home

Quasars demand Rogaine

Joe wrote:

Lord Norton wrote:
Really? Optimal fertilization constitutes preference now? Flies have preferences? Did the fly say I really enjoyed getting more load inside of her rather than rough sex? There is no way to measure preferences in this regard.
Lord Norton wrote:
There is no planning behind it, it is just inherited behavior like a mechanism. This sounds to me like a case of the jargon being misunderstood in context.
Lord Norton wrote:
Male flies are not doing any thinking. They are acting on what is traditionally referred to as instinct. It's a survival mechanism. Whether you want to mix up this jargon of preference with human behavior is your problem.

Lord Dobzhansky (from Experiments on sexual isolation in Drosophila) wrote:

"Relatively slight mating preferences have been observed in Brazilian and Guatemalan Drosophila willistoni, and some quite striking preferences have been found in Brazilian, Guatemalan and Mexican strains of D. prosaltans. Most of these intra-specific mating preferences are one-sided: greater proportions of females of one than of the other strain are inseminated by males of both strains. Data reported in the present article show, however, that two-sided preferences for homo-gamic matings, which are, in general, characteristic of interspecific crosses, occur also within the species D. sturtevanti Duda (=D. biopaca Sturtevant)."

Above - according to Norton - by daffily intensionalizing an orthodox, Sexual Selection (SS) term - preference, the phenomena associated with it (SS) blast-out of the gates of reality into non-being. Applying his linguistic meddling to physics and astronomy, entire classes of microscopic particles and celestial objects are but one equivocation away from vanishing into a jargonized nothingness.

(1) In Quantum physics - under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, a micro-physical particle (when measured by a scientist's device) cannot yield BOTH a definite position value AND a definite momentum value. If the momentum of a particle is measured, then its position falls within a range of possible values. Its position value is described as "uncertain". The word "uncertainty" could easily be confined via the "norton rule" to apply in purely human mental contexts - exactly as the SS-term "preference" was.

Under the rule, physicists would be compelled (with the threat of being de-funded) to publicly announce this nortonism:

"While undergoing measurement for position, it's not true that a microscopic particle lacks a definite value in momentum - as predicted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle! Only human minds can be uncertain! Since the early 20th century, we physicists have been ascribing human-level quandaries to micro-physical states via quantum mechanics! We were wrong! Did the electron say: "I'm so uncertain!"?

(2) Quasars are celestial objects: star-like in dimension but galaxy-like in the magnitude of their energy emissions. Quasars recede at high velocities relative to earth, and they are located at cosmological distances - near the fringes of the observable universe. One might commit equivocation with the verb "to recede", forcing it to apply in human-only contexts - in this case - to human standards of male beauty and economic downturns.

The resulting nortonism is:

"Quasars cannot recede relative to the earth - because the words "recede" and "recession" have been arbitrarily restricted to human problems! Only hairlines on balding men recede due to male pattern baldness! Did the quasar say: "I need Rogaine!"? Only human economies descend into recession! There is no way to measure recession in this regard, and there is no planning behind it."

What should be impressed on the equivocator is this: Your cockamamie confounding of distant, celestial objects and human problems does not undermine the fact that quasars are located at cosmological distances. To specially plead that quasars do not suffer from follicle problems, demand Rogaine or experience economic downturns is a tautology. Quasars recede at blistering velocites relative to the earth - despite all attempts to rip them out of world with screw-ball word-spells. Evidence is needed to show how astronomers have gotten the fact of their existence (and their recessional velocities) incredibly wrong. Similarly, we should have the base-line, intellectual humility to accept what biologists have demonstrated in experiments for over 140 years: that SS operates in the mating-systems of insect species, driven by female preferences for male ornaments. We should not take it upon ourselves to semantically re-work the terminology - over which we have absolutely no authority.