Evolution by Epigenesis: Farewell to Darwinism, Neo and Otherwise

exactly. you would never allow it to be generally understood that you may replace water intake with sensation dulling artifices like drugs or dry-mouth spray.

I'd also say that either you indeed had a slight demand for water before bedtime, or you anticipated a demand.

exactly. you would never allow it to be generally understood that you may replace water intake with sensation dulling artifices like drugs or dry-mouth spray.

Right, not generally.

We have patients who are NPO (nothing by mouth) for various acute medical reasons, and they usually are pretty unhappy by that. So we can temporize it with whatever, wet swabs or ice chips or whatever.

But the picture gets muddied here.


We have multiple purposes.

now you're talking. and you say that whatever you put forward is the right one - no matter if you are confined to the ward and tied to the wall. Your stated purpose for whatever you do, is it ?

If I say it's only a sensation-quenching drink everytime, then I do not have to admit that it's ever for survival.

I can say that I can logically prescribe a diuretic, then that means something about the purpose of "drinking water".

I'm sorry, I cannot follow that logic.

Might a strictly intended slap on your own thigh not be a subconscious threat gesture to others at the table ? or even a means of channeling aggression or frustration more safely than to do so overtly?

IOW, I disagree that; all other purposes possible, are to be negated by the one supposed purpose, which a person articulates (as the truth as he sees it).

All tied to context, my friend. For the sake of argument, I'll implore you to accept that my PURPOSES for an individual patient have to do with my good faith interpretation of what's making them ill and what will make them better, whether that's giving more fluids, giving less fluids, or not being prescriptive and letting them do what they want.

HIS need being met, not YOURS.

As Doctor, the main purpose of patients is to have them, either for study or therapy. i.e. it's your profession.

We could then go on to discuss purpose and function of prescribing and prescription, too.

Doesn't caring for someone mean to take on their needs in a way?

totally. But that is not your title, as Doctor. Not Care Giver. As a Doctor, caring for them is not your given function, is it ?

You might study them instead. Or abort that thing. You could hold a stopwatch and do it one minute before time runs out on it being a "thing". And you'd be OK, professionally. Right ?

I hope you can understand that I am showing how you must compartmentalize and deny the anomalies, in order to function in that sphere.

so what are you talking about, that the list itself or the drawing up of the list, can prove something about the reality ( if there are heretics or not ) ?

Yes it is. Not caressing them and singing to them, but I order their food, counsel them, treat comfort and pain, talk to family, make them feel at ease, educate them, even hug them if they need it sometimes. Some doctors even pray with their patients

but that's not my thing.

Not caressing them and singing to them

I don't think it says anything about reality beyond what it raises regarding Ms Morgan's credibility.

her list of authorities who do support Alister Hardy's hypothesis proves that it isn't exactly biological heresy.

Yea, I think we're on the same page. I've assumed that Darwin would agree. I think he would say: yea! that's what I was talking about! Creatures are related and they are inextricable from their environment.

then you retract this totally ?

Originally Posted by memester
so what are you talking about, that the list itself or the drawing up of the list, can prove something about the reality ( if there are heretics or not ) ?

I don't think it says anything about reality beyond what it raises regarding Ms Morgan's credibility.

Quote:

then you retract this totally ?

her list of authorities who do support Alister Hardy's hypothesis proves that it isn't exactly biological heresy.

No - I affrim it with some confidence.

wow. first you claim that it means something obout there being heretics or not, then you claim that your statement does not say anything to the reality, and now you say you affirm it with confidence.

My attitude has been pretty consistent as far as I can see.

I don't know - in some sort of ultimate truth way - if there are calls of heresy levelled at supporters of aquatic ape hypothesis or not.

However, I'm pretty certain when Ms Morgan suggests that there are she is exaggerating - especially as she implies it's a blanket thing ("say you support this and you'll be called a heretic" she says, or something).

Her list of people who do offer support to the theory - and aren't labelled heretics as far as I know speaks to her being wrong.

If you have problems with my use of the word "proves" read "speaks to the apparent fact" or even "leads me to believe" instead - I don't mind.

Is the scientific community calling those people heretics for supporting aquatic ape hypothesis, or indeed anyone (aside from her by inference)?

If not - she's exaggerating - is she not?

that's not what I am asking. we can get to that after you clear up your statements.

Let's drop this. I don't know what you're getting out of it, but I'm finding it too tedious and bothersome to continue with.

this is a sure sign that you are giving your own definitions out of thin air. Praying as Doctor . Not your thing as Doctor.