Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 106 of 155 (72505)
12-12-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Syamsu
12-12-2003 10:22 AM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
Syamsu,
Again, the evidence I have provided earlier should be satisfactory.
You have pointed to whole scientific disciplines, but not provided any evidence as to specifically how they are being political. You have cited books, but failed to show exactlywhere the scientists are politicising. In fact, you haven't provided a single specific instance of scientists politicising whilst doing science.
Not one.
I find that most unsatisfactory, don't you?
At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness...
Thus proving you haven't understood the view Dawkins was attempting to expound. In fact, I doubt you've actually even read the Selfish Gene all the way through.
Does the word "altruism" mean anything to you? The explanation of that word was a large part of the point of the Selfish Gene.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 10:22 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 7:57 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 113 of 155 (72765)
12-13-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Syamsu
12-12-2003 7:57 PM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
Syamsu,
"We are born selfish" (Richard Dawkins, preface The Selfish Gene)
I have the preface to hand for both editions & that quote is in neither, as far as I can see.
It hardly matters, of course, since Dawkins went to great length to show how altruistic behaviour can arise from selfish genes in chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene. But you'd know that having familiarised yourself with his works. In fact, this shows categorically that the "We are born selfish" quote is out of context.
Of course those that make the ridiculous statement that I have not provided a single piece of evidence, are believers in the naturalistic fallacy, which makes any evidence to the point at issue an impossibility.
What are you waffling about?
The rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. (Klaus Fischer, talk.origins)
So what? Once again it isn't biology promoting that racism. Failed again - Doh!
There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas between very respected academics on the one hand, and racial popularizers on the other. (Klaus Fischer: Nazi Germany, A new history)
Again, so what? What's wrong with trying to determine the scientific validity of race? Not political. Failed again - Doh! And Nazi Germany isn't recent, is it? How quickly you forget you are supposed to be furnishing us with RECENT examples of biologists promoting politics. So far not a single example.
Not one.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 7:57 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 115 of 155 (72813)
12-14-2003 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 3:36 AM


Re: and another thing
Syamsu,
But, I'm not lying at all, Dawkins did say that "we are born selfish" AS SOME KIND OF SCIENCE FINDING.
Once again, "It hardly matters, of course, since Dawkins went to great length to show how altruistic behaviour can arise from selfish genes in chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene. But you'd know that having familiarised yourself with his works. In fact, this shows categorically that the "We are born selfish" quote is out of context."
Dawkins was not making an absolute statement at the exclusion of altruistic behaviours. What is clear from anyone who has read Dawkins is that he expounds the idea that it is genes that appear to act selfishly. The organisms that are the result of those genes may or may not act selfishly.
We are born selfish, we are also born altruistic. Dawkins didn't say anything untrue at all, he just didn't make a statement exclusive of altruism. How is it possible for someone to have read the Selfish Gene not to understand that? You really do make a fool of yourself, Syamsu. Does the word "context" mean nothing to you? You are engaged in a classic creationist misrepresentation, see chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene for details of your gross error.
There is a long and continuous history of evpolutionism being linked to politics, and ALL historians I've read so far, recognize this link. Which means that I believe none of you have ever read any history about the subject....
This is NOT what is under discussion. You are claiming that evolutionary theory itself is political. I would agree that there are plenty of people who have attempted to support their ideas with evolution, it's not in contention, but this is a comment on them, not evolutionary theory.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 3:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 8:13 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 119 of 155 (72848)
12-14-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 8:13 AM


