side-bar

[Brad McFall]

Dear All,

Woodger wanted to know in Statements not organisms what is the space or
place common to parents and offspring ( I think Lerner made some major
mistakes but articulate reversibility and determinacy (without sympatric))
but OK Henderson etc. Good.  Weisacker asked me if I am a physicist, a
mathmatician or a philosopher.  I responded, "No, a biologist."
He "couldn't" (for Lewin's "ought") believe it. Good ok?  mathematical
philosophy or philosophical mathematics of Russelian certainly thought.

Current epistemology (Dick Boyd taught me to think of all this in a three-
fold manner phenomenology, postivism and realism) attributes specialists to
ontology rather I read in Weisacker's spirit of cybernetics but I corrected
him at a Baker Hall lecture where he inaccurately used Cantor's potential
infinity within quantum mechanics'' discourse while he thought ACTUAL
INFINITY.  Crick lost my interest with his quip about vital forces and a
Panspermia that defouces off earth but like Husserl I wanted Einstein to
tell me on this Earth where is the center of the system for the biologist
reading the OPticks (I still have not used spell check).

Again, is the seed fern a gymnosperm ancestor or Croizat relic
nor/or/either/or further/farther a toppled plant form trying to move to the
earth unlike the seed plants not seen as fossils??
Geographers/Cartographers/iN GeoComputation can operate with abduction,
induction and deduction -- go back and read Croizat -- He fooled even
Ball;; so why don't we get out of the narrative the same virtual reality as
those aforesaid~?

I do not think that this is necessarily creation science vs scientific
creation but rather the fact that because the Catholic Church did accept
Cantor's philosophical position on infinity this secularized capability of
mathematicians has remained outside even the modern Young Earth Creationist
Movement whether you side with Dobshansky or not +- biological species
concept.  That concept never worked for the salamander I knew by morphology
was a different species from the kinds in Peterson's yet Adler insisted
once another time again that I would have to use DNA analysis for something
I knew as well as the back of my hand.  Maybe force does not exist.  And
Crick is even more wrong than we think Pauling is.\/