Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 11:47 AM
218 online now:
GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq, vimesey (9 members, 209 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,058 Year: 16,881/29,783 Month: 869/1,956 Week: 372/331 Day: 31/69 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 121 of 153 (72891)
12-14-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:19 PM


Re: Racism and Darwin
It's not really a question of in this case Haeckel's work being misused, since Haeckel's work was already quite politicized.

I think you saying "so what" means that you don't care that the main works in evolutionary biology are heavily politicized, you apparently only care for whether or not evolution is scientifically valid or not. You should not care care so much whether or not evolutionary biology is scientifically valid, it's an issue of subordinate importance to the politics. Besides I also make the special claim that the theory of natural selection is the same case as Haeckel's biogenetic law. They are flawed and their flaws are conducive to politicization, and actually the flaw in natural selection is maintained for this purpose, to make a convenient cross-over to religion/politics. You wrongly assume that Haeckel's biogenetic law / Darwin's theory of natural selection are free from politics, that they are neutral science. An investigation into natural selection shows it to be fundamentally very shaky scientifically. In reading reviews of Gould's last book, it kind of shocked me again to see how shaky it is in the fundaments. It seems to be a very difficult to keep a theory neutral when it is based around difference in forms / structure where one is noted as more succesful then another.

It's bizarre that you implicitly equate evolutionary biology to religion, by asking if there is a religion that hasn't been used to defend racism, in stead of asking if there is a science that hasn't been used to defend racism.

to Mark: I don't accept that something over 20 years old can't be brought in as evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized now. That is a completely ridiculous standard of evidence that noone who has even the slightest amount of honest intellectual curiosity about the subject would ever propose. What happened in december of 1983 that the politicization of evolutionary biology became fundamentally different? I also don't accept that I can only refer to scientists for evidence, and not to lay people who use evolutionary biology. As before if lay people politicize evolutionary biology then evolutionary biology is still becoming politicized, whether you like it or not. It just so happens that the most influential scientists in the discipline are "guilty" of politicizing much in their work, but there still could be much politicization of evolutionary biology even if they didn't do that. If everyone hasn't noticed already, you are consistently trying to manipulate the standards of evidence to whitewash the relation of Darwinism to politics.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:19 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 10:41 PM Syamsu has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8811
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 153 (72892)
12-14-2003 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 10:16 PM


Racism and Darwin Misused
I think you saying "so what" means that you don't care that the main works in evolutionary biology are heavily politicized, you apparently only care for whether or not evolution is scientifically valid or not.

No! That is not what it means. I care if some idiot misuses anything. For example, the use of religious ideas that were supposed to say something about loving your fellow man to justify killing is something I care about too.

However, the misuse of an idea does not make the idea wrong. You seem to think that it does in some way. That is what the so what is about. So an idea is misused what does that tell you about the idea itself?

It's bizarre that you implicitly equate evolutionary biology to religion, by asking if there is a religion that hasn't been used to defend racism, in stead of asking if there is a science that hasn't been used to defend racism.

I suppose there has been someone, somewhere who has managed to misuse any of the sciences. I do not equate biology to a religion. You'd have to be a bit thick to get that out of what I posted. The point is that anything can be misused.

I don't accept that something over 20 years old can't be brought in as evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized now. That is a completely ridiculous standard of evidence that noone who has even the slightest amount of honest intellectual curiosity about the subject would ever propose

It was your conjecture that it was "becoming politizied". You have to do better than show that it had been in the past.

In addition, you seem to think that it has some affect on the science itself. For that to be shown you'd have to have the scientists in the field doing the politicizing.

You then make a statement:
"It just so happens that the most influential scientists in the discipline are "guilty" of politicizing much in their work,"

but have yet to offer an example. In fact, you've never backed a thing up.

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 10:16 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 1:38 AM NosyNed has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 123 of 153 (72906)
12-15-2003 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 10:41 PM


Re: Racism and Darwin Misused
It's not my conjecture that evolutionary biology is becoming politicized. It has always been politicized, and with the event of evolutionary psychology / selfish genes it is becoming more politicized again, just like with the forerunner of evolutionary psychology, sociobiology.

I'm questioning whether or not the the biogenetic law / theory natural selection lives up to the ideal of neutrality in science. I mention the biogenetic law because there it is more clear that the science theory, although somewhat correct as a notion, was largely politically contrived, to the point of it's inventor forging evidence to support it. The case is not as clear with natural selection, but everyone should admit that the fundamentals of it are shaky and muddled, so that you can't justifiably say that they are not partially politically contrived, or flawed. You don't know for sure if a groupselectionist is a groupselectionist because of politics or because of evidence, if groupselectionism has any basis in reality or not.

