rationalskepticism.org

MarioNovak wrote:

Rumraket wrote:But it also turns out that biochemistry is not all-or-nothing. Protein or RNA sequences don't have to be EXACT and UNIQUE to be weakly functional. So as an analogy to this, some times an approximately correct sentence is still readable, even if there is spelling and grammatical errors.

I agree. Let us suppose that a question is this: What did 1998 CBS News poll showed Americans believed about assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Answer is this: A 1998 CBS News poll showed that 76% of Americans believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy.

Now, just as in biochemistry this answer is not all-or-nothing. Answer or question don't have to be EXACT and UNIQUE to be functional.

This one is also correct answer: poll showed 76% of people believed the Kennedy had been killed as the result of a conspiracy.

This one is also O.K: survey of public opinion showed 76% of people believed the John had been killed as the result of a inside job.

And this: surveyyyy offff public opinion showwed 76% of peopleaaa believed the John had been killed as the result of a inside job.

See, answer don't have to be exact.

Rumraket wrote:So when the people who are asked questions get sufficiently close in words and letters (50% ?), their answers start "working" and now the shooter will occasionally elect not to shoot at all when an "approximately correct" answer is given. So they obviously still get to keep their previous, now even better working answers and mutate it further should they run into the shooters again.

There, analogy fixed. I'm willing to run this experiment. Are you?

Wrong, you are presupposing communication which is an intelligent activity.