Re: and another thing
Syamsu,
Once again, your reading of "The Selfish Gene" is simply false. Selfish genes normally give rise to selfish behaviour on the individual level, and BY EXCEPTION do they give rise to altruistic behaviour on the individual level. Since it is just an exception, this allows Dawkins to say that "we are born selfish" as generally true.
I hardly think familial altruism/kin selection is an exception, do you? It's pretty central to human behaviour patterns.
The fact remains that you quoted Dawkins out of context.
You said
Syamsu writes:
At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness...
You then quoted Dawkins as if he was making an absolutist comment, "we are born selfish" which he patently is not. You then agree that altruistic behaviour exists?
What or who are you arguing with?
The point is inconsequential anyway, because it doesn't matter if Dawkins finds we are altruist, or that we are selfish, or that Aryans are altruist, and Jews are selfish, it's all the same fault of conflation.
Right, so why make an inconsequential point in the first place? I could of told you your "point" in post 104 was pointless, what do you think I've been doing since? And what is being conflated?
OK, time to come up with the goods, Syamsu, you are claiming that evolutionary theory is becoming politicised. Provide shall we say, a cool half a dozen examples of biologists politicising on the strength of evolutionary theory? That's not unreasonable given your claim, is it?
Let me make clear what isn't acceptable, anything older than 20 years, it's supposedly b-e-c-o-m-i-n-g more political, & that means RECENT quotes, right? The other big no-no are non-biologists, or scientists not involved with evolutionary theory. They do NOT represent or embody the current theory. So we're NOT interested in what irrelevant scientists have to say about the ToE, OK?
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 8:13 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 125 of 155 (72911)
12-15-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Syamsu
12-15-2003 1:38 AM


Re: Racism and Darwin Misused
Syamsu,
Ned writes:
Back it all up with something concrete besides your rambling or give it up. I'm bored with the continual assertions and nothing but.
Ditto.
Put up or shut up.
You have been told what evidence you need to produce in my last post, among others. Your continued assertions is not among them.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 1:38 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 128 of 155 (72928)
12-15-2003 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Syamsu
12-15-2003 7:14 AM


Re: Back Up
Syamsu,
I realized 2 posts ago, that it was a tactical mistake to continue to provide argumentation and evidence to people who really stop to think after realising the naturalistic fallacy
And we agreed more than two posts ago to ignore the naturalistic fallacy, so there's no hiding behind that, is there?
I also don't accept that I can only refer to scientists for evidence, and not to lay people who use evolutionary biology.
Which brings us to the crunch. Are people right to politicise with scientific theories? How is the validity of said theory affected by this?
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 7:14 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 9:38 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 131 of 155 (72983)
12-15-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Syamsu
12-15-2003 9:38 AM


Re: Back Up
Syamsu,
Oh yes my reference to Dawkins selfish gene was disqualified not because of the naturalistic fallacy, but because of what again, because I omitted the context that people are not actually born selfish according to your reading of Dawkins, eventhough Dawkins explicitly says they are born selfish, and he says that altruism has to be taught, which teaching is not advocating a morality according to Dawkins, eventhough he is advocating, and it is a morallity....
Can you even remember what you are arguing about?
Let me refresh your memory.
Syamsu writes:
Some time later if you have some crisis in your life, you might go to a psychologist. At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness...
Now, if this selfishness is so innate & can only be cast aside by moral means which is what you are saying Dawkins is saying. What are chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene about? Why does Dawkins go to such trouble to explain kin selection & altruistic behaviour? Why does Dawkins so explicitly deny the genetic determinism you are trying to accuse him of?
There is only one conclusion, that the quote "we are born selfish" is not intended to be taken absolutely, but in context, primarily because Dawkins spends so much time explaining why we are not born selfish. It is inescapable.
Please, please do me the courtesy of answering my questions. I do my best to answer yours.
I believe people are free to politicize / religionize a scientific theory, as also happens with quantum mechanics and buddhism. But that has to happen outside of science.
Now all you have to do is provide six examples of different scientists involved with evolution politicising within their science. Betchya can't.
And the second part of the question was, how is the validity of said theory affected by the politicisation outside of science? Curiously you always avoid this one. Please answer this time.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 9:38 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Syamsu, posted 12-16-2003 12:09 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 133 of 155 (73279)
12-16-2003 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Syamsu
12-16-2003 12:09 AM


