The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

- You have previously argued how there is no scientific evidence for things going one way or another.- You didn't even know what to call the point where a probability changes.- You also argued that probabilities don't neccessarily reflect things actually being able to go one way or another.- You also said that it is unworkable, and not interesting to find the decisions that set the main features of organisms.- You do not recognize any single last decision of any magnitute in the entire billions year history of evolution.You just want to sit at both sides of the argument, because you know you're on the losing side. The side of Galton, Haeckel, Lorenz, Darwin, Dawkins, in their worst moments, the moments they just ignored God's and human choice in favour of some mechanism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is an established fact among mainstream historians that the Darwinian revolution resulted in the rise of pseudobiological racism. Even Gould admitted this, saying that while racism was prevalent before Darwin, it increased manifold on the event of the Darwinian revolution.And as historian Klaus Fischer implores in his standardwork about Nazi-Germany, the most lethal component of nazi-ideology was it's predeterminist characteristic. Predetermination by blood, and by misconceived laws of nature.So there is a clear link, from general denial and neglect of things going one way or another within science, to denial and neglect of human choice, leading to mistreatment of human beings.As before my argument is strong, the evidence clear, as far as I can tell. You're going down. You are pitifully trying to create some strawman. For what reason you don't support investigation into things going one way or another, as a matter of urgent ethical import, is quite beyond me. There seems to be no reasonability in your position, only scientism.It was offered some time ago by a scientist that the yelps of a dog when they cut through the nerves should just be considered as the chimes of a machine. Basically that is just what modernday evolutionary psycholigists are saying, when they say that emotions are just machine-mechanisms, that there is no free will in them.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't have much of any principle objection to the word unity, although I think it's a bad wordchoice. The point is that you are just making up names, which means that there is no "official" commonly accepted word for "decision" in science, or else that word is not widely known. Clearly this must mean, if you don't even have a name for it, that the study of it is completely underdeveloped. You can't communicate about "unities" if people don't understand what you mean by the term.So you lose, the subject of things going one way or another is underdeveloped and the evidence that it is underdeveloped is undeniable within reasonability, totally obvious. It's one huge stinky fundamental prejudice in science right there for all to see.The word unity does not imply to me that things could have turned out differently. And the common usage of unity doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with turning out one way or the other. You might actually want to explain why you use that word. As before my first preference is "determination", as offered to me by some evolutionist, as a more neutral alternative to "decision". The only reason I use the word "decision" now is to have it be understood that things can go one way or another, which is not understood when I use the word determination.Most all of this I told you several times before, so please don't bring it up again ignoring my counterarguments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Remember that sociobiology was previously very much oppressed and surpressed in academics. So I think a movement to force evolutionary psychologists to study choice, (choice as a matter of things going one way or another), and not just pay meaningless lipservice to the concept of choice, would be very popular in academics. Generally nobody trusts evolutionary psychologists very much, and I think I've shown more or less precisely the reason why they are not trusted, and what they should do to gain trust.Your reply is just meaningless characterassassination, you have no point. Neither is Wounded King's post worth considering, when he asks why I think unity is a bad wordchoice, when I told him why in the post he was replying to. You keep poking me, and that's all.I'm right, and well I would guess that even the majority of people on evc-forum agree that evolutionary psychologists are fundamentally lacking in their knowledge of choice as the point where something goes from several possible outcomes to an actual outcome, and should study it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Largely marxists have a vested interest in seeing the environment predetermine human affairs. So I guess they would naturally oppose evolutionary psychology. Christians, religious people, have a vested interest against any predetermination in human affairs, because that would make irrellevant the need to pray to God in making a difficult decision.But I think the main stream of opposition would be that it is clear that the field of evolutionary psychology has by a namechange, illegitemately detatched itself from the history of social darwinism / evolutionism in the holocaust. By the involvement in the ideological basis for the holocaust it is shown that the study of choice is a neccessity to counterbalance the stimulating effect evolutionary psychology has on racism / evolutionism etc.It's al just rubbish that ideological influence is not talked about among "evolutionary psychologists" as an area of concern. The famous Daniel Lehrman in criticizing Konrad Lorenz brought up Lorenz's link to Nazism. Quite legitimately so, as later research also indicated, Lorenz's work was prejudiced towards nazilike ideas.Most every finding in evolutionary psychology would be qualified by an understanding of choice. There would certainly never be any emotion posited which has no free will in it. My guess is, any cursory understanding of choice, would make evolutionary psychology be much neglected, if it is shown that you can make complex interesting models of uncertainty stacked on uncertainty, stacked on uncertainty. A quivering fragile tower of uncertainties based on well nothing whatsoever actually. That is more like emotion is.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Do you think Parsimonious Razor ever heared of a "probability reaching unity" as a matter of describing the point where something goes one way in stead of another?Your ridiculing is at the expense of understanding choice, which you completely deny the existence of by your "scientific" understanding.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

