Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

I got him to agree to something once, and then he contradicted himself in the very next post and basically repeated the original assertion he had made about 100 posts earlier.He's basically a belligerant Brad McFall, only a little more intelligible.Next April 1, let's all agree with him and see what he does. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-08-2003]

Sorry, Brad. Didn't mean to make you upset.

quote:

---

Your argument is stupid, just like Schrafinator's argument about Darwinism and baseballbats. Unless you can argue along the lines of how Darwinism influences the intellectual climate of opinion in individuals, and society in general, then I don't think your posts on the subject merit any response whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I assumed by posting on an internet discussion forum, you wanted to discuss. But I guess I was wrong - all you want to do is call people names when you can't refute their arguments.

​

Well, that's fine. You're only making yourself look like an idiot, after all. On the other hand the admins may wish to chat with you about this apparent gross violation of the forum guidelines.

---

When he gets abusive and dismissive like that, frog, it's because you have backed him into a corner that he can't squirm out of.Even if you are successful in getting him to agree that you have a good point, it won't matter because in a few posts he will continue as if you hadn't gotten him to admit anything and the exchange never happened.The only thing I was ever able to get him to correct was his assertion that "The Blind Watchmaker" was a scientific theory, althought it took at least a dozen posts of me saying the same thing over and over before he stopped referring to the book like that.Of course, my mentioning it might get him started calling "Watchmaker" a scientific theory again. I don't know if the correction stuck or not.

quote:

---

The same as with the relationship of Darwinism to social darwinism, Nazism, atheism etc. Some evolutionist comes in and talks about baseballbats and the like as comparitive to the influence of Darwinist theory on the intellectual climate of opinion, and the whole discussion is dragged down to a level that makes it impossible for a meaningful discussion on the subject to develop.

---

...and you never answered the question that my baseball bat analogy raised, Syamsu, although I am imressed that you have remembered it from all those months ago. I'll repeat it so you can have another crack at it.Say there is a baseball bat manufacurer (Theory of Evolution)When baseball players (Biologists, Geneticists, and other scientists) use the bats to play baseball (do science), the intended use of baseball bats (the ToE), nobody gets hurt.However, it is possible that some gangsters (racists, sexists, ideologues, those seeking political power) might misuse the baseball bats (The ToE) and use them in a way they were never meant to be used, like hitting people over the head with them (applying the tenets of Biological Evolution in social or political contexts).Are we to blame the baseball bat manufacurer (ToE) and baseball players (scientists) because some gangsters (social Darwinists) use the bats for something it wasn't intended to be used for?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-15-2003]

quote:

---

A baseballbat is not really very comparitive to a theory..... of course. It's obviously your intention to stop any meaningful discussion about that subject with that inane argument.

---

You know, if I wanted to stop meaningful discussion, I would simply follow your lead, Syamsu, and start flinging substanceless insults instead of making any effort whatsoever to meaningfully counter an argument.Why don't you give me a point-by-point analysis of my very detailed baseball bat analogy and explain to me exactly how it does not work in this case?Please explain how I have gone wrong, but please make it a POINT BY POINT analysis.Here it is again, for your convenience:

quote:

---

Say there is a baseball bat manufacurer (Theory of Evolution)

​

When baseball players (Biologists, Geneticists, and other scientists) use the bats to play baseball (do science), the intended use of baseball bats (the ToE), nobody gets hurt.

​

However, it is possible that some gangsters (racists, sexists, ideologues, those seeking political power) might misuse the baseball bats (The ToE) and use them in a way they were never meant to be used, like hitting people over the head with them (applying the tenets of Biological Evolution in social or political contexts).

​

Are we to blame the baseball bat manufacurer (ToE) and baseball players (scientists) because some gangsters (social Darwinists) use the bats for something it wasn't intended to be used for?

---

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2003]

quote:

---

Fair is fair, now you've given your argument so you should just shut up, since there is no possible way to further your argument anymore.

​

Same thing goes for the argument about baseballbats.

---

Syamsu, explain to me in a POINT BY POINT analysis why you think that my analogy is in error.I think, as do others here, that it is a good analogy that is an effective illustration of how it makes no sense to blame the Theory of Evolution if people misuse it.Why do you simply declare that it is wrong yet refuse to explain how you came to this conclusion?I believe that it is because you cannot, and I am right and you are wrong, but you refuse to admit it because you are incapable of breaking away from your delusion.Explain, in detailed, point by point analysis, why the analogy fails, or admit that it is valid and you have been incorrectly blaming the ToE for people's misuse of it.

quote:

---

Say there is a baseball bat manufacurer (Theory of Evolution)

​

When baseball players (Biologists, Geneticists, and other scientists) use the bats to play baseball (do science), the intended use of baseball bats (the ToE), nobody gets hurt.

