The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

When SIMON LEVIN SAID TO BRAD MCFALL, "that is too philosophical" both of us were under contract with CORNELL UNIVERSITY. It was not just this one guy but other profs were demuring and I was in a bind. I did not expect Simon of all the profs to be the first to demur. But IT WAS TOO philosophical for him becuase he was an applied mathmatician moving over to biology and doing a GREAT job at getting ecologists to see the value of and use models in their work. This work was not unknown to my Grandfather whose Collegue Benton co-authored a Conservation Biology book before Simon began publishing in American Naturalist or there abouts but admitted did not use the most adavanced tools and techniques applicable. I merely tried in the sense of the increasing discussion on the Cornell Campus between group theorists and fundamental particle physicists to inject a little "PURE MATH" and I chose incidence geometry becuase I was not insterested in ADAM's rib but if there was a correlation of anatomy from the rib of a snake( vs a lizard) thru its common musculature to scalation patterns that were known or thought to be nonadaptative but used for classification or at least known to vary with temperature and geography but I was not being essentialist or topological as Mayr accused this philosophy of. In fact, Simon, chose to co-author with Kaufmann on more applied numerical techniques rather than picking the "fight" I did with Will Provine when it came time to exapt the apt adaptation but as far as what you are after SIMON is interested in Bayesianism if it can be applied however I was aware of Cross-Level EFFECTS which GOULD cearly indicates are biological and real while SIMON simply thought all this not be what the ECOLOGISTS were talking about was NOT something he was interested in. His PROBLEM was that he had already agreed to work on my project. My problem was that the content was specified generally in a group project report but no one, not even WILL PROVINE, was willing or able to coordinated the parts so I started to and this not any mental issue caused the breach, statistics on it or no...I was also privy to some information directly from Kuhn to Richard Boyd which I rejected rather rightly or wrongly but Williams couldnt find the credit in that decision I BRAD MCFALL had to make because the bio profs were eating hamburgers and icecream in Feynman's quip about diversity at Cornell. Sorry to be so personal. I try to dig a little into you table of info here to speak mor onto your topic but even IT information architecheture could be invoked at this school across what I have said today. XML wont work and the MSWEB taxonomies will only help for some consistency but nature has its own GOD.

It sounds like you have done a commendable job. But notice that you said TWO SPEICES- I really DONT think it can be kept this simple for then we WILL have the difference of Dakwins and Gould on INTERPRETING DARWIN. I had simply tried to think about the speices as a set of colection locality points but the trend has been despite your advances to promote the statistical refinements only. It may be that we need another philosopher like Sewell Wright to use results such as you OBSERVED to point out that refernece to collectable data is the mistake iteslef. I have already been able to use the simple difference of pure math cardinal and ordinal numbers to change the way I, BSM, evidentiate data but this does not mean that I can cause others to think this way. Stuart Kaufmann UNLIKE Simon Levin did not disuade me from this application of actual infinity. The world has more Levin than Kaufmanna's for any "infinite phenotype" of MacArthur. I think that data division is causing the problem (genotype and phenotype) so you WERE able to get results the others wernt even looking for. Congrats. It reminded me of a simple Model Levin wanted done about a line of plants and a bunch of insects. Yes there are results but the issue is more about why cant the theoretical biology do more than 4 yellow SerBelloni 60s-70s conference titles and kaufmann being the lone man out motivated by blinking lights. NO!!! --you are correct these diodes are not birds counted. Technology is part of the problem as much as it will be used in the solution.Thanks for your reply it really is nice to finally find things to read I thought I would have been seeing more of years ago.

