Can you cite experimental evidence for evolution?

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:36 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> John,
>
>
>
>   You bring up Dobzhansky. Great, let’s talk about him. His actual quote
> was “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jstor.org_stable_4444260-3Fseq-3D5-23metadata-5Finfo-5Ftab-5Fcontents&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=QwCa4XBGF9F-NE7fO2RDVvTS7ibBJZ5ZCuWVMKcSipU&e=>.”
> And he based that claim on the remarkable synthesis of Darwinian natural
> selection and molecular genetics. So, you are arguing that we should listen
> to Dobzhansky? And yet, you also write:
>
> "There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, yet we hang on
> to that theory for dear life, knowing it is illogical and
> untestable/unrefutable”  (from Sat 3/9).
>
>
>
> I think this is basically a ludicrous claim to make. Which means there is
> much more to systemic knowledge than empirical evidence alone. There is
> interpretation of what the data mean and how to think about it. I don’t
> share your interpretations of empirical evidence.
>
>
>
> Here is how I make sense of the puzzle:
>
>
>
> Natural selection operating on genetic combinations is obviously key.
> However, I do consider it to be significantly incomplete. I think there is
> much more capacity for organisms to evolve into niches than standard
> genetic mutation theory allows. The brings in epigenetics (see my blog on
> this here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_intl_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201312_revolution-2Din-2Devolution-2Dreturn-2Dlamarck&d=DwMFAg&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=kdyPU7LtUT84oPwjve6sOKG09VL-G0yH2TDY2YlWLEs&s=VHEcJA2sEVcOIDyYf1DC3FMjM1PbfKxxxld0WReVCbc&e=>).
> In addition, I agree with you that cell theory is not properly integrated
> with the modern synthesis. So, I am with you the modern synthesis needs a
> significant Newton-into-Einstein overhaul. And I think you are “seer” in
> this regard.
>
>
>
> But, John, your knowledge of philosophy and big picture synthetic views of
> psychology and the social sciences, well, quite limited in many ways. So, I
> embrace the “Torday line” which to me incorporates your findings and
> explains your vision from my vantage point.
>
>
>
> Bottom line: We have different interpretations of data and their
> implications and different ways to make sense of the world we find
> ourselves in. Lots of compatibility, but also some incommensurability.
> Let’s just agree to disagree and move on, shall we? Or you and I can back
> channel if you want.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:21 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System
>
>
>
> Dear ToKers, the great debacles of science like Heliocentrism, Microbe
> Theory, Vitalism, DNA as the mechanism of inheritance, The Big Bang, have
> all been resolved by experimental evidence. Where is the experimental
> evidence for the ToK/UTUA? I ask because this is the challenge for me,
> which I have offered to resolve by interjecting the experimenal evidence
> into Gregg's ToK as the Joint Points. He chooses to reject that out of hand
> as being a different systematic approach to the ToK. I dispute that, and in
> my defense I will cite Theodosius Dobzhansky, the pre-eminent evolutionist,
> who said that 'evolution is all of biology', psychology being a subset of
> biology. If my take on evolution is unacceptable, then some other body of
> experimental data must be offered in order to resolve this debate. I offer
> this perspective in the spirit of constructive debate....John
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Brent and Gregg for these additional comments and clarifications. I
> find the Canonizer platform incredibly helpful and a great mechanism for
> comparing arguments and theoretical perspectives, especially since we have
> much more limited opportunities in the academic world through our
> traditional publication processes. Especially helpful for people to locate
> themselves vis-a-vis others in a constructive fashion. Continued success
> Brent,
>
>
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=>
>
> London, Ontario, Canada
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=>
>  N6A 2M3
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=>
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:20 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System
>
>
>
> Thanks for this wonderful description, Brent.
>
>
>
> As my slides suggested, I am definitely in the Representational Qualia
> Theory camp. It is interesting because after that, I am not sure where to
> place myself. (I joined and put myself there).
>
>
>
> That means that with canonizer I can see clearly where my approach falls
> relative to others, which is super helpful. I almost went with biological
> naturalism via John Searle. However, I don’t quite share his language. I
> think that the next “breakdown” point I would argue for is “Property
> Quadism” to contrast with property dualism. Property dualism goes under
> mind-brain identity. I disagree with that language system, because I make
> very clear distinctions between mind (the mind) and consciousness. Property
> quadism stems from the ToK and the claim that, ontologically, there are
> four dimensions of behavioral complexity (Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture)
> that characterize the behavioral patterns of objects, organisms, animals,
> and persons.
>
>
>
> Thus, under RQT I would add UTUA Theory of Knowledge…
>
>
>
> Fascinating.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
> *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2019 11:09 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> You seem to not know much about how canonizer works, what it is, or what
> it has already accomplished.
>
>
>
> You indicated how “Crowd Sourcing” is not the source to “wisdom” or
> “understanding” and that the crowd is “clueless”.  I agree with you, that
> currently the crowd is quite clueless.  The only reason we want to measure
> this cluelessness, using the default popular consensus canonizer algorithm,
> is so we can compare this to the “expert consensus” as measured by expert
> canonizer algorithms.  What you can measure, will improve.  This allows the
> experts to better find out what the popular consensus is.  Knowing where
> the crowd is mistaken and why, they can then better form the expert
> consensus in a way that the crowd can better keep up.  One of many ways
> this canonization process amplifies the wisdom of the previously,
> clueless.  For example, global warming experts will finally be able to know
> what the crowd believes, and why.  And they will be able to measure which
> arguments better convince the crowd…  Again, amplifying the wisdom of the
> crowd.
>
>
>
> Before Canonizer.com existed, many of the notes groups and forums  I
> participated in, even the philosophy ones, would try to shame people into
> not bringing up the topic of “qualia”, knowing that this would just lead to
> a shouting match, where no matter what you referenced from what was coming
> out of the Ivory Tower and Peer reviewed journals, someone else would throw
> an equally ivory towers reference claiming it was “fake news”.  The same
> old yelling match, and reference throwing at each other never made any
> progress, and ultimately one side or the other would accuse the other of
> being Nazis.  The stuff being published in peer reviewed journals is no
> different.  This fear and loathing everyone has of even bring up the topic
> of qualia, as a result of all this, is the biggest reason the crowd is so
> clueless.  Even many neural experimentalist fear bringing up the word
> qualia.  If they try to consult the peer review journals on this, it is all
> junk, so they just give up after a few years.  Jack Galant is a very good
> example of exactly this.
>
>
>
> Now, when you go into forums, where people know what canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>
> is, everything has changed dramatically.  Talking about qualia is now fun.
> Anyone that brings up qualia, now, is quickly met with people pointing to
> links, describing the state of the art of emerging expert consensus camps
> held by the participants in the forums.  Instead of all the repeated old
> arguments, on the occasion someone does bring a new argument or scientific
> results to the conversation that is not yet canonized, you canonize that
> new argument.  You can measure the quality of such arguments and evidence
> by how many people they convert.  We are already seeing this.  Again, that
> which you measure, improves the wisdom of the crowd.  These kinds of
> conversations, in forums, are now very fun, and you see things start to
> progress at an extraordinary rate, instead of being stuck on the same old
> stupid arguments, over and over again.  We even had a high school student
> come to canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>,
> clearly initially, quite naive about many of the good arguments and
> theories.  Within a few months, since he was able to ignore all the old
> stuff by all the old experts taught in college classes, which most experts
> now agree have been falsified, he was competing with PhDs that had been
> working and publishing in the field for years with his contributions.
>
>
>
> There are also LOTS of people that have what they believe to be the
> “Solution” to the hard problem, which they can’t get published, for lots of
> various reasons, including the fact that many of the ideas look really
> crazy, and have nothing to do with the real “hard problem”.  These kinds of
> people flock to canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>,
> because it is finally a place where they can, not just publish their work
> they can canonize it, and start finding other people that agree with them,
> building consensus around their best ideas, and abandoning the bad ones.
>
>
>
> Now that canonizer has been around, and we’ve been doing the consciousness
> consensus project for more than 10 years we’ve made a real breakthrough.
