Negative Impacts on Society

A loved one is the devil vs we are born selfish therefore teach (kids) altruism?Why do you guys have to make this so complicated?? I will admit you are all much more "introspective" than Gould and Provine combined which is the reason I come back to read and right.

quote:

---

Why do you guys have to make this so complicated??
  —Brad McFall

---

I think this is the most ironic statement ever in the history of EvC. (Hope you don't mind a little ribbing).

Just out of curiosity, what is the percentage-ratio of dates accepted to those regarded as having mathematical or otherwise errors?Furthermore, how do you know that the ice layers and the lake varves are annual (a climatic change--can and usually does--occur every several months, or even every few weeks). Such a deposition would have to be measured nearly perfectly with very little margin of error (and the margin of error for the C14/C12 ratio of dates ascertained add up to less than half of the dates tested).

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

I didn't ignore that. Dawkins says we ought to teach altruism because we are born selfish. That is already making a morality, and we can see the morality that follows from it in books from people like Susan Blackmore, evopsych selfhelp books etc. Dawkins confuses the colloguial meaning of selfishness, with the technical meaning of selfishness, this is why it is moralistic.How you all can be so incredibly stupid not to see it is because you are all, without any exception whatsoever in my experience, completely unable to think of an argument that doesn't support your preconceived position. Now some guy wants to ridicule the relationship of Darwinism to eugenics and Nazism again.... completely anti-historical, anti-science, liarous, pathetic.Dawkins also uses this morality in a more social setting, and of course he encourages that we all become this way through evolutionary pscyhology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's deceitful to say I have it wrong, when I have it basicly right, of course.You never mentioned the difference between "have to" and "should try to" before. Obviously you are just being the intelligent lawyer trying to come up with smart things to defend tooth and nail, in stead of trying to go straight to the truth of the matter. You are dishonest.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

See what I mean? You've completely missed the context...."if you wish to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good.." we should try to teach altruism. And this is Dawkins personal view, not the viewpoint implied by the Selfish Gene (because there is no morality implied by the Selfish Gene - its simply a way of looking at Natural selection using replicators as the fundamental unit driving selection).I'm not sure what you've got against Dawkins wanting to teach altruism anyway.This is the third time I've posted this and the third time you've substantively ignored it.PEPS Thanks for calling me incredibly stupid - much appreciated.[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-15-2004]

You can capitalize all you want, but you are not making an argument. I already explained numerous times how this morality of Dawkins works.
In some time, when you feel down, you will selfidentify with your genes, and you will seek to conquer your selfish genes. You might go to a psychologist who will tell you to do this. You will believe this nonsense, this will be your mission, your religion, the broad context in which you will frame important decisions in your life. Your altruism will be a manufactured rationality, your selfishness will be disguised to you as the morally neutral workings of nature and will grow and grow. etc.Notice that Dawkins gives a (faulty) more or less technical definition of selfishness after saying that selfishness explains greed and genorosity etc. So what would the technical definition of greed be? There is no technical defintion given, Dawkins mixes in with the normal colloquial meaning of greed. So where does greed figure in this supposedly morally neutral theory. A theory without any moral implications whatsoever, but which still explains greed?Again, you have no case, you jump to a conclusion you like. You do not think about things that might undermine your preconceived position.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No I won't. Why would I do that? I've already told you that its fallacious to derive an ought from an is (only I got it backwards in my previous post )Altruism can arise out of purely selfish behaviour (even in a moralistic sense). Are you familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma or any works by Robert Axelrod (e.g the Evolution of Co-operation)?(You might find this article quite interesting. It argues that co-operative behaviour between genes is insufficient to explain human ultrasociality, so we need to look further to a selfish meme model).Excerpt: PE

Hi Servant!I wonder if you have noticed the topic I opened regarding a couple of questions I would love for you to answer?I look forward to your reply!

I wonder what Syamsu would do if we all just agreed with him and stopped arguing with him?Sort of the "smile and nod" approach.At any rate, I think he should be confined to the free for all again.

let's clarifywhat is wrong is to call a paraphrase a quote, particularly if the meaning is changed even slightly (which is kind of inevitable).you paraphrased and called it a quote -- that is wrong.
you did not get the meaning exactly the same -- that is acceptable in a paraphrase but not in a quote.
you did not provide source for the material, particularly when asked -- that is wrongquoting out of context is also wrong -- I could quote you as saying "I have it wrong" for those words are an exact quote from your post ... but not being in context the meaning changes dramatically.I went on to criticise Dawkins saying that I thought he was wrong on that point.So I am nitpicking to defend Dawkins? Do you read for content or just for points to argue? Looks to me like you are the one nattering on ad nauseum about this issue instead of moving on (or back) to the topic.For point of reference this whole line of posts is because (1) you posted a phrase in quotes without reference (2) refused to provide reference when asked and (3) have yet to correct yourself.enjoy.Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to posts on topic.

yeah, I tried making that point in my comments on Dawkins (post #51): One would expect that if game theory shows altruistic behavior to have an advantage, that you would see evidence of altruistic behavior in species with limited mental ability ... and you do: therefore {behavior selected genes} are not necessarily selfish.(ps - your link did not work)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are not addressing my argument Primordial Egg. Dawkins talks about explaining greed and loving etc. How come you don't address that? Is that because it would undermine your position?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I would simply argue with other people. I can win arguments one on one, but especially people like you create an atmosphere of groupthink, ridicule, authority, where argument degrades into professing preconceived notions ever more assertively.Why don't you take your own advise and not post, in stead of making yet another tendentious posting which doesn't address anything. If you would try to make an actual argument you would find it very difficult.You can't posit your simplistic you can't get an ought from an is, since Dawkins messes things up by for instance talking about explaining greed, and loving etc. Yet you go on pretending that this is just a clearcut case of neutral and valid science, no matter that in the process you drift away to a ridiculous science of greed and whatnot.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I see now you are saying that I misrepresented Dawkins by given an out of context quote. That is simply not true, the context in which Dawkins talks about his theory explaining our loving and greed etc. makes it worse not better, to the point of neutrality in his theory. What is the context that should be there according to you, other then your personal opinion that Dawkins is wrong?Notice again that you never actually said all this before, you are just making it up now. You originally just said it was wrong because of the formality of it being presented like a quote in stead of a paraphrase.I did say where I got it from, I said it was from the preface of the selfish gene. You wrongly said it was from chapter 1. But of course it would be deceit for me to say you have it wrong on account of such a formality of getting the chapter wrong, and then start making up other reasons why you have it wrong after being challenged for such deceit.I hope you have learned something about the multiple layers of preconceived notions, and dishonesty in your ways of argumentation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu