[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Case]

[Platt]
As you know, I agree with those who don't see a threat "we have 
created" to the environment. 

[Case]
Interesting... But leaving aside questions of blame, do you think such a
threat exists?
 
[Case]
> We would also have to develop the collective will to stop cuts in our
> space program and join with other countries to conduct a thorough search
> of the heavens of potential incoming threats. I am surprised at you
> Platt. We are in 100 percent agreement about this.


[Platt]
Why surprised? You'll find me a lovable, little fuzzball with a heart 
of gold. :-)

[Case]
So in the spirit of new found harmony: how would you propose addressing this
threat? How does, for example, a capitalist model apply to a situation that
offers no obvious source of profit, or individual motive for proceeding?

> [Case]
> Big rocks from space are exactly the kind of thing that punctuates
> equilibrium. Remember the T-Rex?


[Platt]
Not according to Wikipedia. But what does it know? 

[Case]
Gould is striving to maintain a theory that fits within the gradualist
tradition. He is specifically saying the punctuations occur because segments
of populations become isolated and local environmental pressure can cause
rapid selective changes in the isolated population.

The Wiki does say this is distinct from pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the
phenomenon of mass extinction. I have questions about how meaningful this
distinction is, perhaps Gould is offering up and additional cause of abrupt
changes in the fossil record. But I will be glad to call it mass extinction
even though this sounds much more grim. 

Still the net result it the same.

> [Case]
> Why yes, I am talking about a scientific theory and so is Al Gore. And
> when Popper talks about "falsifiability" he is talking about testing the
> null hypothesis. That is we test to see if the idea is false. If it is
> not we get to test it until we find it to be false. Until then we
> provisionally accept it as true. So when a Theory like Evolution has
> been tested non-stop for more than a 100 years and has not been found
> false it earns a capital T. All meaningful truth is provisional. To say
> otherwise would be to call it Absolute Truth. It is then not science. It
> is dogma. No amount of reason. No amount of testing. No amount of
> evidence to the contrary can stand against Absolute Truth. I find
> Absolute Truth to be of the lowest kind of Quality.

[Platt]
You seem to have just put forth an  Absolute Truth.

[Case]
No, I have described Absolute Truth. Do you have a different description?

[Snip long tirades about whose guy would win at Celebrity DeathMatch]

[Platt]
I don't want to get into an argument about the virtues and vices of George
Bush, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. That's for another web site. 
Suffice to say we both have our reasons for thinking as we do about politics
and those involved in it.

[Case]
OMG, another point of agreement!

Maybe you really are "a lovable, little fuzzball with a heart of gold"! But
you are scaring me, since I suspect the fuzzball conceals fangs, claws and a
head of steel. ;-O