Re: [tied] Middle English Plurals

08-01-04 02:43, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 2. Regarding the 'wing' example (as 'organ used to can fly'),

In some languages fins or flippers also count as "wings", so don't let's
pretend that the idea of a wing is something universal. Plato was not
interested in any language other than Greek, so the problem didn't exist
for him, but it does exist for _us_. Note also that some wings are never
used for flying -- e.g. penguins use theirs for swimming.

> I 'apply' Platon to 'a genetic context' (so your reference
> to 'planes' is a non-sense here: 'plane wings' are only bad copies
> made by humans of the 'life wings').

Why exclude non-biological wings? It's a bizarre version of Platonism.
By the way, aeroplane wings are not "bad copies" of biological wings (or
"good copies", for that matter), any more than wheels are bad copies of
legs. Actual "bad copies" didn't work: flap, flap, flap ... THUMP!

> What I wanted to say is that the "model of wing" was "fully
> coded" in the genes before the "first wing" appeared on Earth, so
> the 'idea of wing', pre-existed its first apparition (and I can
> added, even its first 'coded description', if we will think of what
> a 'code' or a 'description' really mean).

There is no single "model of the wing" or a single mechanism of animal
flight. Insect, avian and chiropteran wings are not homologous and owe
their existence and structure to completely different combinations of
genes. Of course none of those combinations was preexistent. Genotypes
and phenotypes evolve together.

> As for the 'wing apparitions' , life 'could had' at the
> begining 'a first bad wing' , but for sure 'a wing', not an 'eye' in
> that place.
> The Darwinian models failed to explain this, because they cannot
> accept the pre-existance of the model. At least, Lamarck (before
> Darwin) arrive with a coherent explanation here, but the reality of
> the genes didn't confirm (at least until now) its theory.

I wouldn't blame the (neo-)Darwinian model for failing to explain
something that obviously doesn't exist. Neither genetics not
palaeontology confirm the existence of your eternal "models". Birds'
wings derive from ordinary mammalian forelimbs -- just like your own
arms and hands, or a whale's flippers, or a horse's fore legs -- not
from "the first bad wings". The same original structure can evolve to
serve different functions in different biological lineages. It can be
used for different modes of locomotion (flight, swimming, walking,
brachiation), or for grasping and manipulating things. The functions of
inherited anatomical equipment are neither predetermined nor given for
ever. It's the ABC of biology.

> 3. Your argument with the 'generalisation' is a wrong one.
> But, strictly speaking on what generalisation is, your
> definition is wrong too. 'The generalisation' is 'a generalisation of
> something': in order to group some samples under a same concept we
> have to know FIRST what the concept really is (to define/to know/to
> posses its inner meaning).
> So THE CONCEPT IS NOT DEFINED, BASED ON OR STARTING WITH ITS
> SAMPLES (even one or 1,000,000).Contrary Only based on the pre-
> existing inner definition of the concept, we can group the samples.
> (I mean 'pre-existing' term, relative to the moment when some samples
> are grouped under its 'umbrella')
> If not, How we could be able to group (or not to group)
> samples, without having/knowing FIRST the criteria that we have to
> use for this grouping.

Brian has already replied to this, and since my view on classification
is the same, I have nothing to add.

> Sorry to say but your argumentation is related somehow to the
> Marxism (is not a bad point,the Marxism is a strong theory) and for
> sure is closer linked to the Materialism in general.
> BUT please don't make confusion between Materialism and The
> Scientific Method. They have nothing to do one with the other. The
> Scientific Method, completely ignore the preconditions :
> creationism , materialism, marxism etc...as out of its scope.
>
>
> I close this thread from my side here.
> Regards,
> marius alexandru
>
> P.S. I only want to add : The Darwinian Theory belong to the
> Materialism too.

I don't think my personal understanding of scientific methodology has
any significant connection with Marxism or dialectic materialism.
"Materialism" means different things to different people. In your case
it seems to be merely a label you stick on things you don't like. But
we've already strayed too far, so I'd like to finish this thread as well.