Re: No flightless Insecta?

UC wrote:

On Jun 8, 9:43 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

(snip)

I like you, John. You're a bit more intelligent the typical scientist
(not that that is saying much).

As long as we're being all confiding, I have to admit that I dislike you
quite a bit. You're a not-too-bright, arrogant, stubborn, disingenuous
(not to say frequently dishonest) troll. The only point in continuing to
respond to you is to see what nonsense you will spout next.

You are confused, obviously. I can see why. I said that the usage of
'insect' is such that it is applied to critters that are outside
'Insecta'.

Sometimes this is true. Educated speakers (and obviously we can't
include you among them) will generally say that this usage is wrong. And
it's certainly an unexpected meaning among educated speakers.

It has nothing to do with education. 'Insect' simply is less
restricted than 'Insecta', period. End of discussion. It means what
people think it means, and that includes critters that are not
'Insecta'.

I'm afraid that education is another subject you're unfamiliar with. Is
it possible that different people use different meanings? Educated
people, in this case, use a different meaning from uneducated people
like you. And that's fine. Just don't try to tell us that your meaning
is the only permissible one.

The meaning I am referring to us listed in the dictionary, from which
one may conclude that it is widespread and common.

Oddly, one may apparently not conclude from dictionary definition of
"squirrel" that squirrels being called rodents is widespread and common.
It seems as if one is only allowed to conclude what UC wants to
conclude. I agree that the usage you refer to is widespread and common.
Among uneducated people, of which there are plenty.

Note that the meaning I prefer is also listed in the dictionary. So why
do you claim that only your meaning exists?

It's not 'mine' in
any sense. Nor is it 'wrong'. Education has nothing to do with it.
'Insect' is not much different in this regard than 'critter' (probably
a corruption of 'creature').

[snip another pointless dictionary entry]

Are you with me so far? I also have said that nothing IS
an 'insect' or 'mammal'; in other words these are classes, not
individuals.

Those statements are not equivalent, so you can't say "in other words".
And whether they are classes or individuals has nothing to do with
usage. "Vegetable" is a class, and we all agree that carrots are
vegetables.

Carrots are classed as vegetables.

Do you mean to say that "carrots are vegetables" is a correct or
incorrect thing to say?

For some reason you are unwilling to agree that cockroaches
are insects or that humans are mammals, despite the exactly parallel
construction. You keep raising objections that have nothing to do with
the point.

Only individuals exist. Even a biologist who is not a philosopher can
understand that.

Have you ever read anything by David Hull or Michael Ghiselin? What
exactly is an individual?

Only at the species level are organisms actually
equivalent. Any member of a given species can breed with members of
that species (generally speaking). This is thius a 'natural' division;
these others are 'non-natural' divisions. A horse cannot breed with a
rabbit any more than with a frog. For all practical purposes, the
difference is absolute. Species are just as isolated from each other
as genera and orders.

Now here you are claiming biological expertise that you don't possess.
That should be clear by now. If you want to argue biology, fine. But you
have previously claimed that biology is irrelevant to usage, so I wonder
why you make this lame attempt now.

All I'm saying that in nature, species are as isolated from each other
as from any other division.

Yes, and I'm saying you're wrong, on many levels. Since you are ignorant
of biology, and have previously said that biology is irrelevant to such
questions, I'm puzzled, first why you bring it up and second why you
think your claims are at all credible.

What I meant is that different species are just as isolated
genetically as are larger classifications, but only species actually
exist in the sense that their members can interbreed. The 'classes'
don't actually exist. They are simply names for groups of species.
There are only individual species of 'Insecta' within which its
members can interbreed. Drosophila can interbreed with other
Drosophila, but no Drosophila can breed with Tephritidae any more than
it can with Actias luna.

All you just did is repeat your previous assertions. You have not
addressed either of my qustions: why you brought this up and why you
think your claim is credible.

And it *is* lame. Aside from being irrelevant, you have no clue to what
natural groups are, or what species are. I would be glad to discuss this
if you want.

You talkin' to ME? Are you saying that I, who have a degree in
philosophy, don't know what a species is? Ever hear of Aristotle, sir?

This is one point at which I find it hard to believe that even you are
that stupid. I think you're doing it on purpose. As you well know, you
were using "species" in its biological meaning, and now you want to
pretend that you intended the philosophical meaning. But if we accept
that, nothing you said about breeding makes sense. What's the point in
being dishonest when you're so transparent about it?

The biological meaning is derived from the philosophical.

Another irrelevant point. Historically, you are correct. But that
doesn't have anything to do with the current biological concept "species".

Yes, I say that you, who have a degree in philosophy, don't know what a
(biological) species is. Judging by past experience, I doubt you even
know much about philosophy.


<<<33

.

Loading