[ExI] IQ and beauty

rex rex at nosyntax.net
Tue Oct 20 18:32:50 UTC 2015

John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> [2015-10-20 10:50]:
>    On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:35 PM, rex <[1]rex at nosyntax.net> wrote:
>      ​> ​Worse, it's not testable and thus outside the realm of science. Put
>      it in the  bin of sterile idle philosophical speculation.
>    ​I guess you'd have to put Darwin's theory in that same ​bin of  idle
>    philosophical speculation.

No at all. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are testable. OTOH,
ideas/theories that cannot, in principle, be falsified have no place
in science. 

>      ​> ​There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no
>      significant
>      ​ ​role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows
>      ​ ​the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out
>      ​ ​to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world.
>    ​There IS solid evidence that suggests
>    ​ that Irish Elk had ​no significant
>    ​ horns, or insignificant horns, or horns of any sort
>    whatsoever. Irish Elk
>    ​ had antlers.

Yes, I know. Likewise I know that the Irish Elk isn't an elk at all,
it's a deer. In this context, who cares? Likewise for the meaningless
distinction between "horn" and "antler" here.

Like most, I use the terms "horn" and "antler" interchangeably unless
there is a relevant difference in the context of the discussion. Do
you think anyone here will be distracted from the main thesis if
"horn" is used instead of "antler"?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list