Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
>
> Right. What is now nature _may_ have once been nurture. What biologists call
This is possibley, even probably true -- but as a practical matter only disaster usually follows when non-biologists (or non-chemists or non-physcians) begin to pick and
choose among the various biological (or neurological) bits of information that come there way. The fact is *bad* science (evolutionary biology being one of the prime current examples, or the Bell Curve of a couple decades ago) is much more easily handled by amateurs than is good science. Good science always comes enmeshed in a web of particulars and qualifications and carefully worked out relationships that the amateur simply can't handle well. So by posts like this you are opening the door (whether what you argue is correct or incorrect) to a deluge of perfect nonsense.
My 'error' about e=mc2 yesterday was not an error in context because as I commented a fictional example would have done as well as precise science in the instance. But real error of that kind is almost certain to occur if non- scientists start making scientific arguments. In reference to this thread some incredible vulgarity on "instinct" is around the corner from someone or other who wouldn't know an instinct from a molecule if one bit him/her on the nose.
Carrol