​

However, it is possible that some gangsters (racists, sexists, ideologues, those seeking political power) might misuse the baseball bats (The ToE) and use them in a way they were never meant to be used, like hitting people over the head with them (applying the tenets of Biological Evolution in social or political contexts).

​

Are we to blame the baseball bat manufacurer (ToE) and baseball players (scientists) because some gangsters (social Darwinists) use the bats for something it wasn't intended to be used for?

---

quote:

---

I considered answering your analogy, along the lines of that the baseballbat has a nail, the nail being the comparitive talk of fitness,

---

OK, I'll change the analogy for you.The baseball bat will represent "comarative talk of biological fitness".Now, baseball players (scienctists) can use the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) in the course of playing the game of baseball (doing science), and nobody gets hurt, because the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) is being used in the way it was intended (doing science).Along come some gansters (sexists, racists, those seeking political power, etc.) and they look at the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) and think that this would be a great thing to hit people over the head with (using talk of comparative biological fitness inappropriately by extrapolating to social and political situations.Why do you blame the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) because some decided to misuse it in a way it was never intened to be used?

quote:

---

but then your analogy just fails because a baseballbat is not comparitive to a science theory, because a baseballbat doesn't enter into people's minds like a science theory.

---

So, are you saying that someone wanting to hit someone over the head, who then sees a baseball bat on the ground next to them, would not think to misuse it in that manner?Why wouldn't they, Syamsu?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2003]

quote:

---

- Darwinist scientists as well as Darwinist students commonly confuse valuejudgements with statements of fact when applying the theory to people and Nature,

---

They do? When and where do they do this? In their journal articles? Citation please.

quote:

---

because of the similarity between talking in terms of Darwinian fitness, and common judgementalism.

---

Ah, but you aren't paying attention. In my analogy, I explained to you that scientists do not do this in their work.It is the people seeking political power, racists, and sexists who misuse the theory.Scientists talk in terms of biology, Syamsu.BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGYThey do not talk in terms of social, political, or racial situations.

quote:

---

- Darwinists also tend to monopolize the field of morality

---

No science ever proscribes morality. NEVER.That is pure, utter fantasy and fabrication, Syamsu.

quote:

---

by cultural anti-religious sentiments, and scientism sentiments attached to the discipline, and by making Darwinist explanations of the origin of morality.

---

You are describing social and political MISAPPLICATIONS of Darwinism, Syamsu.the Theory of Evolution is meant to be applied ONLY to biological systems, and does not proscribe ANY MORRALITY WHATSOEVER.Anyone who extrapolates any kind of morality from the ToE is MISUSING THE THEORY AND ABUSING SCIENCE.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-21-2003]

quote:

---

I guess you are saying what you think ought, and I'm describing real psychology, and real Darwinism.

---

Well, my husband, and several of our frineds, are "real" research Psychologists, and accept the ToE, and none of them talk about any of this in their work, nor have they or I ever encountered anything like you describe in any professional work of any reputable scientist.Unless you would like to show me with citations the this alleged widespread attitude that you seem so certain exists among thousands and thousands of Psyuchologists and Biologists, and indeed all life sciences, then you probably aught to give it up.You have no evidence, Syamsu, that scientists regularly use the ToE in the social and political way you describe.

quote:

---

But then it's not very clear if you think science ought to be free of valuejudgement,

---

It's not too clear????I just said that "science doesn't ever proscribe morality. NEVER."

quote:

---

because you don't protest too loudly about Darwin's bible "The Descent of Man", in which you can read such things as who you should marry, what the highest state of morality is for a person, why we shouldn't kill inferiors except in special circumstances etc.

---

As it has been explained to you at least one hundered times by now, current Evolutionary theory does not include all of the conversaitional, loos writings of Darwin. He wrote at a time before science was formalized and professionalized.His personal views are not part of current theory. Period.You will not find his comments on who to marry in current theory.You will not find any mention about states of morality in current theory.You will not find anything about killing inferiors in current theory.Show me that these things are prevelant in current evolutionary work, if you don't believe me.

quote:

---

Were people abusing science when they derived support for theology about human rights from gravity theory? I don't think so.

