The problem with science II

Apologies Javaman,I actually meant to do a general reply.Your point #3 is a very good one which I agree with.

Oh, I don't know. I quite like ambiguity. It's kind of fun, arguing like a creationist, then trumping the argument by revealing that you're an atheist, don't you think?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

No problem. I was just reading your post, agreeing with what you were saying, then I suddenly realised the post was a reply to me!

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

You might have a point about ambiguity.

That says it. All anybody wants to do is rebut, and they are rebutting stuff of their own imagination because they aren't making much of an effort to get what is being said. Asking ME to explain further at THIS point isn't going to get anywhere. I've said all I'm up to so far. They might start by taking it seriously.The concept is far from sharp and clear in my mind, just a collection of impressions that I've had for decades, that Snow's book seems to capture at least broadly, yet it's not as if I've said nothing about it to give a clue what I'm after. I'm far from the only one who thinks along these lines, but even my efforts to get that fact across are getting drowned out.Since the combative atmosphere has made it harder to organize my thoughts on the subject, I think I need to stay away altogether until I have them worked out.

That's not surprising. The boundary between the two cultures is itself far from being sharp and clear, and the degree of miscommunication varies.Perhaps the miscommunication on this thread has helped to illustrate the problem.

If it is the case that men often find a certain trait in females sexually attractive. and this is common across cultural boundaries.And if it is the case that this trait is positively correlated with fertility.What is the problem with hypothesising that there is a genetic element which influences men to find this trait sexually attractive and that it has become common because it increases evolutionary fitness ?In what way is this "trivialising" or "silly" ?What alternative explanation would be neither "trivialising" or "silly", and why ?‘

Sorry, that was supposed to be a general reply. Actually, my comments were directed least of all to you, but since yours was the last one I read, by coincidence it's the one I replied to. That would indeed be a lot of blame to place on just one person!I was actually considering editing the post out because it was unsupported tactless rambling (courtesy of Crown Royal) that had little chance of spawning an intellectual debate. However, by leaving it in and fully accepting whatever consequences it leads to, I'll be more inclined to learn from it and less inclined to make the same mistake. Again, I'm admitting to my mistake and would like to apologize.

OK, no hard feelings.In future if you don't want to reply to somebody specifically, there's a "Gen Reply" button at the bottom left of the page. It's what I used to create the "Questions"" post, just above yours.

This is Faith's argument rather than mine, but as I started off this thread trying to explain her position, I may as well carry on .I think there are two issues here:Firstly, does mentioning "genetic" and "evolutionary" necessarily make that speculation a scientific hypothesis? Or is it just speculation, an interesting idea that can never really be tested out scientifically? There are many "scientific" ideas that reach the public domain that aren't really science in the rigorous sense that we often use to define it here. Should all of those ideas be taken equally seriously?Secondly, is that speculation actually as interesting as it appears to be, or is it really just a trivial generalisation? Trivial because, if you accept the theory of evolution then it's no surprise that particular human traits may have evolved because of sexual selection. And when you place that speculation beside a novel by DH Lawrence or Edith Wharton, surely even you would have to agree that it appears laughable and silly - not because it's untrue, but because it's so beside the point.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

It isn't to the point of the novels, but that doesn't make it silly. They're two very different things and I would suggest that it would be the comparison that would be is silly. Would you try to compare the flavours of a fine meal with the chemical description of how our sense of taste works ? Or an Old Master with a trace of the signals passing down the optic nerve when it is viewed ?Can we test it ? In principle we could look for genetic markers, although I suspect that any such effect will be too subtle to be detected without a very advanced understanding of genes and development. If we found a human population where it didn't apply that could lead to tests. Could we reasonably explain their preference on purely cultural grounds, or are they genetically that different ? If not then we might have to discard the hypothesis. On the other hand if there is no such population that would strengthen the evidence for a genetic component.
n

What makes it silly is offering it in ordinary conversation as an explanation for somebody's felt inclinations, explaining somebody's attraction to a person, or enjoyment of a work of art, in scientistic terms, as has been done here many times. This is where life is more novelistic and the laboratory doesn't belong.It is also not really science, as has been pointed out, but just speculation on the level of a parlor game. For one thing not all men are attracted to big breasts or any particular female configuration that science might decree important.Whatever the attraction, however, you can be sure there is some glib scientistic speculation available to satisfy those disposed in that direction.

I would say that trying to explain the sexual attraction between two people solely in terms of the attraction of one physical trait would be silly in itself. Explaining why that trait is widely considered attractive doesn't seem silly at all. In my view the mistake is in adopting a simplistic explanation of the whole attraction - not in explaining a possible cause for part of it.And let me make it clear. I'm not talking about simplistic genetic determinism. I'm talking about far more subtle effects which manifest as widespread, general tendencies, not as universal programming. I'm not denying the influence of environmental influences - ne they biochemical or cultural.So it seems that the "silliness" isn't really what I'm talking about at all.y

Funny how Anna Karenina turns out to be so full of the same kinds of thoughts I've been trying to talk about. I lost track of where I copied this from, somewhere in the last part of the book, around chapter 8 or 9 or so: No explanation I suppose, just another illustration.

I'm sure men and women in Platos day felt the same way.Morning Sis (or whatever it is round your way)