Negative Impacts on Society

Hi again Syamsu,I haven't seen you posting for ages, are you just hanging out on the education board now for some reason?I was just wondering if you could direct us to a thread where we can see one of the many arguments you have won one on one, where anyone other than you has declared you the victor. Or is this not possible due to your never having been given a proper chance to go one on one. Perhaps you should ask the mods for a crack at the great debate in order to remove the problem of groupthink or getting ganged up on.Nice seeing you again,WK

I quit arguing, because it's really neccessary for me to make a faq about the issues I'm involved with, to not become repetitive. And that's a rather daunting task.I think I have succesfully argued for the significance of the relationship between Darwinism and social darwinism / Nazism on this forum. I have to "slam" some people some of the time who have a persistent tendency to make a joke of it all, but this is an entirely different situation from how things are on talk.origins forum about that particular issue.My argument about the formulation of natural selection theory when pursued have ended in unanwsered questions mostly. I did sort of win it once, when Quetzal said that my individual formulation is correct and that every biologist knows already that it is correct...., but then he said something like that because there is much variation in populations that the comparitive theory should be the basic theory in stead of the individual one.The reasons given as to why a comparitive theory is valid and necessary shift with each argument, for instance Percipient argued that there are "comparisons occuring in nature", where before Percipient said that it has to be comparitive because there is most times variation, and also said it has to be comparitive because there is most all time competition.Sure I would have a great debate about those 2 subjects. I think it's more likely that in a great debate someone would for instance not get away with ignoring that Dawkins wrote that his theory gives us insight into greed, and put up a false front of scientific rigour for Dawkins theory, like they are getting away with it on this thread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'd be concerned that such a debate might focus less on the issues and more on what constitutes a valid cause/effect, or on what conclusions can be rationally inferred from the evidence.--Percy

Syamsu,Every once in a while I get drawn into arguing with you. On my part, this is purely out of a pathological curiosity to determine what it is you're actually getting at. I have this naive belief that were I to understand your point you were making then I'd be better off for it, even if I disagreed with you.But then you remind me why this is such a waste of time - and not for the reasons you'd like. After all this time, I still have no idea what your argument actually is.Is it: "the Nazis would not have existed without the ToE therefore Darwin is culpable for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was wrong therefore the ToE is wrong?"Is it: "In popular literature the overuse of emotional words and phrases to describe evolutionary ideas is morally bankrupt. Therefore evolution is wrong."?Is it "Dawkins says that he can explain greed. Only paid-up theologians can explain greed. Therefore Dawkins is wrong."?or what?For example, in post #122 you state: This is a vacuous statement. "Significance" could mean anything. What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that WWII would not have happened without Darwin? Spit it out, man.You often talk about morality and moral concepts being "unscientific" but I can't remember you ever going into the consequences of this. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the use of "selfish" is an completelt and utterly unscientific comment. So what? Does this prove the theory wrong, or is it just a poor choice of words?Then you go on with your deranged argument about how evolutionists' preconceptions prevent them from seeing the necessary evil implicit in evolution, without recognising your own preconceptions and what they may be limiting you from understanding.In your post to me, you write: and you expect me to know what you're talking about. I honestly have no clue as to what your talking about other than your throwaway side comments - and I don't have sufficient interest in this conversation to trawl through the entire thread to see what Dawkins was purported to have said about greed. Why not post it again for me? Is it so difficult to take the time to fuly explain and cogently develop your argument?In post #119 you write (to Schraf): It was me who'd mentioned oughts and isses. What am I supposed to do with this statement of yours? Am I supposed to consider that you've dealt with it by calling it "simplistic"?You never addressed my query about whether you'd read up on Game theory, which should have been relatively easy to answer, and yet you then accuse me of not addressing your foggy comments on greed and loving. I didn't address them because there was nothing to address.When pressed on relevance, you keep making these bizarre references to psychologists or paediatricians who might treat people harshly because of the way the ToE is formulated. Is your beef then with the formulation and the words (if so, thats a particularly uninteresting topic) or with the concept itself. Would you accept the ToE if there was a purely mathematical and value free formulation of it, or is mathematics similarly value-laden?I'm not expecting you to answer any of the questions above btw(especially given your track record of answering my questions), but hopefully they should give you some insight into how I regard conversations with you. I just wanted to get a few things off my chest.I'm going to give our conversation a rest now as I find it too much hard work to have a productive discussion with you. Feel free to declare victory though. You have, on this occasion, literally bored your "opponent" into submission.PE

The preconceived notions result in you making bizarre strawman of my argument, not your misunderstanding of my argument. I guess that if there would be a professional historian on this forum, talking about the relationship of Darwinism to social Darwinism / Nazism, then I'm sure you would not spout the simplistic and prejudicial notions about the relationship of Darwinism to social darwinism / nazism that you do. Clearly, as can be seen by your guesses of what my point is, you don't spend more then half a thought about that relationship of Darwinism to Nazism, or the problems generated by using emotive language in science theories, because otherwise you would have given some coherent context for these issues. Your misunderstanding of my argument is a product of your own ignorance.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What I see is that discussion with you is absolutely pointlessbye.