We the students, do hereby declare that:- because social darwinism, the predeccessor of evolutionary psychology, was an ideological force behind the holocaust- because of concern over radical application of evolutionary science in countries such as China, or by more independent selfhelp guru's in Western countriesThat evolutionary psychology should develop an understanding of choice, besides their understanding of any mechanism, so to stop science from stimulating various ideologies against human freedom.For those who need evidence of the reality and power of choice to make things turn out one way in stead of another, we offer the sight of empty classrooms and empty campuses, of students on STRIKE.We the subjects of study in evolutionary psychology, do hereby declare that none shall study us without abiding respect for our ability to choose. Now we choose to STRIKE! Let this be a decisive moment in student history, where things turned towards freedom, in stead of towards the ideological madness we've seen many times before.sign please regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, the result of research into decision would be for instance that evopsych's would stop positing emotions as if they were machine-mechanisms without free will. Why did you ignore that?As before, sociobiology was oppressed and suppressed in earlier days. Don't assume that the same thing can't happen to evolutionary psychology. Why did you ignore that?Well maybe it will be surpressed by the rhetoric of marxism again, in stead of by the rhetoric of democracy as I set out.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's unlikely you would end up anywhere meaningful when you ignore the issues of evolution theory ending up stimulating ideology of genocide, and the issue of neglect of choice, free will.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