I still don't accept that you use religion analogous to evolutionary biology. Science is supposed to be value-neutral, religion not neccessarily so. Your revised statement that all sciences are misused to defend racism, the ideology of racism, sounds ridiculous to me. Evolutionary biology stands out among the sciences of course in this regard, to the point where any other science being misused is not really worth mentioning much in comparison.

Besides Darwin, Lorenz and Haeckel (who'se scientific heritage you apparently think is dead), I gave the modern example of Dawkins. Futuyama also does his fair share of politicizing, even if he gives it an anti-racist bent. Can you name me one influential evolutionary biologist who doesn't much engage in politics in their work? I suspect you will simply mention Dawkins, and not consider his anti-religious philosphical meandering about the basic identity of people as politicizing, considering you allege that I haven't backed anything up.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 10:41 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 2:05 AM Syamsu has responded
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 4:09 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8811
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 153 (72907)
12-15-2003 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Syamsu
12-15-2003 1:38 AM


Back Up
Back it all up with something concrete besides your rambling or give it up. I'm bored with the continual assertions and nothing but.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 1:38 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 7:14 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Atapuercan Zusayan, posted 02-29-2004 9:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 125 of 153 (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 yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 126 of 153 (72923)
12-15-2003 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
12-15-2003 2:05 AM


Re: Back Up
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, but I decided that I should not play the incredibly stupid tactical games you people play to try to win a debate. Apparently the link to Gasman was of no value to you whatsoever. Why was that disqualified as evidence, was it posted at the wrong time of day? Should I have issued a proper searchwarrant with a judge first before going on google to search for Haeckel? You accept no evidence to the point at issue, any evidence provided is just met with a so-what on your part, and that's about the limit of your thoughts on the subject.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 2:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 8:11 AM Syamsu has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 127 of 153 (72924)
12-15-2003 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 3:36 AM


Re: and another thing
"Syamsu" writes:

evolutionists are generally evil, and creationists are generally good

Dude!?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 3:36 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 128 of 153 (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 responded

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

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 129 of 153 (72939)
12-15-2003 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by mark24
12-15-2003 8:11 AM


Re: Back Up
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....

Of course you have the same endless discussions among Dawkins interpreters, as you have among Darwin-interpreters doing an exegesis on their prosaic texts.

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. As before the biogenetic law is a relatviely clear example of a science theory that is partly politically contrived. Natural selection, which the influential philosopher Karl Popper called a metaphysical research program, is also partly politically contrived IMO as explained endlessly before.

In conclusion who have I convinced that the politication of creationism is mainly a reaction against politicization of evolutionary biology / natural selection?

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 8:11 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by JonF, posted 12-15-2003 12:35 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 131 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 1:55 PM Syamsu has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4254
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 130 of 153 (72968)
12-15-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Syamsu
12-15-2003 9:38 AM


Re: Back Up
In conclusion who have I convinced that the politication of creationism is mainly a reaction against politicization of evolutionary biology / natural selection?

Certainly not me. I find arguments consisting only of rhetoric unconvincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Syamsu, posted 12-15-2003 9:38 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 131 of 153 (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 responded

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

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 132 of 153 (73228)
12-16-2003 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by mark24
12-15-2003 1:55 PM


He says in the preface which someone else quoted before, that we have to TEACH altruism, because we are born selfish. It says it there quite clearly. I guess in the other parts Dawkins goes to demonstrate how selfishness on the gene-level can give rise to altruism on the individual level because:

- apparent altruism might commonly be raised as objections to his theory of selfish genes so he concentrates on refuting the objections

- his theory is basicly very boring, 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

That's a problem, as a Darwinist you have to talk about one human being as "better" then another. 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.

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.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 1:55 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 6:42 AM Syamsu has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 133 of 153 (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 responded

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

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 134 of 153 (73307)
12-16-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by mark24
12-16-2003 6:42 AM


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.

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.

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).

I don't know if it's the context of the debate, but otherwise your comprehension of Dawkins seems quite low.

Eh yes, on google politization has only 2500 hits and politicization 71500.... oops

I don't know what you mean by reading Gasman's text from "an evolutionary point of view." I'm afraid you are sinking into depraved depths of ignorance in your interpretation of Gasman's text.

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.

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.

Sometime before I shared your opinion that equality was not based on sameness. However I found this is simply not true. Equality of human beings is supposed to be understood as same and therefore equal, and you will not go wrong believing this, but you will go wrong believing your way. Part of this can be explained in terms of that the differences between humans are like the differences in fingerprints, they essentially have no different meaning even if they are dissimilar. Another part can be explained in terms of relational properties of human beings. All people have a father and a mother, these relational properties, and other relational properties, are more fundamental to what makes a human being then physical properties. I should warn you that your moral elitism in blatantly denying what is paramount in secular culture, as well as most religious culture, will inevitably result in very cruel punishment, as history shows.

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.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 6:42 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 11:22 AM Syamsu has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 135 of 153 (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 responded

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

    
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018