---

What the hell are you talking about?What is "human rights theology"?What kind of support was derived from gravitational theory to support any theology?

quote:

---

So you see it's not a question of abuse, people are free to derive morality from science if they wish,

---

Yes, people are free to derive morality from anything they like.The point I am trying to get you to understand is that no scientific theory, including the Theory of Evolution, contains within it any proscription for behavior or moral judgements.If people take moral messages away from a scientific theory, like you seem to have, then they have left the scientific arena completely.Science does not address morality, nor ethics, nor aesthetics.

quote:

---

it's just that with Darwinism unlike with Gravitation the morality is forced upon them, in the ways as explained before.

---

How is the descision someone makes about how to apply a non-moral, purely biological description in a moral way (a way which is unintended by the originatior) "forced" upon them?

quote:

---

The idea that the "science" of evolutionary psychology, which is the latest application of Darwinist and especially selfis gene ideas applied to people, is free from racism, sexism or politics, is completely naive.

---

I have pointed out your misunderstanding of what Evolutionary Psychology is before, Syamsu, but you apparently did not absorb that information.http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html(emphasis added)

quote:

---

Edward H. Hagen, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin

​

Is evolutionary psychology a form of Social Darwinism?

​

No! As explained above in the section on racism, the evolutionary psychology theoretical framework strongly suggests that all individuals possess essentially identical adaptations, cognitive or otherwise. However, social hierarchies appear to be ubiquitous in both human and non-human social groups. How do they arise if all individuals possess the same capabilities? These capabilities can be degraded or enhanced by age, sex, access to social and material resources, injury, disease, birth defects, etc.--the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. The fact that social hierarchies exist, and that evolutionary theory may help explain why, in no way justifies their existence, nor does it validate any particular ranking of individuals. Evolutionary psychology is not a moral framework! It is a framework for understanding human nature.

---

quote:

---

Many of the pinoneers in psychology were Social Darwinists, and they mixed the Social Darwinism with psychology. Anyway, your screechings have no value for further discussion.

---

Running away?Why don't you debate in good faith and respond to the points I raised?

Syamsu, do you gree that Evolutionary Psychology has nothing to do with morality?

quote:

---

Edward H. Hagen, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin

​

Is evolutionary psychology a form of Social Darwinism?

​

No! As explained above in the section on racism, the evolutionary psychology theoretical framework strongly suggests that all individuals possess essentially identical adaptations, cognitive or otherwise. However, social hierarchies appear to be ubiquitous in both human and non-human social groups. How do they arise if all individuals possess the same capabilities? These capabilities can be degraded or enhanced by age, sex, access to social and material resources, injury, disease, birth defects, etc.--the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. The fact that social hierarchies exist, and that evolutionary theory may help explain why, in no way justifies their existence, nor does it validate any particular ranking of individuals. Evolutionary psychology is not a moral framework! It is a framework for understanding human nature.

---

quote:

---

I read on the evolutionary psychology website, among continuos denials that it proscribes morality,

---

Well, that's because it doesn't proscribe morality.Evolutionary Psychology describes human behavior in light of our evolution.DEscription, not PROscription.

quote:

---

that the "folk" notions of selfishness, correspond with evolutionary psychologist notions of selfishness,

---

No, incorrect.From the website:http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/selfish.html"Describing genes as selfish is an analogy that has nothing to do with our folk notion of selfishness."

quote:

---

but that evolutionary psycholigists concept of selfishness applies more broadly, also to hair, and arms and the like.

---

Evolutionary Psychologist's concept of 'selfishness' applies to nonthinking genes.(emphasis added)Adaptations evolve via the differential reproduction of alleles (different versions of the same gene). This means that one version of a gene (allele A) at a particular locus causes organisms bearing that version to have a different phenotype (body structure) than organisms bearing a different version of the gene (allele B) at the same locus. If organisms with phenotype A produce more offspring than those with phenotype B, allele A will increase in frequency in the population. Allele A is said to have 'out-competed' allele B. Thus, allele A is a 'selfish gene'--it increased its frequency at the expense of allele B. But, every adaptation in the body evolved in this manner! That means that the genes coding for your hair are just as 'selfish' as the genes coding for your fingernails, which are just as 'selfish' as the genes coding for your kneecaps! The same goes for psychological adaptations: the genes coding for vision are just as 'selfish' as the genes coding for memory, which are just as 'selfish' as the genes coding for muscle control."

quote:

---

A very large part of the website you refer to consists of denying that evolutionary psychology proscribes morality, with chapter titles such as "Is evolutionary pscyhology racist?", "Is evolutionary psychology sexist?". Why do you think that all that denying is there?

