lots of things to lots<br>
of people (and I know that you know that). <br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>Even Dawkins with his "selfish gene" ideas would not eschew explanation</i><br>
<i>>of how phenotypic characteristics evolved. He of course would emphasize,</i><br>
<i>>that any such explanation would have to reduce to the advantage of </i><br>
<i>>the underlying selfish gene. The most common basis of such explanation is</i><br>
<i>>of course reproductive success of the individual housing the genes.</i><br>
<p>
First off, even the simplest (not too simple really) math models of<br>
population genetics have direction built right into them. There's<br>
evolution in N-space. The phase point moves. Bingo.<br>
<p>
It's even worse than that. The standard diffusion type equations<br>
for the gene ratio already imply direction. I think the authors<br>
deliberately ignore the fact that these equations can be derived<br>
from deterministic DE's (with the addition of noise) via the<br>
Fokker-Planck-Kolmogorov method. For if they did that then they'd<br>
have to admit that there's a deterministic component to the <br>
equations of evolution, and they hope that nobody will see them,<br>
at least until the creationists are tamed. The simple fact is that<br>
determinism is also a dirty word because of the IQ wars ,and<br>
yes, again, the Bell Curve. The problem is in the miscomprehension<br>
of the word "determinism" as well as "direction". The words have<br>
taken on meanings which they should not have, if one stuck<br>
only to mathematical models and their meanings within the<br>
context of these models.<br>
<p>
And again:<br>
The direction of time as entropy has been beaten to death already.<br>
That living organisms (open systems) are sources of negative<br>
entropy is already known and has been known for a long time. That<br>
complexity increases over time (of living things) is also without<br>
controversy. I don't understand what the problem is.<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>Sigh. Don't you have any sense of irony? I think Hubey knows that such</i><br>
<i>>explanations exist. He was pointing out that evading explanation in</i><br>
<i>>other sciences is obviously silly.</i><br>
<p>
Thank you. I guess what he wants to do is to claim that mammalian<br>
body temperature is something like a physical/mathematical constant <br>
say like Pi or Planck's constant.<br>
<p>
There's no need to explain it. It's just there.<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>Surely paleoanthropology has advanced beyond the butterfly collecting stage.</i><br>
<p>
I used to think so :-)...<br>
<p>
I see stages in everything :-)..<br>
<p>
1) Observation stage -- random comments<br>
2) Classification stage - right or wrong<br>
3) Measurement stage<br>
4) Mathematical modeling stage<br>
<p>
It's iterative, of course. Physics graduated beyond the<br>
fire, earth, air, water stage long time ago. <br>
<p>
<pre>
-- <br>
<p>
<p>
Regards, Mark<br>
<a href="http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey">http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey</a><br>
</pre>
<!-- body="end" -->
<p>
<ul>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0124.html">Phillip Bigelow: "Re: Guide for anti-AATers"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0122.html">H. M. Hubey: "Re: Morgan Tears 3."</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
</ul>
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/">Book Reviews</A>
(<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/palaeoanthropology.html">paleoanthropology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/anthropology.html">anthropology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/archaeology.html">archaeology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/ethnography.html">ethnography</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/ethnographic_fiction.html">ethnographic fiction</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/evolution.html">evolution</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/human_biology.html">human biology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/sex.html">sex</A>).