Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record)

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 18:41:27 EST

Heya Don,

This last example actually helps make Murray's point that a definition is
> involved. If one defines the integer 4 as the integer 2 greater than the
> integer 2 (which is just what mathematicians do) then that settles the
> matter. Otherwise you have an open question of what is meant by 2 +2.
> Don
Of course definitions are involved, Don. They always are - who was denying
this? But I think Murray has already conceded Gregory's point - namely that,
yes, there really was a "first" once "human" is defined. He's stipulated
that he takes 'evolution' as a given - but I don't see where anyone was
insisting that there being a "first" means evolution is untrue, so that
seems moot.

Now, someone could argue whether a given definition is appropriate or
correct - but that's a whole other discussion, and by then the whole thrust
of the debate has shifted. And of course, I'd disagree with Murray's claim
that there being a "first" does not help someone making the claim that there
was a "definitive break". Amusingly enough, we'd then have to have a
definition of what would constitute a "definitive break" - which would
include discussions of whether the standards were purely or partly genetic,
social, physical, or even by divine fiat.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 15 18:41:57 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 18:41:57 EST