The problem academically or intellectually is as far as I can drive the discussion is that people like Will Provine are willing to "retreat" to conceptual neutralism at some point. The concurrent post I had with Loudmouth at this time is indicating that one might indeed be able to make logical divisions of neutral affects effectively if the particulars I am proposing hold (up). I suspect aka the math that indeed they are simply the lack of worship among the difference of minds like Kaufmann and Levin as types relative the arab "0" and it would be possible to find that an extension of Faraday's circuit configurations give what I either had as topobiology or baramin seperations if this is also linguistically suspect which further creationist work could clear uncover, let us say after 2005 when rate reports nationally... I thought using MacArthur's notion of bird seperations in trees to his infinite pheneotype would have been enough to interest cross level biologists with the application of cantor's intent to find practical use of his transfinites as to counting populations differently for different taxa with different divisions proposed subjectively for different taxa but I could not interest even Levin so the bet was off and even though Simon told me to go and see G Evelyn Hutchinson before passing on I did not find the need or interest in this siutation as I found that my Jacob inaccessible cardinal was only the morphological differences of a few beetles which sans internet were Darwin's color beetle plates or Gould's title "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" without Conants newt plate/plaque. After reading about the notion of "open habitat" from Verne Grant and following up some panbiogeographic criticsm of Nelson to Adams notion of VIEWING a peneplain habitat by habaitat. I decided the ecological concept of the niche was either reducible to an actual infinity of beetles or else did not exist. It did not seem to exist to me in the claim for species selection. I will need to do a little more thinking on this with respect to Gould's notion of an "eclesiastical clade" but my guess is that both this notion AND Ameisen's for cell death original sin can not lexically let alone grammetically survive. But I will have to do some more thinking assuming I am correct. I could be wrong however.But if an assertion proposition axiom is possible for concetric circles of neturality this will only explain why people like Provine or Gould felt the need for damage control from Kimura. This is not a problem for me and I suspect contra Loudmouth on memes that these do not exist even though in the gendanken on cell death I give Dawkins a little more air time and that what historically needs NOT to be revisioned nor seen again is the notion of potential physics in a wolfram node being the univocal zinc of Faraday is not the analogy or any sense of homology (to say an opposite out of completness)of a notion of physics with a notion of biology as in the galvani-volta dispute that cututrally triggered faradays experimental philosophy via Newton or not. This may be facutally off in the netural effect but I never see birds and reptiles categorized together as Dobshanksy (a believer) and Willard Stanely (my non believer grandfather) may have. Gould thinks that viviparity is puncutated. I have alawys thought this out gradually even if continuous motion in a discontinuous space is possible and now with zinc on my calcium side only technology can operate contra this as far as I know.

As for hypothetical-deduction and Simon...once I got out of Florida and survived not being involutarily electroshocked because no one had ever asked for HOW lithium BALANCE was measured during treatment I found that he was motivated to introduce a NEXT MUTATION when he co-authored with Kaufmann. I was fresh from Africa tying to situate my newly scoped view of electric fish ECOLOGIAL differences and this with herpetology had already provided me with plenty of diveristy (and if you compare with Provine on phone to Sewall Wright it was more than his but at least as much as Goulds') that I saw NO NEED to hypothesize a NEXT mutation. If one simply looks at Muller's defintions of kinds of mutations somatically one can easily see that these terms he invented before had not by then been worked up so why hypothesize a NEXT mutation (for use with moleuclar clocks etc., Penny vs Gould etc etc). So though baraminically I might move over to that thread or here and discuss flys vs beetle numbers (especially interms of NOT A BIRD in the Carribean hortizian vs parian distributions of insects or reptiles for Penny's interest not Gould's in panbiogeography) no the problem in the meta kind of conversation you appear to be having is for me between let me say Galvani and Volta not Goethe and Newton for which topic I was subjectively failed by LP Williams despite the now available fact that Penrose is thinking of microtublue quantum mechanics and I had placed my sights there way back before I met Levin's pleasent pollution in the Hudson river deameanor.Ok- that problem then was that Volta reasoned from the electric fish torpedo TO Galvani's frogs and THEN to any organism. This IS a form of reasoning encounterable in evolutionary theory if generalized. A variant of creationism could be that the is not even reasonable. To say so would mean that one would have to explain how psychiatrists attempted to "balance" ME chemically given that Faraday had showed how to advance THE ARGUMENT without resoving the evolutionary issue &&&&&& that the physical path such reasoned (mentally and physcio-chemically)is not illogical on use of Faraday's TESTIMONY that ADDED to the discussion just as for today's instance the state of Lousiana sought to ADD INFORMATION to the school curriculum and not detract from it as in EPPERSON.As for my own idea directly of such "next" I could get at it outside c/e but then You would have to follow me as I attempt to explain the statement I wrote fro Loudmouth and say again somewhat flippantly, that traits of the 3:1 kind can be rotated not merely encounted. The notion of a "web service" will only be able to spin these but other technologies can be found to not force one to escape this thought only between two "/" lines. Penny has an interesting article on Chimps in Nature I want to read before I way lay Gould's elecistical claded in this techonology that I know I can imagine as well as state.The zinc allusion is not illusory but will be univocal if everything I said was correct. I am not that confident however. You would be better to pay attention to guanosine metabolic strigency instead for more info would likely arise that way than in the simply H-D showing that Galvani's electrobiological response to Volta WAS logical. Meta commentary may aver here for failure to follow up Newton for which info from some Faraday archive could gain say and obviate my need to refer to Williams failing me after I listened to him preach in Sage Hall pulpit. Faraday's accepted extension and quantum mechanical synthetic chemsitry via psychiatry has confused the rather repetious psychology involved in any c/e difference. The problem is topology is not always the matching of a clade and a result tree.

