Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

I considered answering your analogy, along the lines of that the baseballbat has a nail, the nail being the comparitive talk of fitness, but then your analogy just fails because a baseballbat is not comparitive to a science theory, because a baseballbat doesn't enter into people's minds like a science theory. Your argument is simply a lawyertrick which is intended to stop any meaningful discussion and investigation on how Darwinism really influences intellectual climate of opinion. Investigation on how it tends to affects people's minds to describe Nature and people in comparitive terms of fitness, saying one is more fit then the other. Anyway, I will use a reference to your argument as a sort of legal disclaimer at the start of a next new thread, to protect from any Darwinists repetitively posting their criticisms in the thread, and I will post reference to Percipients criticism why variation should be included in the same way. It's kind of handy that you you and Percipient talk in terms of we all the time, since I can then more or less dismiss all of you when just dismissing the arguments of both of you.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The nail would be what you are complaining about, that is
the intentional addition of a feature which was not there
previously expressly for the purpose of causing harm.The nail changes the nature of the baseball bat .... in the same
way that suggestions of superiority in connection with fitness
changes the nature of evolutionary theory.What does 'fit' mean in the context of evolutionary theory?You really need to answer the above if you wish to meaningfully
continue this discussion.You may dismiss whatever you please, but do not think you have
answered your critics, nor the points raised.

quote:

---

I considered answering your analogy, along the lines of that the baseballbat has a nail, the nail being the comparitive talk of fitness,

---

OK, I'll change the analogy for you.The baseball bat will represent "comarative talk of biological fitness".Now, baseball players (scienctists) can use the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) in the course of playing the game of baseball (doing science), and nobody gets hurt, because the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) is being used in the way it was intended (doing science).Along come some gansters (sexists, racists, those seeking political power, etc.) and they look at the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) and think that this would be a great thing to hit people over the head with (using talk of comparative biological fitness inappropriately by extrapolating to social and political situations.Why do you blame the baseball bat (comparative talk of biological fitness) because some decided to misuse it in a way it was never intened to be used?

quote:

---

but then your analogy just fails because a baseballbat is not comparitive to a science theory, because a baseballbat doesn't enter into people's minds like a science theory.

---

So, are you saying that someone wanting to hit someone over the head, who then sees a baseball bat on the ground next to them, would not think to misuse it in that manner?Why wouldn't they, Syamsu?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2003]

You are missing that:- Darwinist scientists as well as Darwinist students commonly confuse valuejudgements with statements of fact when applying the theory to people and Nature, because of the similarity between talking in terms of Darwinian fitness, and common judgementalism.- practices in Darwinist science like using prosa as important works, and not rigorously structuring the theory technically, facillitate that confusion- Darwinists also tend to monopolize the field of morality by cultural anti-religious sentiments, and scientism sentiments attached to the discipline, and by making Darwinist explanations of the origin of morality.- there is no scientific justification for including variation and the comparative talk in the standard definition when selection is understood in terms of reproduction / preservation / continuities. There is no clear point to the comparing, which could provide a handle to distinguish it from common judgementalism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

- Darwinist scientists as well as Darwinist students commonly confuse valuejudgements with statements of fact when applying the theory to people and Nature, because of the similarity between talking in terms of Darwinian fitness, and common judgementalism.

---

Where is your evidence to support this view?

quote:

---

- practices in Darwinist science like using prosa as important works, and not rigorously structuring the theory technically, facillitate that confusion

---

Darwin wrote the way he did, because that was how such things
were done in his day. Do you think more recent work doesn't treat
the subject with scientific formalism? Which works are those?
In a research paper or PhD thesis any reference beyond a year or
two old would be considered OLD, and undermine the paper's credibility.

quote:

---

- Darwinists also tend to monopolize the field of morality by cultural anti-religious sentiments, and scientism sentiments attached to the discipline, and by making Darwinist explanations of the origin of morality.

---

Science doesn't comment on morality. I have not found anyone
who claims that 'morality' has a purely biological origin ...
selfish gene isn't about that before you start off on that one
again.

quote:

---

- there is no scientific justification for including variation and the comparative talk in the standard definition when selection is understood in terms of reproduction / preservation / continuities. There is no clear point to the comparing, which could provide a handle to distinguish it from common judgementalism.

---

Yes there is. Science seeks to 'describe' what is there.Natural selection isn't a theory, it is a description.Since it is a description anyone who wishes to remove a part of
that description is acting contary to scientific tenets.The comparison you mention, as I have offered before, is a way
of measuring something -- like noting the distance between the
tickertape dots in order to assess acceleration (this is a reference
to a school physics experiment involving a wheeled truck, a ramp,
a reel of paper tape, and a regular ticker tape puncher).If the dots are wider apart the truck was moving faster. Is the
comparison irrelevent in this case?