> The “Representational Qualia Theory
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-3F&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=0RNGuwEW1JQDWa-AcIzsas_lm9KtG-on5irO0fJ8rwA&e=>”,
> which has almost unanimous expert consensus, is not only proving how much
> consensus is possible in this field, it is the real solution to bridging
> the explanatory gap, describing a real way to approach the qualitative
> nature of consciousness scientifically.
>
>
>
> The Ivory tower and peer reviewed journal industry has been struggling
> with this so called “hard problem’, for hundreds of years. About all
> they’ve given anyone, is that there is no consensus on anything.  Only the
> bad arguments are the ones that get so often bleated, by the polarized
> herding crowd.  Now, with Canonizer, no more.
>
>
>
> You also said: “You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the
> word.”
>
> Which is also incorrect.  The domain name “canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>”
> is owned by Canonizer.com LLC, and nobody could get a copyright on a word
> like that.  We're using it quite successfully already.
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:44 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Brent:
>
> Yes, I know.  As a result, you will fail.  Pick a different name . . . <g>
>
> "Crowd Sourcing" is a fad that people increasingly recognize is *not*
> the source to "wisdom."  It certainly has its purposes -- like if
> you're trying to build "consensus" -- but "understanding" isn't one of
> them.
>
> Most people have no clue what is going on -- for good reason.  You
> *really* only need to understand something because you are
> "responsible" for the outcome.  That means yourself, your family, your
> job -- that's it.  Enough.  No more.
>
> The notion that a group of people without that direct engagement with
> the subject-at-hand should have something "intelligent" to say is
> idiotic.  They never will and, indeed, they really shouldn't.
>
> President of the US?  Negotiations with North Korea?  None of my
> business.  Opinions?  Don't have one.  Stick your opinion survey where
> the sun doesn't shine (as more-and-more people are, in fact, telling
> the pollster)  . . . !!
>
> "Democracy" -- particularly of the *direct* sort -- is a hoax.  I know
> some of the people who spread this idea, including those who did it to
> the "shop floor" and they were quite idealistic about it.  They also
> thought we should all live our lives like the Aboriginals.  Huddled
> around the fire, starring at the flickering images on the tent wall.
> Without literacy.  Rousseau would have liked it, I suspect.
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Fred-5FEmery&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=19-AJ6b2uPtOcvH5PZ8v3aoWOBbQtP-h_fMqr6Mdg9k&s=Str2nuv8x8KlwqngwxVOqJvsjde8rsPQ0zWS5JbgpEA&e=
>
> You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the word.  The
> environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point
> of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't.
>
> So don't even try (unless you want to learn a lesson that you have
> already been taught) . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> >
> >
> > We at canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>
> are using and defining canonize in a new way, or giving
> > it a new, or additional definition.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where as the traditional meaning is based on a hierarchy or
> “ecclesiastical
> > definition” our meaning is simply crowd sourced or built by consensus.
> > Instead of top down, it is bottom up.  Instead of dictated from above, it
> > is self-organized, bottom up.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where the traditional usage is based on tradition, our usage is dynamic,
> > and always changing.  It is a measure of the state of the art of a
> standard
> > scientific consensus, theory, and belief.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is simply what the participants build consensus around what they want,
> > and the current state of the art of the best terminology we chose to use.
> >
> >
> >
> > At canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>,
> to “canonize” something, is to find out, concisely and
> > quantitatively, what everyone truly wants or believes.  Then once that is
> > known, to get it all, for everyone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> John/Gregg:
> >>
> >> This is *classic* . . . !!
> >>
> >> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC.  Two different "sensibilities."
> >> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ??
> >>
> >> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are
> >> *both* now obsolete.  Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror."  Both
> >> looking backwards.
> >>
> >>  From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language
> >> systems."  From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all
> >> this out -- "scientifically."
> >>
> >> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked.  Neither
> >> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different
> >> psycho-technological environments are at work.  And neither will those
> >> who participate in the "Canonizer" game.
> >>
> >> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely
> >> different sensibility to the "debate."
> >>
> >> Yes, this is classic . . . <g>
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC.  And
> >> it cannot be decided by a "vote."  It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law."
> >>   What a world of surprises awaits us all.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&e=
> >>
> >> ############################
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> >> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >> or click the following link:
> >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> >>
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> > write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > or click the following link:
> > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1