[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

[C. G. Estabrook]

The 18th-century wit (and a good bit more), Rev. Sydney Smith, when walking through an Edinburgh alleyway, saw two women shouting abuse at one another across the alley from their tenement windows. "They'll never agree," he said. "They're arguing from different premises."

(And Flann O’Brien improved on the line in At Swim Two Birds: "The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based upon licensed premises.") --CGE

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:45:51 -0800 (PST)
>From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!  
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
>
>--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> quoted Shane Mage:
>> > At least since Parmenides it has been well known
>> that this question 
>> > cannot be asked (ie., is meaningless) because one
>> of its dichotomous 
>> > possibilities (there is something/there is
>> nothing) is 
>> > selfcontradictory. *Nothing* cannot exist.
>
>Don't forget -- it is also well-known that the
>universe is an internally undifferentiated sphere, and
>motion does not exist!
>
>C.G., you are sparring with pig ignorance. Give up!