caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com (Charles A. Anderson) (11/18/89)
I would like to know if there is one person out there (even Richard, if he's still reading this group even though said he was going to stop) that can give a good reason why a non scientific group should be placed in the sci hierarchy. Puting fish in a tank and feeding them, cleaning the filters every now and then and keeping the temperature constant is no more scientific that raising a dog, giving them a bed to sleep in, food to eat, paper training them, and cleaning up their messes. I would also hazard a guess that training dogs, cats, gerbils, mice, hamsters, monkeys and whatever else is more scientific than curing your fish of ick. (however you spell it) I have never seen a study done where they have trained fish to swim through a maze. Better distibution is not a valid reason. P.S. Neither garnet, nor my machine at home receives or will ever receive that fishy group. (notice I avoided using the 'a' word all throughout this article.)-- Charles Anderson | caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com \ Disclaimer: I said what? ----------------/ caa@midgard.mn.org \ But CDC didn't. If someone deserves a cheap shot, by all means, give it to them.
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/22/89)
Charles A. Anderson writes: > Puting fish in a tank and feeding them, cleaning the filters every > now and then and keeping the temperature constant is no more > scientific that raising a dog, giving them a bed to sleep in, food to > eat, paper training them, and cleaning up their messes. I believe this is the fundamental difference of opinion in this whole aquaria shouting match. Unfortunately, everything but this is being discussed.