Charles Brown wrote:
>
> How about this as a fairly strong ,universal ,scientific truth: all humans
> are born of the union of an "egg" and a "sperm" ?
>
I am not sure, even scientifically speaking... by "are" do you mean "thus far"?
^^^ CB: That's the meaning of "are" .
^^^^
There is no reason to doubt that external DNA can be spliced into the egg without a sperm, in the future. ^^^^ CB: But as on now, you agree the above is universally true ?
If we are to speculate on the future, the reason external DNA may never be spliced into the egg in the future is the human race may go extinct before somebody does that. Or nobody may ever do it for some other reason. Those futures are just as possible.
Or that a foetus can be generated using DNA without an egg or a sperm. Oliver Sacks, IIRC, documents beautifully the history of relevant research where a commitment to the idea of DNA as the atom of life hindered/delayed the ultimate discovery of RNA replication in viruses. I am leaving out here the issue of what it is that is "human".
^^^^^^ CB: You also left out what is "what" ? Or what is "is" ? Or what is "Oliver Sacks" ? Are you _certain_ that Oliver Sacks did what he said he did ? Or that there is such a thing as "Olver Sacks" ? Are you certain about the ultimate discovery concerning RNA that you mention ? Maybe in the future , someone will discover something that undermines that discovery. Is it "true" that there is RNA replication in viruses ?
^^^^^
Speaking more generally this sort of "scientific" truth seems to be no different than the pre/non-scientific truth that "the earth is, approximately speaking, round" or "we are all going to die someday" or "there is a 3 post quota on LBO for general subscribers".
^^^^ CB: Are the pre-scientific truths of some value to us ? To say something is a scientific truth does mean to be indifferent to pre-scientific truths. It is not entirely trivial to know that we are all going to die someday.
^^^^^^^^
There is a danger with these particulars (examples) because their proximity and current hold blind us to potential errors. Though it is possible that a casual LBO conversation might find fundamental flaws in the terms, reasoning or theoretical underpinnings of a particular biological claim, we should not proceed on that hope ;-).
^^^^^ CB: How can there be "error" without "truth" ?