tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4404815277552371723..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: More illusions/delusions of James Shapiro and Denis NobleLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68272045947217453572022-03-26T14:10:56.134-04:002022-03-26T14:10:56.134-04:00I can't find the quotation you reference but I...I can't find the quotation you reference but I'd like to point out that James Watson is not a "serious evolutionary biologist."<br /><br />It's pretty easy for you to refute any other claims by simply providing examples that prove me wrong. <br /><br />Waiting ...... Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9323408633171134432022-03-26T11:52:17.880-04:002022-03-26T11:52:17.880-04:00Sorry, but this is such weak sauce. You say "...Sorry, but this is such weak sauce. You say "no expert believes this" so many times, it's like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on a loop. The fact that you call them "kooks" and accuse them of "blatant lies" robs you of credibility. For example, regarding information flow, you said "There are no serious evolutionary biologists who believed that in the 1960s or 1970s or at any time since." So was James Watson "not serious"? Or can we descend to your childish level and just call you a blatant liar?Marcelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6833740776864328102021-08-28T10:51:28.340-04:002021-08-28T10:51:28.340-04:00Hi Unknown,
LOL... Is fact already reality here o...Hi Unknown,<br /><br />LOL... Is fact already reality here or still human reason?<br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />LamarckLamarckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16658282502276785072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47363556798158631852021-08-26T00:31:51.105-04:002021-08-26T00:31:51.105-04:00Larry didn't say that Biosemiotics exclusively...Larry didn't say that Biosemiotics exclusively publishes kooks. So it isn't necessarily true that he thinks the authors you mention are kooks. Though in fact you haven't made a case for any of them.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47515776065225065432021-08-25T14:39:29.287-04:002021-08-25T14:39:29.287-04:00Hi Larry !
Thanks for accepting my comment (becaus...Hi Larry !<br />Thanks for accepting my comment (because you are not "kooks" who just "find each other and ..... tend to hang out together" )<br /><br />I'm not going to argue about your comments about Noble (I agree with some of it) , but when you say that the Journal Biosemiotics : "it's a kooky journal and that's why it publishes papers by kooks" .<br /><br />One of those is Terrence Deacon - Is he in your eyes "a kook" <br />Is he not "DOING REAL SCIENCE "? <br /><br />Another "kook" is Marcel Barbieri ? <br />He once was encouraged by Karl Popper ( maybe he also is a "kook" ?) <br /><br />Or Howard Patte who started as a physicist and asked the question : What is special about living systems ? ( they all obey the laws of physics).<br />A "kook" ? --- Why ? <br /><br />Stuart Kaufmann ( he refers to biosemioticans in his late papers) Do you regard him as a "kook" ? Is he not doing "REAL SCIENE"<br /><br />As you have written in another blog : "” The failure to critically examine one's own mental models leads to weak, faulty models, with little confidence behind them." <br />I think that is correct - even for scientists .<br /><br /><br /><br />Barbieri, M. (2008). Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften, 95(7), 577-599.<br /><br />Barbieri, M. (2008). Is the cell a semiotic system?. In Introduction to biosemiotics (pp. 179-208). Springer, Dordrecht.<br /><br />Deacon has published a lot - the evolution of Brains - The evolution of human language etc . etc <br /><br />Pattee, H. H. (2008). The necessity of biosemiotics: Matter-symbol complementarity. In Introduction to biosemiotics (pp. 115-132). Springer, Dordrecht. agnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790748232782409095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32961863726302826492021-08-25T09:11:27.865-04:002021-08-25T09:11:27.865-04:00Hi Larry !
You wrote that the journal Biosemiotic ...Hi Larry !<br />You wrote that the journal Biosemiotic "it's a kooky journal and that's why it publishes papers by kooks."<br /><br />I'm not sure that I can get a good definition of a "kook" <br />so I will take some examples :<br /><br />Terrence Deacon a "kook" ? <br />I think his book " The symbolic species " - is really good when we try to understand the evolution of humans. Co-evolution of brains and language.<br /><br />Is Barbieri a "kook" - Karl Popper didn't thought so - he encouraged him. Maybe we should put Karl Popper among the "kooks" ? <br /> <br />Those theoretical biologists ( that started from physics, and tried to answer the question what is life ?) :<br />Howard Patte , Robert Rosen , René Thom . Are they "kooks " ? <br /><br />I see them all as serious scientist trying to answer questions .<br /><br />Who are "kooks " ?<br /> agnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790748232782409095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26738704574043839352021-05-12T11:00:44.352-04:002021-05-12T11:00:44.352-04:00No, but we must strive to get closer to it. No, but we must strive to get closer to it. Salvador Biancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12485987210663873481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54531028069581326422021-05-11T16:23:40.877-04:002021-05-11T16:23:40.877-04:00Human reasoning is flawed. Why should reality obey...Human reasoning is flawed. Why should reality obey it?<br /><br />Did you mean to say that human thinking does always conform to reality? Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41346831968047127742021-05-11T15:11:17.510-04:002021-05-11T15:11:17.510-04:00You didn't assimilate the fact that reality do...You didn't assimilate the fact that reality doesn't obey human reason.Salvador Biancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12485987210663873481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36267596700702875872021-05-06T09:09:08.931-04:002021-05-06T09:09:08.931-04:00Fair enough.
3. But isn't the audience of tha...Fair enough.<br /><br />3. But isn't the audience of that prospective rebuttal exactly the one you have to reach?<br /><br />4. They don't waive page charges for people without grants?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89096528980539765722021-05-05T14:10:36.773-04:002021-05-05T14:10:36.773-04:00No.
1. I don't have time to make it into a p...No. <br /><br />1. I don't have time to make it into a publishable article.<br /><br />2. I doubt very much that the journal would accept it.<br /><br />3. Blogging is better. By the time a rebuttal would appears the damage is done. <br /><br />4. I don't want to spend the money to publish. The fee for an open access article in that journal is $3,050 (USD).Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39972958558223939182021-05-05T12:35:58.151-04:002021-05-05T12:35:58.151-04:00Have you considered submitting this to the journal...Have you considered submitting this to the journal as a rebuttal?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.com