[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

R: a lot of fog?



From: Ken Kinman:

>      Instead of watching the Olympics last night, I was working on a list
of
> characters to help support my revised topology.  My hope was to actually
> clear away some of the homoplasic fog,

****you got a homoplasy-detector??
we accept parsimony-even if we're aware of its limits- as a principle on
wich base our hypothesis and then make considerations about _likelyhood_ of
homoplasy(in this case).
if you don't accept parsimony then you must be using some other
principle...guess i know what it is :-\


> but there is clearly no point in
> subjecting myself to more ridicule at this time.

***** we, in Italy ,would actually say:"chi è causa del suo male pianga se
stesso" ........summarizing it: you've been the cause of your own
problems...blame yourself;  having taken into consideration others'
comments(even when you thought they were actually "un-constructive") would
have avoided this,I guess.



> It may be a little late
> for Christmas analogies, but the "reindeer games" being played here are
> arbitrarily restricted to parsimony-based rules

****true; the reasons for this have been pointed out 2 thousand times....and
you probably  already knew them; despite this you've chosen to keep on
promoting your point of view, which is actually based on the
semi-acceptance(if at all) of a basilar principle, without which we would
barely be able to formulate a hypothesis and pretend it to be considered.
Don't you think it's too much to ask people to dismiss their
principles-which are based on rational evaluation of the real possibilities
of  objective  analyses( given the fact that paleontologists work with
fossilized bones and almost nothing else)?

> ,and any Rudolphs with
> "eclectic" red-noses are going to be marginalized.
> That's life.

***no, actually they're going to be told HOW and WHY their position have
"nothing" to add  to the cladistic one; THEN they're going to cause their
own marginalization because there's no actual possibility of discussion.....

your antithesis has nothing to add to the current thesis,therefore the
sinthesis will just be the old thesis....no improvement of knowledge



>     You know the story.  The oddball with the red-nose goes off and does
his
> own thing until he is finally needed.

****  undue victimism,I'm sorry we've reached this point...

> Ironically it's strict parsimony that
> is increasingly fogging up the landscape,

****would you ever find a more objectively appliable principle,I'm sure you
would tell us, wouldn't you?  until then you'd better face reality and your
own(as well as anybody else's) limits and  just rely on parsimony,
remembering us-at best- from time to time, how fallacious  it is and ,more
generally, how imperfect we, as human beings, are.

 >and when it really starts getting
> thick, maybe the peanut throwing and ridicule will finally end.

*****as above:  you've caused this reaction...had you listened to others
without ignoring them.....
Tones like those expressed  during the last weeks, in discussions about your
point had rarely, to my knowledge ,been expressed on the list before and
this is an indication of the level of saturation of the ability to discuss
with someone completely ignoring our point. Some have just stopped replying
to your posts; someone else, like me, has, since the beginning, been unable
to  discuss  your point without being polemic(not a thing to be proud of,
but that's my character) and others, who long tried to  tell you what was
wrong with your point with a much comprehensive tone, have  simply gone mad
(Mickey's last post being quite clear about this....).




>Until then
> I'm going to do more observing and less direct participation.  I need to
> rest more anyway.

***** the Ford-syndrome....oh well

>           ----- Cheers,
>                  a very tired Ken


Filippo