Syamsu... the fact is that you are either completely unable or unwilling to explain what you would have us believe after reading your arguments.It is NOT A STRAWMAN if someone poses a straightforward question to you in an honest (and understandably desperate) attempt to get you to say what the hell you actually believe! You have never managed to explain it in your own words, so the next step down is to offer multiple choice questions. All we get is a nasty "none of the above" answer and more personal insults to the member who asked. You truly are the proverbial bull in a china shop, rearing and snorting, wondering what all those crashing noises are and why everybody is so upset....

hmmm so you would say that even if for instance Fischer, who wrote a standard history book on nazism, was posting here, then you would all still some post the same sort of thing that you do? Schrafinator would enlighten Fischer with her theory on baseballbats, Primordial Egg would enlighten Fischer that he could have made his chapter mainly dealing with Darwinism much shorter, by simply saying "you can't get an ought from an is".I don't think so... It is pure defense tactics, to defend Darwnism, no intellectual curiosity whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And still you prove yourself unable or unwilling to answer a simple question. Let's say for the sake of discussion that I accept every word you have to say. I still have nothing to believe in. All you know how to do is engage in this misguided Darwin-bashing. Can you do nothing positive? Are you so afraid of what people will say that you cannot bring yourself to even admit what you believe in?

Maybe some time ago I would have answered when somebody asked something like "do you believe that Darwin caused the holocaust?" But now I just recognize it for the pitiful defensiveness that it is. No good argument can possibly develop when starting from inane questions such as that.You can choose to be ignorant about these issues and have a false pretense that nothing is going on, but in the end much of your life might very well fall into the hands of evolutionary psychologists, giving you insight into your greed and loving, as Dawkins sets out. This all happened before with Lorenz and Haeckel, otherwise critically minded and skeptical science fans drifting towards bizarre and cruel ideology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

You can choose to be ignorant about these issues and have a false pretense that nothing is going on, but in the end much of your life might very well fall into the hands of evolutionary psychologists,

---

Evolutionary psychologists, for the umpteenth time, are not clinical practitioners!There are lots and lots of research psychologists, syamsu, who never treat patients, but study behavior, perhaps in humans, but also in other species like insects or rodents or birds.I'll say it once again.Not all psychologists are clinical psychologists, which are the kind who see patients and try to help them with their emotional problems.

​

Evolutionary psychology is a basic science, not an applied science.

​

Basic science attempts to figure out how things work.Why do you continue in your incorrect claim that evolutionary psychologists are clinical practitioners even though you have been corrected several times in the past?

Answer the question. What positive statement about the natural world would you have me believe?!I have heard your dismissals of evolutionary theory a hundred times too many. I could not care less for your thoughts on the relationship between this scientific theory and a certain set of opportunistic politicians. The question remains:WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?

That is false. It's not a certain set of oppurtunistic politicians but many of the most influential evolution scientists themselves, and in much of their main works that did much of the ideologizing. Such as Haeckel, Darwin, Lorenz, Galton and now Dawkins does his fair share. Your carelessness leads to error.My alternative is an individual formulation of selection theory, in stead of a comparitive one, and besides that cleaning up evolutionist discourse from emotive and atheist language much more.Apart from that I believe a creation theory that looks for origins in events where things became likely to be, for instance it became a relative certainty at event x that there would be plants at point y in time and prior to event x this wasn't a relative certainty, will subsume evolution theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If evolutionary psychology is not an applied science, then how come there are evopsych selfhelp books out, how come evopsych get's to be announced by Bobby Batista on CNN as being "all the rage"? Evopsych are currently searching for ways to port evopsych into a clinical setting. Evopsych is a relatively young discipline, it is to be expected that it takes some time to filter through to clinical psychology. You make it out as though evolutionary psychology could never enter into a clinical psychology setting, which is absurd. You expect me to believe that on the one hand psychologists would have this evopsych knowledge with farreaching pretensions on how people's psychology basicly works, and then not apply it.I've said this to you before, don't go complaining about repetition, when you yourself ignore my arguments.(http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/SkinterviewFace.html)
(apart from being a comedian John Cleese is a credentialled scientist and good friend of Richard Dawkins)Cleese: Not at all, Elizabeth, and welcome to the show. Many scientists think that apart from personal taste, there are universal scientific rules for beauty.David Buss, PhD, Professor Evolutionary Psychology, University of TexasBuss: When talking about female beauty...standards of female attractiveness, the two largest predictors are youth and health. Things like clear skin, smooth skin, full lips, because lips get thinner as you age. So full lips are a sign of youth, also a sign of health.
----There are qualifying statements to the "unversal scientific rules for beauty" on the page, but it is still tendentious and false IMO. Obviously evolutionary psychology is set to entrench itself deeply into our lives. In my experience, it's very difficult to maintain the belief that beauty is subjective, eventhough true. I get a lot of trouble about it, day in day out.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 04-19-2004]

What insight revealed to you the ultimate truth of the idea that beauty is subjective? Did you reach this truth guided by ideology, philosophy, experimental evidence or intuition?It may be popular to say that all standards of beauty are subjective, but it doesn't neccessarily have to be true. What makes you think that it is?I'm not saying this isn't the case, I'm simply asking what your reasoning was that brought you to this conclusion.TTFN,WK