A "probability reaching unity" is mentioned about 22 times on google. The first mention is this thread, so people looking for what it means will arrive here first. I think it is safe to assume nobody much knows about it, including parsimonious razor. As before, another evolutionist already offered "realization", which is quite more commonly used, and does convey some notion of a point where something goes one way in stead of another.The jargon in the context is too technical for me to understand, but actually it seems as though the point where a probability reaches unity is an outerbound where things can't actually go one way in stead of the other anymore.So do you know choice exists sure enough to actually investigate it in people, making models of how choices relate to one another?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Unless you reference somewhere where it goes one way one time, and the other way another time, at some point where it is said a probability reaches unity, I think it is safer to say you found the point where probability doesn't really apply anymore. Congratulations...I mean study choice in a technical sense of points where a probability is realised. A study which actually confirms to the idea of several possible outcomes for choices.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What is needed is:1 - some influential theologians writing an open letter supporting "decision" both as a principle in intelligent design, and as an essential part of emotions, and criticizing evolutionary science on these 2 issues for their denial and neglect.2 - some notable Jewish organization that urges restraint of evolutionary science in light of the history of the holocaust and evolutionism3 - some populist conservatives bringing this issue in the rhetoric of democracy and freedom4 - some actual horror cases of eugenics law in China5 - some wider general movement where the "subjects of study" in evolutionary psychology talks back to the evolutionary psychology researcher studying them1. The NABT (national association of biology teachers) once retracted a statement about evolution as purposeless, directionless, blind, deaf, and whatnot, on account of criticism of some theologians. About 40 percent of Americans are theistic evolutionists, and the NABT statement inclined towards saying that theistic evolution is false. So they retracted under pressure, not really saying they had made an error. That they couldn't actually measure purposelessness very well. In any case this event showed that theologians have power to influence things.2. I think evolutionary psychology has a bad name in the Jewish community already, due to the anti-semitic writing of evolutionary psychologist Kevin McDonald. So this makes it more or less clear, that evolutionary psychology is the same sort of thing as social darwinism was before, which is generally known to have been instrumental in the holocaust. Kevin McDonald was rather high up in some evolutionary psychology organization, so it can't be easily excused as fringe science either. So I think it is credible that they might ask for restraint on the part of evolutionary psychology.Since historian Klaus Fischer in his study of the nazi's lifted out the predeterminist characteristic of nazism as the most lethal component, I think it is credible that such a Jewish organization would couple the request for restraint, with an encouragement for research about indeterminacy of human behaviour. But that logic would need a little more explicit backing from a mainstream historian. Historians are moving towards exploring the role of science in the holocaust more deeply, but it is still very doubtful that they would make the link between predeterminist ideology and science.3. The rhetoric of freedom already has a very strong presence, due to Bush, so I think rhetoric for science to recognize choice may benefit from that.4. Speaks for itself I guess, some documented cases of forced abortion under the eugenic laws, with some interviews of any of the majority of chinese scientists backing such practices, to put the issue into a more real context.5. A subject of study has some right to speak out if it can speak out I would guess. Notably scientists already have a terrible reputation how they treat their subjects of study, by the history of lab-experiments on animals. So my guess is yes, people generally would demand that scientists respect their ability to choose in studying them, and do more then just pay lipservice to the idea that they can overcome their selfish genes, or the environment. It would be a popular demand.So you see, it is credible that the evolutionist side actually loses the creation vs evolution controversy, intelligent design being brought in on the back of looking at the appearance of things in terms of historic decisions where the likelyhood of the appearance was set.The point on which it all hinges is holocaust research I think, what historians say about the relationship between science and ideology, and how secure they will be in their findings. There needs to be an ethical kick in the but, for science to reconsider it's prejudice in favor of describing in terms of mechanisms only, and not have one single decision of some magnitude in the entire billion year history of evolution. I think argument alone about the scientific merit of describing in terms of decisions, would not suffice to make scientists shift from their comfortable way of thinking much exclusively in terms of mechanisms.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

More a need to find *decisions* within science which as it's consequences has a stimulating effect on ideology, rather then a purely causal link which ignores decisions again.edited to add: A good point to start would be to investigate scientists attitude towards truth. I much get a sense of ruthlessness, and cruelty in the way scientists regard truth, especially in conjuction with the scientific method, or methodological naturalism. I think some obvious hatefulness of emotion like that needs to be shown to consider scientists more or less guilty of stimulating nefarious ideologies.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-02-2005 11:44 AM

As far as I can tell, it is more like saying if you flip a coin a million times, the chance of heads turning up one time reaches unity, because it is so close to 1. Or, X can happen between time T1 and T2, and at time T2 X is certain to have occurred, at T2 the probability of X happening reaches unity. So since every time X will have happened at T2, there is no other possible outcome, like X not happening, it is not a decision.I am just guessing about what it means, but so it seems are you, which makes your previous suggestions that "decision" is all well and clearly understood within science false.I don't think it is neccessary to find an exactsame startingposition, to talk about things turning out one way or another, since we talk about decisions all the time without reference to such a finding. In any case you are just substantiating the idea that knowledge about decisions is fundamentally underdeveloped within science. I remember Wolfram talking about "inherent randomness" resulting in order, but Wolfram presents his ideas as new and revolutionary, so it is still underdeveloped.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But you can obviously see in this thread that it is not even generally known within science, what to name the point where a probability changes, the point where something goes one way in stead of another. So obviously when scientists talk about human beings, which are much about going one way or the other, it is they that don't know what they are talking about. Let's be clear that you and Mammuthus are as ignorant about it as the rest of scientists generally.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu