SUBJ1

Nice save on the philosophy thing. I believe you may find that actual philosophers are pretty good at keeping things coherent, getting their ideas to hang together well. That is why you lost me at "wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist." I like to think that a working philosopher could demolish Hovind's "science," rub the pieces into the dirt and sprinkle salt on them without breaking a sweat.

It seems to me that Jack has a reasonable grasp of how genetics carries on in real life, one mating at a time. There is plenty of evidence around, so much in fact that it takes a lot of sifting to get at the bits relevant to any particular question. Reading Dawkins is probably as good a starting place as any for that.

As far as how central notions and counter-examples work, George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind" is a fantastic overview, if heavy going.

So the only philosophers are good philosophers, in your lexicon? Or is there some regulating body? See I think Hovind had the "science" to begin with, for the same reason he won't know when it's been "demolished". (Unless we are talking about taking away Hovind's book selling business, which I don't think any philosopher has yet achieved.) He doesn't think outside the paradigm/tradition and it always assures him he has the answer. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.