Syamsu,
- apparent altruism might commonly be raised as objections to his theory of selfish genes so he concentrates on refuting the objections
Not so. Altruistic behaviour is explained right off the bat in the Selfish Gene. See Dawkins 1976, & "The Selfish Gene" chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of any edition you care to read. But so what? What's wrong with refuting objections?
- his theory is basicly very boring,
? Well now there's a serious rebuttal, that'll probably make it into the next edition! How can you say it's boring if you've never read it?
a leaf on a plant helps to reproduce offspring of that plant, and not some other plant (like we didn't know this already), and that's why he includes to explain altruism to make his theory look more interesting.
Bullshit. The Selfish Gene promotes a different view of life & nothing more. Altruism is a phenomena to be explained, the Selfish Gene does it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Selfish Gene was originally written, by an ethologist no less, who somehow tacked on altruistic behaviour as an afterthought? If so it shows your crass self induced ignorance. See chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13. Big clue, there are only 13 chapters.
You are confused about genetic determinsm. The altruism Dawkins talks about in the other chapters is also genetic determinism, just like the selfishness is genetically determined.
Utterly, utterly wrong.
I'll quote another book you haven't read, "The Extended Phenotype". The chapter two, Genetic Determinism & Gene Selectionism should be of particular interest to you. It refutes the myth of absolute genetic determinism. You are a doddle, Syamsu. It's like arguing quantum physics with a 5 year old.
As before politization (finally the correct spelling...) doesn't just happen outside of science, as you can read on the webpage of Gasman I reference.
LOL, you mean "politicization"?
Show me where this occurs from an evolutionary point of view.
Here's what seems to be professor P. Rushton's website:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/
Interestingly it is strongly implied on the webpage that the comparitive method is what links to racism, just like I have always said it does.
The following quote in no way supports your contention.
"Some of the politically inspired resistance to Darwinism in human affairs comes from evolutionary scientists themselves. By overemphasizing the search for universals, that is, pan-human traits (partly to show people's commonalities), many evolutionists abandon the very comparative method that created the Darwinian Revolution in the first place."
Rushton would appear to lament the loss of the "comparitive method", & not be claiming it was false in the first place.
That's a problem, as a Darwinist you have to talk about one human being as "better" then another.
Yes, so? The word "better" is a word to be taken in context & not conflated politically. If one "race", which incidentally it is recognised don't exist, has relatively more acute hearing than another it does not therefore mean that they are second class citizens, it means that they have an on average relative hearing differential with other races. Again if you'd read Dawkins you would understand this. He is very, very clear on the issue.
I can imagine that sometimes students of Darwinism will deny equality of human beings, or hollow out it's meaning, solely because of viewing people from a Darwinist perspective. It tends to have that effect in my own use of Darwinism.
I deny the equality of human beings! There, I said it. Humans beings are patently, demonstrably not equal to each other. They are demonstrably comparable to each other. But this isn't a political statement, is it? It is a demonstrable FACT.
It does not logically follow by pointing out that humans aren't equal to each other that their rights should be different.
The politicizing doesn't effect the scientific validity, but Natural Selection is not scientifically valid in the first place, and the flaw in it, the reliance on comparison, is sustained politically.
NS is a perfectly valid scientific theory supported to fact status by evidence.
Have you forgotten that you agreed to the following?
Statement 1/ The changes in ratios of alleles due to natural selection within a breeding population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
Statement 2/ The changes in ratios of homologous alleles/genes due to natural selection within a population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
Syamsu: Yes sure I agree.
YOU AGREED TO A COMPARITIVE METHOD!!!!!!!!!!!
You couldn't make it up, Syamsu, you couldn't make it up.
You are a hypocrite, & a shameless one at that.
No one disagrees that certain people have used science to support their ethical & moral stances. The question is, is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?
Answer: of course there isn't. Do you agree? If the answer is no, then any attempt to support this kind of morals & ethics with science is a comment on the person & not the science.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-16-2003]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Syamsu, posted 12-16-2003 12:09 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 12-16-2003 9:52 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 135 of 155 (73333)
12-16-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Syamsu
12-16-2003 9:52 AM