Dear Peter,This is rubbish as I'm sure you must be aware. It is certainly true that having no paper more recent than 2 or 3 years old would make a paper look distinctly suspect. But arguably having no references less recent than 2 or 3 years would suggest that you didn't have the neccessary grounding in original fundamental work in a field, unless it was a very recently developing field. I would be very surprised if you could show me a recent paper with no citations for anything published before 2000. You certainly couldn't write a decent introduction to a thesis without going back at least 10 or 20 years into the literature, at least in the biological sciences, it may be different in comp. sci., maths or physics.TTFN,WK

Apologies ... I got distracted and missed the bit
about 'not having any new ones' before the 'undermining'
comment.I personally would question a thesis in any field that
relied on research that was 10-20 years old, especially
in biology, since one should be looking for original content.The biological sciences have gained vast amounts of ground
in the last 5 years, let alone 10-20.

Hi Peter, I think that there is often a fundamental disconnect between work which is old but still valid and work which has been superseeded by later research. My doctorate is in biochemistry and my thesis has references which, at the time, ranged from 6 months old to almost 40 years old. All were relevant and all were neccessary for support of my thesis. The conclusions of some of my oldest references had obviously been rendered as invalid or had been modified in some way over the years but that did not render all of the research or conclusions invalid.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Presumably though your thesis did not rely on the older
refs, but used them as a foundational support for your
thesis.I agree that we cannot discount something on the grounds
of being old, but neither can we rely on it's correctness.My main thrust with Syamsu was to point out that modern
evolutionary theorists don't write prosaicly.

This has to be the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Various religions have claimed, and still do claim, to hold a monopoly on morality for millenia. When was it exactly that religion gave up on morality and handed it over to scientists, I must have missed that memo.As to the distinction between differential reproductive fitness and 'common judgmentalism', the fact that you can't draw one simply shows how vague your ideas are. How exactly do you quantify the judgments in 'common judgmentalism' the measures of reproductive fitness and allele frequency are highly quantifiable, can you show me the quantifiable measure behind 'common judgmentalism'?[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-21-2003]

Here is an interesting article from 'The Scientist' which talks about the prose style used in scientific papers and how the modern style has evolved and how effective it is as a means of communication. It doesn't deal in any great detail with Darwin's work but it does talk about the more conversational style of older scientific writings.This was supposed to be a reply to one of Peter's posts, although it is more adressed at Syamsu's complaints about Darwin's writing style. I'm not quite sure how I ended up replying to you Taz.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-21-2003]

quote:

---

Presumably though your thesis did not rely on the older
refs, but used them as a foundational support for your
thesis.

---

Very correct. I have always thought that ignoring old material JUST because it was old to be a potentially serious mistake. That said, it always needs to be reviewed in the light of recent research, as part of my thesis dealt with.Actually I find Syamsu , and many other creationists, to have a fatal flaw in that they rely selectively on older work that supports their claims. The constant references to Newton and other pre-1800 scientists as not believing in evolution is quite idiotic. I actually prefer the more modern scientific writing style, Many earlier styles add far too much rhetorical pomp without additional data and are therefore not very efficient IMO.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

- Darwinist scientists as well as Darwinist students commonly confuse valuejudgements with statements of fact when applying the theory to people and Nature,

---

They do? When and where do they do this? In their journal articles? Citation please.

quote:

---

because of the similarity between talking in terms of Darwinian fitness, and common judgementalism.

---

Ah, but you aren't paying attention. In my analogy, I explained to you that scientists do not do this in their work.It is the people seeking political power, racists, and sexists who misuse the theory.Scientists talk in terms of biology, Syamsu.BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGY BIOLOGYThey do not talk in terms of social, political, or racial situations.

quote:

---

- Darwinists also tend to monopolize the field of morality

---

No science ever proscribes morality. NEVER.That is pure, utter fantasy and fabrication, Syamsu.

quote:

---

by cultural anti-religious sentiments, and scientism sentiments attached to the discipline, and by making Darwinist explanations of the origin of morality.

---

You are describing social and political MISAPPLICATIONS of Darwinism, Syamsu.the Theory of Evolution is meant to be applied ONLY to biological systems, and does not proscribe ANY MORRALITY WHATSOEVER.Anyone who extrapolates any kind of morality from the ToE is MISUSING THE THEORY AND ABUSING SCIENCE.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-21-2003]

I guess you are saying what you think ought, and I'm describing real psychology, and real Darwinism. But then it's not very clear if you think science ought to be free of valuejudgement, because you don't protest too loudly about Darwin's bible "The Descent of Man", in which you can read such things as who you should marry, what the highest state of morality is for a person, why we shouldn't kill inferiors except in special circumstances etc.Were people abusing science when they derived support for theology about human rights from gravity theory? I don't think so. So you see it's not a question of abuse, people are free to derive morality from science if they wish, it's just that with Darwinism unlike with Gravitation the morality is forced upon them, in the ways as explained before.The idea that the "science" of evolutionary psychology, which is the latest application of Darwinist and especially selfis gene ideas applied to people, is free from racism, sexism or politics, is completely naive.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't see how you find it funny. I don't think you know too well about the fearless freethinking of Darwinist scientists. It's not like Darwinists generally respect that there is some domain of religion and morality where they are not to enter into, on the contrary.It's great, or should I say unbelievable, that you can compartmentalize your mind so effectively that you have no unintended crossover between common judgementalism and Darwinist talk of comparitive fitness, but I don't believe the majority of people, me included, are capable of this.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu