|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinism and Nazism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you blame baseball bat manufacturers because some people have used them to bash other people's heads in? Why or why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Exactly.
quote: Never read him. Also irrelevant.
quote: Most worthy? Darwin never wrote about anything being "most worthy", and who cares what Haekel wrote if we are discussing science? YOU are the one bringing up Naziism. Do you blame the train car manufacturers because their products were used to carry Jews to the concentration camps? Do you blame the people who invented Zyklon B, a rat and insect fumigant, because it was also used to kill Jews in the gas chambers? If the answer is no, then why do you blame Darwin for the MISUSE OF HIS THEORY by other parties? The baseball bat, the train cars, and Zyklon B are all items which were mis-used in terrible ways by the Nazis, and they MISUSED Darwin's ideas IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
quote: Um, NS is an EXPLANATION of a MECHANISM of evolution. They are pretty much linked together, by definition. Social darwinism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. How many hundreds of times do you need to be told this before you will understand? Could it be that you simply hold your beliefs and rehash them over and over again without taking in new information or learning any new things? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Darwin continuously talks about lower and higher in "Descent of Man".[/QUOTE] Taken in context, the use of these terms does not mean "inferior" and "superior".
quote: He probably got that part from the Bible. Why don't you propose that we change the Bible because the Nazis used it to justify their actions? No one denies that Darwin was a PRODUCT OF HIS CULTURE AND OF HIS TIME. He was WRONG about his racism, and that is why it ISN'T PART OF THE CURRENT THEORY.
quote: Really? According to whom? What evidence do you have?
quote: Social darwinism does not have anything to do with natural selection or Biology. Social darwinism is a misuse of scientific principles for a political or cultural end. In other words, you are AGAIN blaming baseball bat manufacturers for the fact that people have used baseball bats to bash other people's skulls in. Decide which position you hold, Syamsu. On the one hand, you say you do not blame the original theory for the fact that people have misused it, but then you go right ahead and do that very thing in the next breath. You have repeatedly blamed darwin's theory because other people have misused it.
quote: That is the fault of the people MISUSING THE THEORY.
quote: No, it is a perfect analogy to show that you are illogically blaming a scientific theory because it is misused by others.
quote: You are the only one around here who thinks that my analogy is nonsense, Syamsu. You are pretty much on your own there.
quote: My argument doesn't need further nuance. You claim that Darwin's theory and one of it's proposed mechanisms, Natural Selection, is to blame for racism and Nazi ideology. All I have to do to show that you are utterly wrong is to show that; 1) racism has been around long before Darwin's theory was invented, which you yourself admit, and that 2) social darwinism is not part of the theory, which I have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, that is EXACTLY what I said, let alone intended to say. Incidence of variation is the raw material with which natural selection works. The other part is the environmental pressures. Natural selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution. How on earth can you possibley deny this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
I haven't found anyone whose position is exactly the same as mine, as before, only similar. But as far as Natural Selection being applicable on a clone population I "enlist" John, Quetzal and Peter in my "army" who will now force you to come up with an answer if or not Natural Selection can apply to a clone population I guess.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE] I am wondering why it is impportant if NS applies to a clone population or not, as this almost never happens in the real world? I would also add that your objection to terms like "selfish" and "survival of the fittest" are emotional reactions to your misunderstanding of them. You are putting a great deal of significance and social meaning into them that are not intended. In other words, you are taking them out of context, changing their meaning to one which you can rail against, then wasting everyone's time arguing against straw men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What?? Are you saying that endangered species are clones? What are you talking about? Please give SPECIFIC, DETAILED examples of populations of clones, since you say they are so common, in nature. Also, please give examples only of clones which do not exist in environments, because if there is an environment, which includes other clones in the population, there will be NS.
quote: You are describing natural selection.
quote: The word "selfish" is NOT part of a scientific theory, as I have explained to you many months ago, yet you STILL continue to use it as an argument! Dawkins used "selfish" in a popular press book. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book, not a formal statment of any theory. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book."The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book. {Fixed a quote box -AM} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, in other words, there is nobody you can refer Percy to who shares you view that the ToE needs to be rewritten, right?
Otherwise, you would just tell him who it is, correct? Instead, you have begun attacking him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Any comments, Syamsu, to my message 42 in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, technically, yes, but only because there was no distinction 150 years ago betweeen popular science books and the professional literature.
quote: No, no, no. Not, "just like" in the least. The two modern books are not comparable to Origins at all, because today we have a marked distinction between popular press books which are not peer-reviewed, and articles which are published in the peer-reviewed professional science journals. The Selfish Gene is NOT a peer-reviewed journal article. The Selfish Gene is a popular press book which should not be taken as a formal statement of any scientific theory. Again, I challenge you to find a FORMAL, professional or textbook definition or explanation of the ToE which uses the word "selfish" in it.
quote: No, professional Science journals are the mainstay of any science. These are peer-reviewed highly technical professional papers. You can't get these in book stores. You get them in University Libraries and online in databases such as Pubmed or Medline.
quote: What paper is that?
quote: Like I told you months and months ago, formal scientific peer-review Journals didn't exist 150 years ago. The field of science wasn't professionalized back then. Rich clergy and gentlemen naturalists did all of this work. That's why we have a book, and that's why it is written the way it is. These facts and concepts seem to be extremely difficult for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I did know about it, Syamsu, but the Linneanian society's Journal wasn't the same as a modern professional science journal. Science was not formalized or professionalized back them. The Linneanian society was a bunch of men interesed in naturalism, and they wrote up their findings and put it in the journal. Peer review happened, after a fashion, because everybody in the society chimed in with their thoughts, but it was much more casual and there was no before-the-fact, stringent approval for publication like there is today. Please do not forget that my whole point in this discussion is to help you understand that popular press books, like those you can find in the bookstore (Selfish Gene), no matter if they are based on peer reviewed research, are NOT to be considered formal definitions of any scientific theory. If you want to find a formal statement of a scientific theory, you have to look in a textbook.
quote: Right. added by edit 2/3; Actually, Origins was not largely ignored. It was huge when it came out, getting a great deal of atention and scrutiny. See the following link: University Libraries - University Libraries | University of South Carolina
quote: The science in Origins is excellent, which it still largely standt today. You are right about people rejecting it out of hand because of religion. added by edit 2/3: I realized I misread what you wrote. People did reject Origins out of hand because of religion, contrary to your claim.
quote: Really? Which one. Please provide the citation so I can go look it up.
quote: So what? That it is an important book does not make it a formal explanation of the Theory of Evolution.
quote: An eccentric who is also a brilliant scientist and correct, BTW.
quote: Really? Please post it here.
quote: Post it here and we will discuss it.
quote: Please post the entire quote here.
quote: I think that Dawkins says that people are born with selfish "GENES". The GENES are selfish! THE GENES THE GENES THE GENES.
quote: The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, and that is why he uses the provocative language that he does. That you cannot separate your emotional response to, and understanding of how he uses the word, "selfish", is no reason to reject the ideas in the book. Just because the ideas are unpalatable to you doesn't make them wrong. It is my opinion that you don't (want to) understand his metaphor. Finally, do you understand that, contrary to what you have claimed, that The Selfish Gene is not to be taken as a formal definition of the Theory of Evolution? Can you provide a textbook definition of the ToE that contains the word "selfish"?
quote: Um, whatever, but yes, the scientific method is the same in Biology as it is in Physics as it is in Geology. Do you have any evidence that it isn't?
quote: The field is filled with highly politicized people?? Who?
quote: That's because that is one way of describing natural selection.
quote: No, it doesn't. It only does in your mind, and yours alone. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2003] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, Mendel didn't do that, because THERE WERE NO PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, OR PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE JOURNALS, OR MODERN PEER REVIEW BACK THEN. None. Nada. They didn't exist.
quote: Which they did, and continue to do, in the professional Journals.
quote: I don't have to reference you anything. Go find your own references. I am still waiting for you to provide to me a textbook definition of evolution that uses the word "selfish" in it. Why won't you provide what you say exists?
quote: There is no either-or here. Your comparison makes no sense. Darwin used excellent scientific methodology, which is why his conclusions are still largely valid today.
quote: Bullcrap. You have been told over and over by just about everybody here that your views are held only by you. We all disagree with your "intepretation" of Dawkins, and have had lengthy discussions with you explaining why, but you just decide that you know our minds better than we do. Whatever, you don't want to discuss anything. You just want everybody to agree with you. Well, you're wrong, sorry.
quote: Please quote the passage from the book where he says that.
quote: I don't know if it will change my opinion or not. It depends how the word is used. Try me.
quote: I notice that you have not provided that list of "many highly-politicized scientists" in Evolutionary Biology I asked for. Nor have you provided that extbook definition of Evolution that includes the word "selfish". Nor have you provided any of the specific quotes fron "The Selfish Gene" that I asked for. I'll add another request with regards to your request above. I will consider supporting your desire to change the terminology in the glossary if you can provide some names of any respected professional mainstream Biologists who agree with you that the definition of evolution contains value judgement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I spoke too soon! Excellent, quotes to examine.
quote: If he is talking about survival of a species, they are very closely linked. Which does he mean?
quote: This makes no sense, because copiers do not reproduce in the first place, nor are they alive in the second place.
quote: NOWHERE in this passage does Dawkins say that he is doing ANYTHING other than defining what HE means by these words for the purposes of his analogy. There is no "formal", all-encompasing definition here, meant to carry over into all of biology. Hos definition is very metaphorical and very specific.
quote: What is the problem with that?
quote: Oh, come on, Syamsu! That isn't a definition of evolution! Even you should be able to see that. It is a premise to continue his analogy in the book. I have read the book, and basically, the book is about the idea that, as objects that live to reproduce our DNA, we all SHOULD be completely selfish, but we AREN'T. The book attempts to explain why we AREN'T completely selfish; why altruism and helping behavior exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Syamsu, this is a quote, from your own source, that you seem to not notice when you misunderstand Dawkins over and over.
Emphasis added by me Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage
[QUOTE]This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024