Syamsu,
There's nothing wrong with refuting objections, but altruism is still an exception according to Dawkins selfish gene theory, eventhough he spends many chapters covering them. Again this explains why Dawkins can say that people are born selfish, because altruism is an exception, otherwise you would simply have to make the assertion that Dawkins is blatantly wrong about his own theory in the preface.
A lot of pointless relativism, there mate. I could with exactly the same justification say that selfish behaviour is the exception. Given that human society is based around the family I would claim that the single greatest effect on our society is a result of altruism. But like I say, it's unquantifiable & meaningless.
Both the altruism and selfishness that Dawkins talks about are genetically determined, this does not exclude the workings of cultural determinism, and random / chance factors, just that cultural determinism and chance / choice factors are not covered by Dawkins theory.
Actually cultural effects are covered. He points out that there are Jews that would starve to death rather than eat pork, different learned behaviours in different sub-populations etc. etc. Again, you clearly haven't read Dawkins. What did you think the "Meme Machine" was all about? My mistake, you have formed an opinion of someone without bothering to avail yourself of what they actually are saying. Your self imposed ignorance makes you look extremely foolish.
Every single claim you have made is false, Dawkins has all the bases you claimed he didn't, covered. It goes like this, the fundamental units of behaviour are genes, the environment can impose "phenotypes" on top of this, & so can memes. Hence Dawkins is NOT a genetic determinist. He is of course most interested in the genetic component of the trio.
Again I draw your attention to chapter 2 of "The Extended Phenotype", Genetic Determinism & Gene Selectionism, where Dawkins exposes the "myth" of genetic determinism. Strange someone who you say is a determinist should devote a whole chapter to expounding the opposite, wouldn't you say?
Again, organisms generally do not behave interestingly altruisticly like in the many examples Dawkins covers, they generally behave boringly selfish, according to the selfish gene theory. The food an animal eats generally goes selfishly into it's own mouth, and not the mouth of another (not as sometimes with the altruistic bats that Dawkins covers).
Let me suspend my objection for a moment, so what? What you think is boring or not is a comment on your inability to be objective. Different organisms display different levels of altruism, so what?
But it seems that you disagree with your own objection! You didn't like Dawkins when hwe said "we are born selfish", now you are saying the same. What a mobile debater you are!
Of course Rushton doesn't claim the comparitive method is false, he uses it all the time, and insists on it's use, being preoccupied with racial differences as he is. I was saying that racism is linked to Natural Selection through the comparitive method, and the quote supports that.
Er, no. Were there such a thing as races, & if there were, why shouldn't we note their differences? What is NOT supported from your cite is the political aspect you claim is evident. That races should be treated differently. So racism is NOT a corollary of Rushton's text. You really do seem to have a problem reading for context, don't you?
You forget that people are free to conflate science and politics by constitutional freedom of religion. Biolgists simply have to use other words then good, better, and selfish etc. words that don't have rich cultural meaning, that would solve a lot of problems of politicization, and perhaps would also make biologists more technically accurate. Of course your total denial of the history of violent racism linked to the works of the most influential evolutionary biologists such as Lorenz, Haeckel and Darwin comes in handy now, to deny that there is any problem at all. And why stop denying there, why not deny the holocaust as well? That's the sort of people you side with, by denying any meaningful link between Darwinism and Social Darwinism, even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You really are a prick, Syamsu. I've NEVER denied it. In my last post I said that there were people who did this, & I've done it many, many times before. What you utterly & completely fail to understand is that because people can rip off science for their own ends doesn't mean they should. Moreover, what they are doing isn't science but satisfying their own pre-existing mentalities.
Sometime before I shared your opinion that equality was not based on sameness.....SNIP
Let me stop you there. You are equivocating. Equality as meant in politics is usually something like "all men are created equal", "all men have equal rights" etc. Quite right in my view. But the same terms are defined differently in evolution.
Equal means the same value. An organism is made up of many phenotypes, identical twins excepted none of them will be equal.
This makes the rest of your illogical conflation irrelevant.
Do you agree that when I put a pot of honey next to an anthill, that it will result in a differential rate of reproduction of ants and elephants? These are undeniable facts, they don't mean anything however, just as your comparitive method doesn't mean anything. Once again, it only means something when there is a point to the differential success, the point being the one replacing the other, and this point is lost in Natural Selection theory.
Replacement? Of what? Oh, another character. That's a comparison you just made!
Again you flout your ignorance, replacement is NOT the point of NS. Does balancing selection or evolutionarily stable strategies mean anything to you? You should, Dawkins covered them. Oop, I forgot, you don't read what you are criticising, my mistake. Natural selection is not solely about replacement, it is an explanation for both change and stability, & even the maintenance of multiple strategies (ESS).
I would dearly love for you to explain any example of any ESS you like without comparisons & direct interactions. *snicker*
I think I edited my last post as you were writing yours, so here it is again, "the question is, is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?
Answer: of course there isn't. Do you agree? If the answer is no, then any attempt to support this kind of morals & ethics with science is a comment on the person & not the science."
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 12-16-2003 9:52 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 12-16-2003 11:42 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 12-17-2003 11:33 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 138 of 155 (73535)
12-16-2003 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Loudmouth
12-16-2003 1:50 PM


