(snip)
>I am not surprised that you do not understand what I
>am saying, it is not "like" anything (not correlated
>to another argument); instead, it is an ontological
>development of a logical sort whose ordering is
>found in the meaning of the words themselves and the
>way that the words necessarily add up to show an
>inconsistency in the theoretical conclusion if the
>conclusion (as stated in the words) purports to be
>an effect of the mental processes which lawfully
>create them.
Sorry, B., I don't buy it. Pick up an entry level text
on "Communications Theory". /No/ rational idea that one
mind can entertain is /intrinsically/ incompatible with
clarification by example to another. Here's a hint:
provide another /analogy/ like you /already/ did with the
classroom and test scores, but use a /relevant/ genetic or
biological /analogy/ instead; one that has the systemic
dynamics of competition, selection, survival, change and
recombination you referred to. You can still call it an
/analogy/, but I'll call it an example (but not out loud).
Dan