|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinism and Nazism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Mendel wrote a piece of formalized biological science at about the same timeperiod as Darwin. So Darwin really has no excuse for solely writing his theory up in prosaic common style.
Besides, Darwinists could have written his theory up in formalized style later, and not continue with the prosaic style. Then you would only have to reference me the formalized theory of Natural Selection for the questions I have about selection applying to survival or reproduction or both, or selection applying to endangered species or not etc. In stead of this simple reference, I run into countless discussions with Darwin interpreters who have some sort of "notion", what Natural Selection "is about". Origin was not ignored, but Darwin and Wallace's (substandard) science paper was/is ignored. I don't understand how you can at once say that the science in Origin is excellent and at the same time still endorse peer-reviewed formalized papers. Either formalized papers are excellent science, which makes "Origin" abysmal (and Mendel excellent), or common prose is excellent science, which makes formalized peer-review papers abysmal science. You clearly have never read anything Darwin wrote with the intention of getting some formal knowledge out of it, which is when the common prose of Darwin becomes very frustrating. Dawkins explicitely refers to reproduction as the "purpose" of organisms in "the Selfish Gene". It is not just me who notionally cojoins purpose to the word success in "differential reproductive success", but actually everybody, including you when you are not politically pressured. You are wrong that Dawkins just says that people are born with selfish genes, he says that people are born selfish and should learn to become altruist. I don't have the name handy of a science paper with reference to Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". I will look it up if you tell me this will significantly change your opinion. Most all in this post I have written before on this forum, so I don't think it's very meaningful to respond to you anymore, unless you have some comments about changing the formulation of selection in the glossary of this site, into the basic formulation of selection. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Actually, he uses the word survival in stead of like I said, the word reproduction. He uses the word reproduction elsewhere, as if survival and reproduction are somehow interchangeable words. Ever stood in front of a xerox copying machine and when you push the buttons all the machine does is "survive"? It's very annoying. Survival and reproduction are definitely not the same thing.
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage "Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible. ". Page not found - Christians in Science(BBC christmas science lectures) "We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA Flowers are for the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading 'copy - me' programmes about, written in DNA language. That is EXACTLY what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self sustaining process. It is every living objects' sole reason for living... For as far as Dawkins makes selfishness into part of the definition of evolution or Natural Selection: Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage "If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish." regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 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 2198 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 2198 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
My disagreement with Darwinists on this forum is:
1. that the basic formulation of Natural Selection is widely known / accepted 2. that the basic formulation has signficant scientific benefits over the commonly used definition. For the rest there isn't that much disagreement as far as I can tell. There is a perfectly neutral substitute for the term reproductive success, which is reproductive rate. The only reason "success" is most often used is to cojoin with notions of struggle/competition/purpose. Again, everybody cojoins these notions to the term, and that is intended by the people who invented the term. Mendel's paper are generally acknowledged to be highly formalized(good science), and Darwin's work is generally acknowledged to be prosaic (bad science). The theory of Natural Selection is not formalized even in the sciencepapers. There are lots of different definitions of Natural Selection. The more complete definitions present an assortment of principles of Natural Selection and then say something like "or similar". Dawkins also has his personal pet definition of Natural Selection, which reads "non-random survival of randomly varying organisms". I'm sure you also have your personal definition of Natural Selection. (I don't think this happens much in other sciences, that each has their personal definition of a fundamental theory) I'm sure your definition is wrong just like Dawkins definition is. Haeckel also had his pet-definition, which is generally acknowledged to be faulty even by Darwinists, but really, most all definitions out there are false. Dawkins includes selfishness into the definition of an organism, or DNA molecule. You cannot accept Dawkins theory and not acknowledge all organisms as mainly selfish. The altruism you refer to should be understood as geneselfishness, so it is selfish altruism. Some time ago someone came on to this forum asking if she could discard Dawkins selfish gene theory, or if it was accepted science. I'm not clear what you are saying here, can she discard it as mere metaphore and not science, or is she supposed to accept it?Is metaphore excellent science to you? Selfish is used the same way by Dawkins and his "students" like Newton uses the word attraction. Both these words have technical meaning and colloquial meaning in language, where Dawkins defines a technical meaning but then curiously mixes up the tehcnical meaning with the colloquial meaning, as explained before. Dawkins writes that he doesn't present a morality in this book. Does Dawkins present a morality in this book? Yes. The morality to overcome your selfish genes and become altruistic adults. Dawkins says that geneselfishness normally gives rise to individual selfisness, except for some special cases. It is not just the genes which are selfish, but individuals also. Name me an influential Darwinist who is not highly politicized in conjunction with their Darwinism? Haeckel, Darwin, Dawkins, Lorenz, Gould etc. Perhaps Weizmann wasn't, but then I don't know that much about him. BTW in looking up quotes from Dawkins book I came across a site that discounts the story of the mantis female eating the male after mating. This most likely only happens much in stressful conditions like captivity. You have no point whatsoever. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Some added argument:
I came across this book description of the Selfish Gene at amazon.com, which notes Dawkins as reformulating Natural Selection, and that his book has much interest within the scientific community. "Book DescriptionRichard Dawkins' brilliant reformulation of the theory of natural selection has the rare distinction of having provoked as much excitement and interest outside the scientific community as within it. His theories have helped change the whole nature of the study of social biology, and have forced thousands of readers to rethink their beliefs about life. In his internationally bestselling, now classic volume, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how the selfish gene can also be a subtle gene. The world of the selfish gene revolves around savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit, and yet, Dawkins argues, acts of apparent altruism do exist in nature. Bees, for example, will commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, and birds will risk their lives to warn the flock of an approaching hawk." You should also remember that while Dawkins explicitly doesn't want people to take morality from his book (eventhough duplicitly stating a morality in it), he explicitely wants his book and Darwinism generally to be used for psychology, as in evolutionary psychology. Dawkins seems to be surprised that psychology is largely free from Darwinism in his book, as if nobody had thought of applying it before. But of course Darwinists have already tried to apply Darwinism to psychology, and the results were a societal disaster, where large percentages of doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists, many of the influential founders of the field, espoused racist and eugenic beliefs in their works. I don't think evolutionary psychology will be much racist or eugenic in the West this time around, but considering it is based on the shoddy science of Darwinism, we should expect societal disaster again. If evolutionary psychology becomes accepted, I think it will more likely generate disasters like episodes of mass psychosis, and very high suicide rates, as is also typical of extremely rationalistic religions IMO, like Scientology. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Natural Selection isn't a theory ... it's an observation.
The theory lies in the nature of the effect(s) of NSon a population over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Is it an observation, not a theory? What observation? Reference please. I don't believe you know in detail what you are talking about, when you make assertive pronouncements like you do here. I believe you have a vague notional understanding of Natural Selection just like everyone else on this forum.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Peppered moths show NS ... whether you like the example
or not ... it shows it ... by observation. The galapagos finches show the results of NS, and studieshave been reported on this site (so I cannot claim them to be accurate) that say if you remove the finch population to another location the 'specialised' beak trends tend to fade out of the population. It's an observation. Darwin saw that different creatures, in different parts ofthe world shared strikingly similar features if they shared similar habitats. He inferred that something about the habitat must pressurise thecreatures into developing these features. This inference is supported by observation. Like it or not NS is an observation of nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The meaning of Natural Selection is still highly vague and notional in your writings. I can't generalize your observation of Natural Selection of finches to observe Natural Selection of oaktrees, or a clonal bacteria population. To generalize the observation is to make it a theory. Your generalization reads "something about the habitat must pressurise the creatures into developing these features". It's vague and notional, and wrong.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I thought generalisation of an observation was called a
'Law' .... like Newton's Laws of Motion. The generalisation takes a set of observations and extractsthat which is the essential character of those observations. The effect of gravity isn't a theory. I see an apple fall to earth from a tree. I check that a few other items fall when dropped.I say that the effect of gravity is an observation of the natural order on earth. The nature of gravity has theories associated with it, but the effectof gravity is an observable phenomenon. Likewise, NS is an observable phenomenon and not a theory. By generalisation one can see that NS is generally applicable toall living things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I can't see that Natural Selection is generally applicable to all living beings, since you didn't tell me the criteria for Natural Selection to apply. Those criteria are the theory of Natural Selection. Now you have a theory about finches, and a theory about moths, but no generally applicable theory.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This thread is no longer addressing the orignal topic and will be closed.
--------------------EvC Forum Administrator |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024