home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
- From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
- Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
- Subject: Re: Popper and Abian and other matters
- Message-ID: <96932@netnews.upenn.edu>
- Date: 10 Nov 92 14:36:58 GMT
- References: <1992Oct23.160505.2580@oracorp.com> <94684@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Nov10.004237.50028@Cookie.secapl.com>
- Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
- Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
- Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
- Lines: 19
- Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
- In-reply-to: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
-
- In article <1992Nov10.004237.50028@Cookie.secapl.com>, frank@Cookie (Frank Adams) writes:
- >>> And I think his criticism is
- >>>valid; it isn't clear what slogans such as "survival of the fittest"
- >>>can be other than tautologies.
-
- >>If you're silly enough to define fitness as survival, sure.
-
- >I think fitness really pretty much is defined as survival, as Daryl has
- >argued in other postings. (At least, survival of your genes.)
-
- But it's never defined as survival_of_the_species, which is what the
- "survival" in SOTF is referring to.
-
- >I think the real content of "survival of the fittest" is that
- >"fittest" is a naturalistic concept.
-
- Part of it is. I made that point several times in my postings.
- --
- -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
-