> It seems a little premature to jump to that conclusion. The US and Great Britain are entirely different countries with different geography, climate, history, culture, laws, economies, etc.
I would say that there is also significant intra-country variation. I have a hard time imagining that there isn't some part of the US where conditions are not similar to the UK. At the point that these regulations work for these locales, I don't see compelling evidence that it wouldn't work elsewhere.
My argument isn't that there isn't culture, climate, or a variety of other factors that influence how things are done - rather, at the point that there is variation, but they all generally work, I have a hard time imagining each of them are important.
> What I found interesting about the article was that while each system was different, each was internally cohesive.
Hence the idea that these narratives are contrived. If we look at any system (that works/is real), there is internal consistency. It is very easy to point to any particular aspect of the system, and say that it is crucial/unique/signifantly valid and valuable.
I would say that this argument is very similar to creationism arguments that the universe's constants/parameters are uniquely functional because we are here. I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems like a logical fallacy to presume that a particular aspect causes the system in place.
I would say that there is also significant intra-country variation. I have a hard time imagining that there isn't some part of the US where conditions are not similar to the UK. At the point that these regulations work for these locales, I don't see compelling evidence that it wouldn't work elsewhere.
My argument isn't that there isn't culture, climate, or a variety of other factors that influence how things are done - rather, at the point that there is variation, but they all generally work, I have a hard time imagining each of them are important.
> What I found interesting about the article was that while each system was different, each was internally cohesive.
Hence the idea that these narratives are contrived. If we look at any system (that works/is real), there is internal consistency. It is very easy to point to any particular aspect of the system, and say that it is crucial/unique/signifantly valid and valuable.
I would say that this argument is very similar to creationism arguments that the universe's constants/parameters are uniquely functional because we are here. I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems like a logical fallacy to presume that a particular aspect causes the system in place.