All nucleic acid sequences are related eventually. HIV is highly polyphyletic, with each group more related to corresponding SIV than HIVs
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
So HIV is a human-centric category, and "types" of virus are particularly confusing to our already nebulous species categories?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you want an example of nebulous species there's lots of less confusing ones. Read a pop article on this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooded_crow …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thanks—the nebulosity of species is important, and a great example of nebulosity overall, and HIV’s polyphyly isn’t a great example of it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
As defined, "HIV causes aids" is tautology. But ppl who question it presumably have something else in mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right, and so do people who assert it, and they are perfectly justified in using the categories as they do—
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Truthiness is a complex opaque subjective judgment, like "I caused x" or "I know y". Resists being pinned down to "Truth".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you take the tautology seriously you are being clueless or aspie.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right. It’s a reductio of rationalism here.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
At this point in the story (which has grown to book length unfortunately) I’ve already seen off rationalism, so the more interesting >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
> question is: how *should* we understand “‘HIV causes AIDS’ is true”? One good feature of the example is that it’s true *importantly*
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Has potential, waiting to see what you do with it. Don't let me distract you.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.