Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin and responsibilty
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 76 of 76 (259332)
11-13-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Quibus
11-12-2005 9:55 PM


Re: Misinterpreted..
I do not see exactly how you are bridging Spencer's words via Darwin to the question in the OP.
quote:
I have often picked up on the not so subtle referencing of Darwin in connection with both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I am perplexed on 2 issues pertaining to this.
1)Is it somewhere recorded the exact references to Darwin by either of these people?
And
2)how do people at this forum allow such slips in reasoning?
I mean,this is tantamount to drawing the conclusion that those who discover new knowledge and share the results are therefore responsiblefor the use of that knowledge by other human beings even after death. This is the height of illogical and purposeless arguement and I find it offensive that a thinking person can accept such a proposition as being anything of value.
So I would like to see if statements such as this can be defended by anyone in these forums.If in making a case we could be careful to show how the conclusions are arrived at perhaps we could avoid some of the sloppy thinking processes before they begin.
You said "hardly any link" and "almost by rule." Would it be ok to have had you say "has NO SIGNIFICANT LINK" and "BY A DETERMINATE CAUSALITY," instead? Have you ever tried to think of a difference between 'real' and 'nominal' competition, between what is currently existing vs what already existed, and thought about how populations might encode for this selectively? Is it not that Western Culture has two uses for the potentially univocal word "population?" Is it not true that biology has benefited from understanding individuality WITHIN a population?
You seem to deny this has really been significant, organistically, when you said, "This only ensures survival of the genes?"
Do I understand you correctly?
Have you ever tried to think of the population of genes in the same sense that physics went historically past as it stoped speaking about "a priori" probabilities of particles to quantum mechanical restrictions on a classical viewpoint?
Why dont you try to think that the "individual" (and a colony of volox might be either an individual or a population on this view, I present
@ http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htm
posses MORE information than the genes dependent on the physical forces that compose the combinations of DECOMPOSITIONS of the genes as part of the influence of Mendelism on formal distribtions of endemic places themeselves(ie statistically for so-called "stations" on Earth). Think of the problem of decomposition of a rotting corpse but ALSO think of the decomposition of the formerly encoded genes? Can the forces that hold a gene literally together (for the individual) not be recycled and reused between the death of population (macrothermodyanmically
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
)
and the cessation of the individual components of species? Are their not MORE parts you did not consider(as if apprehened your thought correctly?).
Did I misrepresent what you said or I intended to say??
And what does this have to do with Hitler and Stalin, if at all?? I do not see how "after death" can be retrodicted on original authors except in a strictly legal sense. There is a difference between the matter and the form of death. Maybe we need a new discipline of forsenic ecology via human thermodynamics.
(see also
Institute of Human Thermodynamics :: About Us
)
It seems that what you say about misrepresentataions only applies to the form. This does not mean that social policies that interdict extinction are immune from the same criticism, as it seems to me, as they may materially affect past gains by denying simply present life, life of the individuals IN a population.
It is absolutley curious to me that Dakwins compared in the Devil's Chaplin (Gould had said in interview something like "what a glorious time the Devil's Chaplin would have...")Gould's reference to historical decomposition and Cuvier's position onto Gould's accusation contra RDawkins of "genetic atomism" via the deniably new position of irreducible complexity as cutting what could not have been, even in a footnote. There is a confusion here between contingency and discrete differences that is as hard to write as it is tolet an imagination free towards a religious motivation of the same object subjectively written from the perspecitve of "second" death instead. When I said a rotting corpse and repulsive gene proximate force decoding, above, I meant this as the same "death" that Bertrand Russel meant by the phrase , "when I die, I will rot, that is all.."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Quibus, posted 11-12-2005 9:55 PM Quibus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024