If you are going to have children at all, have at least two.

[Kuciwalker]

Why should it be bound in the natural sciences?

[Jon Miller]

Is anything else dealing with reality as well understood?

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I honestly don't get WTF is your point.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
To insure future propagation you need to be able to provide for your kids education and to keep them from having aids (basically, allow them to grow up).

Propagation is an important part of the formula.

Jon miller

Actually, no you don't. To ensure (i.e. to make certain) future propogation you only have to overwhelm the odds. More offspring, regardless of any standing or significance by the parent, is one way to help overwhelm the odds.

The other is steering clear of kooks.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


economics isn't scientific

Don't let a CPA hear you say that.

additionally, things aren't clear in economics

Don't let a CPA hear you say that either.

additionally, economics isn't natural

JM

Boy, you're just lookin' to catch a beat-down from a CPA.

Let me guess, you have no real grasp of economics, do you?

Tom P.

[Jon Miller]

You are saying that economics is a natural science?

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Shouldn't success of humans in human society be the domain of social science?

[padillah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Is anything else dealing with reality as well understood?

JM

Yes, Mathematics! Statistics! Logic! Computers!

These are all very well understood. Many people go to great lengths to understand them.

How can you say natural sciences are well understood? If I were to ask you for the gene that controls eye color, could you find it? No, as far as I understand it's not been identified yet. If I asked you why whales migrate thousands of miles to die, could you tell me? No. If I were to ask you how to cure several hundred deseases, could you tell me? Heck, you can't get two drug companies to agree on the best way to loose weight! How on earth can you say this is a well understood field?


Mathematics is as defined as it's going to get. Numbers add up, it's that simple. Until someone finds a way to messup addition mathematics will always be understood.

...

Short, ill-defined answers...
Little or no actual knowledge of the subject...
Inflamatory statements...
No factual information at all...


A TROLL!!!

OMG and I fell for it. Pretty good JM.

OK, we can stop now.
We've identified the troll.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Nothing to see...

Tom P.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Shouldn't success of humans in human society be the domain of social science?

Who said anything about human society?

JM

[Kuciwalker]

WTF.

JM. Seriously. WTF.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You are saying that economics is a natural science?

JM

Yes, it's based on humans behavior, takes into account social standings, is concerned with the concrete as opposed to the abstract... Much like other social sciences.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
WTF.

JM. Seriously. WTF.

It's called "Grasping at straws", Kuci.

Let him go. he's trolling for an argument. Pro'lly 'casue he's bored, like me.

I shot back once but I'm done here.

Tom P.
EDIT: OK, I shot back twice. But the one time he was clearly trying to dodge the argument he had already setup. You can't blame me for that, can you?

And the third was a reply to The Mad Monk, which is acceptable.

[padillah]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I think what he's saying is, that successful species propagate, unsuccessful species don't (and go extinct).

It's rather hard to argue against that.

Nah, it's quite easy actually. Crocodiles, Sharks, Lions... all apex preditors. "Succesful" by any reasonable measure in the animal kingdom. Yet localised and isolated so as only to appear in very specialized locations around the world.

So many dinosaur were alive that we have plenty of evidence even today, yet they are extinct.

There is even evidence to suggest that Neanderthal man out-propogated Homo Erectus but the brain size couldn't keep up and they went extinct.

This is but one of my arguments - "success" can be measured in so many different ways and under so many different conditions that you can't claim it without defining it.

Something JM has yet to do.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Who said anything about human society?

JM

Sorry, this one I can't let pass.

Let's see...
#33

Successful humans propagate a lot.

#38

To insure future propagation you need to be able to provide for your kids education...

I, like most on this board, am a human. To refer to me implies a reference to humans.

#40

Highly successful males propagate with a lot of moderately successful women and then leave them. They propagate with their own long term relationships (wives/mistresses) ...

Unless animals have started getting married I think we can assume this also refers to humans.


#47

Women, on the Median, are more successful then men. However, the most successful individuals are all men.

#50

Genetic propagation is (mostly) dependent on your own choices.

And, of course, there's nothing like having it SPELLED OUT FOR YOU.

#52

So it isn't interesting when discussing the successful behavior of people.

So, unless you meant other "people" than human people, I think you're done.

Sorry, I can't stand people that argue by randomly spewing garbage.

Tom P.

[Jon Miller]

But where did I say that I was talking about the success of humans relative to human society?

Yes, I was talking about humans, people, homo sapiens sapiens, whatever you wish to call them. And when discussing methods, yes, human society is part of the dialect (and I used a colloquial example). But I wasn't talking about the success in human society, since that generally depends on the type of society that the humans are involved in, and so isn't universal. I was talking bald, unmitigated, measure of success. Which could be considered universal.

JM