Re: Futility Personified
Loudmouth,
He doesn't seem to get the idea that misusing a theory does not refute the theory.
Actually he does.
The politicizing doesn't effect the scientific validity, but Natural Selection is not scientifically valid in the first place, and the flaw in it, the reliance on comparison, is sustained politically.
Which has to leave you wondering what his point is? Lot's of people misuse science, but it leaves the theories intact & inviolate, so there! Um, so what are us defenders of science supposed to worry about?
But NS isn't scientifically valid? Earth to Syamsu, earth to Syamsu....
Even the most hardened creationists accept the scientific validity of NS.
What I love about Syamsu is his ability to argue something absolute, then in the process of argument, end up arguing the opposite.
Consider his Dawkins "we are born selfish" quote he disagrees with. He then in a later post insists on limiting the efficacy of altruistic behaviour to a mere "exception". The corollary of which is that we are born selfish! Will the real Syamsu please stand up!
Or the absolute classic where he again denies the efficacy of the "comparative method", yet agrees really....
Statement 1/ The changes in ratios of alleles due to natural selection within a breeding population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
Statement 2/ The changes in ratios of homologous alleles/genes due to natural selection within a population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
Syamsu: Yes sure I agree.
Then in a later post the "comparative method" is "rubbish, "false", & "stupid". Hey you agreed to it, Syamsu, keep reeling off the expletives, dude!
Syamsu is a living embodiment of the adage, "a little knowledge is dangerous". Consider all his Dawkins misrepresentations. Dawkins is a genetic determinist, yet spends an entire chapter of the Extended Phenotype rebutting such notions. Dawkins sees altruistic behaviour as an exception, but spends a half of the Selfish Gene talking about it. I'm sure you have your favourites, too.
You have to see Syamsu as entertainment, nothing else. Like I say, you couldn't make it up.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2003 1:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 7:10 AM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 141 of 155 (74085)
12-18-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Syamsu
12-17-2003 11:33 AM