---

Because people like you automatically misunderstand what Evolutionary Psychology is all about, naturally.

quote:

---

Is it because that "psychological adaptations for aggression correspond to our folk notions of 'selfishness.",

---

Yes, exactly.From the website:http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/selfish.html(emphasis added in bold)

quote:

---

There is a narrow range of psychological adaptations whose properties do correspond to our folk notion of selfishness. When critical resources are limited, organisms which are able to obtain adequate supplies of these resources will out-reproduce those that don't. Obtaining such resources will often involve direct conflict between organisms, such as fighting for food or mates. Genes that code for fighting abilities that would allow organisms possessing those genes to out-compete other organisms for scarce resources will increase in frequency. So, the fact that some resources are limited means that strategies like aggression are likely to evolve in many species. Psychological adaptations for aggression correspond to our folk notions of 'selfishness', but it should be noted that these adaptations evolved by the same process as every other adaptation. The genes underlying these adaptations are no more 'selfish' than are the genes underlying any other adaptation.

---

quoteor is it because of some other reason?[/quote]Like I said above, lots of people will misunderstand, like you have, and these are the kinds of questions they have to answer.

quote:

---

Evolutionary psychology does not actually deal in the selfishness of hair and arms, as far as I'm aware, they focus on behaviour.

---

"Hair and arms" are not "selfish".However, the genes that code for hair and arms might be considered 'selfish' if they outcompete other genes by surviving in a species.

quote:

---

It is actually very common for racist, and sexist propaganda to carry explicit denials that it is racist or sexist. Nazi propoganda, which had a very rationalistic bent, is full of such things.

---

So, even though there is no sexist or racist content in the website, you have determined that is, in fact, racist and sexist.They would have to put a lot of denial and explanations in there if people like you wouldn't intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent things in order to serve your own nutcase agenda.

quote:

---

What they should have done is give a broad overview of the history of the application of Darwinism to psychology,

---

Why?

quote:

---

and then discuss how evolutionary psychology tends to influence people's opinions on things.

---

They have:http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/hate.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/...cts/human/epfaq/determinism.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/racism.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/sexism.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/...ts/human/epfaq/sociobiology.html

quote:

---

As it is the website shoves things like nobelprizewinner Konrad Lorenz selecting people in Posen under the carpet, and basically says that if you let your values be influenced by evolutionary psychology, then that's your fault,

---

BINGO!! CORRECT!!! GIVE SYAMSU A PRIZE!!!

quote:

---

and not the fault of evolutionary psychologists porting shoddy racist, sexist pseudoscience.

---

I take back the prize I just gave you.A whole website explaining, in detail and very scientifically and logically, every single possible objection you have about Evolutionary Psychology and you wave it away.

quote:

---

It is simply ludicrous to say that evolutionary pscyhology is free from racism and sexism as some kind of factual statement.

---

All science is free from racism and sexism.The people who conduct science are not free from it, but the scientific method is there to pretty much eliminate bias.

quote:

---

It is an ideal for it to be free of racism and sexism, and evolutionary psychologists and Darwinists generally have made no significant effort to achieve that ideal.

---

Yep, we're all a bunch of racists and sexists, Syamsu. Hunderds of thousands, maybe millions of people, all Nazis and all supporting the killing of eveyone who isn't an Aryan.Anyone ever mentioned "delusions of grandeur" or "delusions of persecution" to you?

quote:

---

You use the method therefore you are not racist or sexist, you wish.

---

No, that's not even close to what I said.A person using the scientific method correctly could, of course, be racist or sexist.Used correctly, good scientific methodology corrects for the personal biases of the humans conducting the research. Even if someone uses poor methodology, other people, when trying to replicate their results, will uncover the poor work.Now, are you going to completely ignore every single point I raise in every single post I construct to reply to your accusations?I think you are a sexist, Syamsu. you hate me because I am a woman. you refuse to answer my points, and it MUST be because you are a horrible religious sexist.

quote:

---

It's not what you said, I just exrapolated a little further on your futile assertion that all science is free of sexism and racism.

---

No, it's clear that you, like all religious people, hate women, and that's why you automatically disagree with me and ignore the factual content of what I write.

quote:

---

Nobody here makes arguments like you do,

---

Gee, thanks.

quote:

---

although they agree with it, and if they did make arguments like that, I'm sure I would respond likewise.

---

Since you respond in exactly the same way to everyone, this is not news to me, Syamsu.

quote:

---

Yes I'm determined to ignore you now. Try to discuss with someone else. You will find it very hard to get any meaningful discussion going with anyone once you start with things like science is a baseballbat.

---

If someone misuses the ToE in an inappropriate way, like Social Darwinists have, why do you hold the ToE responsible for this misapplication?