The other scientitst were being less pesimistic about Wright's "landscape" than Will Provine but I suprised my self to lear that this pesimism IS what Gould held on to to his passing. I had assumed a higher place in my mind for him. As to what H-D would givec/e wise may not have been what you were getting at. For if it IS bayesian H-D then I would actually be EXTENDING Gish's argumentation when so far I see this/the evidence tending to reduce the number of parts that may be subject to impossiblities/improbabilites but I would have to be acutally and absolutely correct contra Marcello Pera who wrote "The Ambiguous Frog: The Galvani- Volta Controversy on Animal Electricity" for which Will's job hangs in this balance.The c/e hypothesis for me would be that biologists tend to unconsciously or subconsciously substitute an aposteriori rejection of Lamark with a transfered apriori rejection of creationism. It would be my DEDUCTION (if that is really what is at stake here and not some Bayesianism) THAT ICR STYLE CREationism has REVIVED the Galavanic Response that internationally was afforded to Volta's reasoning but debunked CHEMICALLY certainly after the physics were added to Faraday's testimony extension of work of other chemists of that period. It had been supposed Volta's resoning destryoed the galvanism naturally but that the chemistry was not controlled for but the deduction would not be from the materiality to organicism as some philosopher may grant me but instead from the social difference of styles of creationism to the exposure of the psychology which then must gain said indiviudally. The problem has been that there has not been an attempt to show that Creation Science actually can extend Faraday's experimental philosophy to gain say the Galvanists and not merely that Faraday destroyed the negativity of current opnion of VOlta at that time. At this point some phancy evos can still make sayings like red touch yellow is the fellow that black's jack knew too much for his own trap door or the bachelor problem somehow logically claimed to apply etc. More scoping would be required short an agreement on the history. My guess is that as I explain this currently some will say this is not historically accurate. I am only one guy not a whole univeristy. I did not think that Gould's use of "smoothing the Galton Polygon" was all that fancy but seeing how he rejects Kaufmann's "edge of chaos" "for free" it is not suprising to pigeon whole my own.

YEs, and thanks;
You/one, does it by using deductive biogeography within a claim that BOTH galvani AND volta were speaking 'biologically' and noticing that population genetics may have contact that chemistry does not. There was an error in the scientific community's historical acceptance of Faraday's "logic". F was saying that there is not current where there is no chemistry and wanted to say that there is only current where there is chemistry but there can still be current with sexual reproduction without any change in chemistry. Seeing a historian on Faraday such as LP WILLIAMS only confuses this with electric charge. NO-the is the playtpus bill and different ecologies of electric fish which were NOT in AUSTRALIA over time. Thanks again. and Good Day.