Syamsu,
Jews not eating pork, and memes, are obviously not covered by Dawkins theory of selfish genes. Again, the altruism that Dawkins refers to in his theory is genetically determined, and so is the selfishness. This does not preclude other factors from operating, but those fall outside his theory obviously.
I quite agree, but that was always my point. Dawkins doesn't ignore such factors, he accepts that behaviour isn't entirely genetically deterministic. That was the point, remember, you telling me Dawkins was a genetic determinists when he clearly isn't?
IMO to note that an animal eating their food is noted as selfish according to Dawkins selfish gene theory, just shows how ridiculous a theory it is. This is one of the reasosn why he doesn't cover individual selfishness much, why he concentrates on the 1 percent of altruistic cases in many chapters, eventhough altruism is a very small part of cases where his theory applies.
Altruism is so extensively covered because it is a phenotype that at first glance contradicts the idea of genes acting selfishly. Selfish behaviour requires very little explanation.
I am merely using Dawkins theory to demonstrate it's absurdity, of course I don't myself view organisms as selfish or altruistic the way Dawkins does.
So a mother isn't being altruistic by nursing her child?
I said myself that NS is not about replacement, read again.
I did, & you said NS is about replacement, & it's not the first time, either. Can't you remember your own position?
Syamsu writes:
Once again, it only means something when there is a point to the differential success, the point being the one replacing the other, and this point is lost in Natural Selection theory.
It's not about replacement, therefore there is no point to the comparing in NS.
Then please explain your favourite example of an ESS without comparing.
Make your mind up, Syamsu, is it about replacement or not?
For the third time of asking.
"The question is, is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?
Answer: of course there isn't. Do you agree? If the answer is no, then any attempt to support this kind of morals & ethics with science is a comment on the person & not the science."
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 12-17-2003 11:33 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2003 9:10 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 143 of 155 (74289)
12-19-2003 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Syamsu
12-19-2003 9:10 AM


Syamsu,
I think your question about superimposing is wrong. Does Darwinism strongly tend to influence intellectual climate of opinion personally and societally, including religious and political opinion?
That's not what I asked.
"The question is, is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?"
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2003 9:10 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 9:35 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 146 of 155 (79009)
01-17-2004 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Syamsu
01-16-2004 9:35 PM


Syamsu,
Your question is obviously lawyering, not a question aimed at getting more insight into the issue, but a question aimed at establishing the innocence of evolutionary biology, and therefore wrong.
How can a question be wrong because the conclusion is wrong? You are assuming the conclusion in your premise,; circular argument. Not to mention assuming that a question = a statement & can actually be wrong in the same way. Questions can be poorly formulated, not conclusionally wrong, by definition. Your question is of the form, "does God exist? Since the answer is no, the question is wrong". There has to be a name for this kind of fallacy. It could be called a Syamsu, perhaps?
I am trying to ascertain whether or not we are logically compelled to draw moral conclusions from obsrvation, what's lawyering about that? What is not valid about that?
Clearly your objection is that the obvious answer is "no", & this completely screws your argument that evolutionary theory in & of itself is political. So please have the intellectual honesty & answer the question.
Is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?
Your illogical evasion is noted.
I don't believe that any kind of position that mainly treats evolutionary biology as a victim of racist ideologists, in stead of treating it as a motor of racist ideology has any credibility with intellectuals.
And I am trying to ascertain whether your "belief" is rational. Please answer the question, above. Yes or no.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 9:35 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 9:16 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 148 of 155 (79027)
01-17-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu
01-17-2004 9:16 AM


Well I could say the answer is yes, we are logically compelled to draw moral conclusions from observation by the logic of our psychology, and being compelled emotionally to know right from wrong. But the question is wrong.
Like what? Or is this simply saying we have morality therefore it should influence our morality?
You are wriggling, let me restate the question to eliminate your wriggle room.
What is it about evolutionary theory that logically compels us to superimpose it onto our morality, & by dint of that into our politics?
If the answer is no, then the question is meaningless, since it still allows for evolutionary biology to heavily influence personal and societal opinion
Ah, but were these logically compelled to have their moral & societal opinions altered by evolution? If not, then it's not evolution that is at fault, is it?
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 9:16 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 11:05 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 150 of 155 (79210)
01-18-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Syamsu
01-17-2004 11:05 PM


Syamsu,
Please just answer the question, what is it about evolutionary theory that logically compels us to superimpose it onto our morality, & by dint of that into our politics?
This is a perfectly valid question. You may not like the corollary of the answer, but that's the point. If there is nothing that logically compels us to extract morality from evolution (or any other theory), then everyone that did must be wrong to have claimed such reasoning. Meaning evolution is squeaky clean, & it's the people you mention who are at fault.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 11:05 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2004 3:01 AM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024