Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 22 2008,08:37) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2008,10:19) | | Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 20 2008,17:03) | | Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse. |
The question is not "why do I value these analogies?", but rather "why do these analogies work?".
Also, how is it that these analogies (in your words) "make certain things more clear" if they're (also in your words) "not even clóse"? |
They make things easier to understand for people outside the ivory tower of biology.
Sure, there are analogies, but they're A supperficial (yea, wrong spelling) and B even analogy's don't mean they're the same, because they simply aren't. Can't you see those things for yourself? |
OK, so let me get this straight: A paper published by James A. Shapiro (a scientist at the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago), in the Journal Genetica (which is listed as having the following subjects: Biomedical and Life Sciences, Life Sciences, Life Sciences, general, Animal Genetics and Genomics, Plant Genetics & Genomics, Human Genetics and Microbial Genetics and Genomics), contains analogies that are meant to "make things easier to understand for people outside the ivory tower of biology"?
So, you're saying his intended audience is people outside the ivory tower of biology? Just how many of those people do you suppose read Genetica?
Also, if you really think these analogies are "supperficial", perhaps you should take that up with Mr. Shapiro himself, (jsha@uchicago.edu), because his paper is full of them.
Then maybe you could post your correspondences here so we can see how you straighten him out on his "supperficialities".
(PS. Nobody's saying that "analogous" = "the same". That is a strawman)
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
