Using CLT in this context does not sit well with me. The only thing that changes is the variance/standard deviation in Conservationists case. Increasing the number of significantly different will not change the mean, unless the data is skewed. If the data is skewed, that means the significantly different data were tending toward a value other than the mean, which is a "trend" and not "diversity". Diversity will only increase the variance. See: "directional selection" and "stabilizing selection".

Even more, it tells us that no matter how independent, unique, weird and wild we try to be, we fit somewhere on the spectrum -- there is no way to escape the spectrum itself.

Any quantifiable information will tend toward a perfect bell curve with an infinite sample size. . . I don't understand the what is meant in the quote. I dislike when I see math and physics related to an entirely irrelevant subject.

**Math and science** are meant to represent the

**physical universe**: all concepts are reduced to their fundamentals, so weasel words do not exist, which is contrary to philosophic discussion. I don't understand why there aren't more people in applied science on this forum -- there would be less arguments about trivial matters like this topic. I believe that philosophy (metaphysics), math, and science try to arrive at the same point: representation of the physical universe. My personal preference is math and science over philosophy, so I will stick to arguing with what I know. Besides, metaphysics is rather obsolete.