#56 — Anyway, I’m curious what you think these words that we are sharing are, in terms of a natural or physical phenomenon.
You’re making Noam Chomsky’s argument but ascribing the supernatural as the explanation. Chomsky may have been proven wrong recently:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto?currentPage=all
But, you avow, in 50-100 years advances in AI will provide the keys, none of which we presently have. That’s magical thinking, surely.
Darwin was able to go in the correct direction despite not knowing that DNA existed. That technical development took well over 100 years and would have been held to be magical in his day.
#55 — Way too much of what is labelled scientific inquiry these days is tainted with the brush of an agenda.
Agreed. Special interests, religion, and politics abuse scientific inquiry. In medicine insurance companies and government agencies want to use genetics (are you prone to being overweight? etc) to make you pay. That doesn’t mean we ought to shut genetic studies down or that DNA is a socialist plot (although I’m sure socialists would prefer it to be one!)
#55 — It is arrogant to be more sure of your theories than the unfolder of some of the greatest mysteries of the behavior of matter, Albert E.
I didn’t invent evolution, so I have no attachment whatsoever.
