Elitism and Nazism

Well, I didn't say it is, did I? I just said feminism is pretty anti-darwinistic, which - in its consequences - is - or not? I do not mind about tags too much, but I think meme theory is still considered as part of neo-darwinism - or not? I do not know whether I understood you properly, but - there is no "instinct" for meme propagation, of course. Why there should be one? Memes have mechanisms of their own. And it is quite evident (IMO) that they are able to override our biological instincts.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

I guess I see this as a meaningless question. Feminism is a political ideology. Darwinism is a physical mechanism. It's like asking if Marxism is pro- or anti-Steady State Universe. At best there's only a tenuous connection that could be made between those two ideas. Yeah, I started arguing against something you weren't saying. Sorry. Memes are a useful metaphor for why some ideas seem to spread better than others, but could it even be considered a scientific model? At best I see it as a way to loosely apply ideas from evolution to explain the spread of human behaviors.If there's a full-fledged Meme Theory of Ideas, I'll stand corrected, of course. But I've never heard of such a thing.

I see. We just do not understand each other properly. I used feminims only as an example of a phenomena which leads to human behavior darwinism cannot explain. So I introduced memes like possible explanation for that.
BTW: Feminism is not a political ideology. Some political ideologies are or can be part of feminism, but feminism is not sufficiently defined to be an ideology. Feminism is in fact very loose term for all kinds of differents movements which quite often contradict each other. Oh, I do not think they are just "metaphor" and yes, I am quite convinced that they can be used for formulation of scientific models. But yes, you are right - meme theory is is still to young, so as far as I know there is no "full fledged theory". But is that a problem? Are we in our thinking limited only to well established theories? Can't we create theories of our own? Those "full fledged theories" were also formulated by someone. And if they are not sufficient to explain something, we are free to come with new ones - IMO.
Of course - there are still a lot of problems with meme theory. But personally I believe that it has a "great future" ahead.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

So? Darwinism doesn't claim to explain the entire scope of human behavior. Even evolutionary psychology doesn't attempt to apply Darwinism to every convievable human problem. Like I said, it's as meaningless as saying "Marxism is an example of a political structure that Steady-State cosmology can't explain." Actually it's a pretty simple ideology - "it's bad when women get the short end of the stick." But that's a topic for another thread. Only when it comes to talking about what we actually know exists. If memes explain certain behaviors better than others, then I guess it's ok to talk about them. As such, though, I think it's a mistake to go talking about things like ideas as though they really exist.I mean, can you test a meme? Are all ideas memes? If not, which ones are? These are just a few questions that come up if you start to think about memes as though they're a real thing.

Crashfrog, please - I am becoming rather unhappy with this discussion. I believe that the ultimate goal of good dialogue is to reach consenus - not to persuade the other party. Also understand that I am little bit handicaped by the fact that English is not my first language and I learned it by myself (we had Russian in school). So it is quite possible that sometimes I am not able to express myself clearly enough. So please, be patient and try to understand what I am trying to say. Of course. But I suppose idea that every creature is biologicaly pre-programmed to fight for survival and reproduction is one of the basic principles of darwinism. So if some "animal" decides not to "obey" this principle, it is at least interesting.Feminism and memetics - you are right, they should be both discussed in separate threads. Are you for it? which forum? Free for All, Miscellaneous, Coffee House? If you like the idea, feel free to start them. I'll join as soon as possible.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

quote:

---

Of course. But I suppose idea that every creature is biologicaly pre-programmed to fight for survival and reproduction is one of the basic principles of darwinism. So if some "animal" decides not to "obey" this principle, it is at least interesting.

---

If you truly find this idea interesting, try reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. The central idea is to explain apparent altruistic behavior via natural selection. If the unit of selection is something other than a single organism, some behaviors seem easier to explain.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to pick on you. And your english is excellent, I would not have known that you weren't a native speaker.Like I said, I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that this isn't the first time I've encountered the idea of memes, and it's become apparent to me over the years that there's just not much value to the theory. So my questions to you aren't for the purpose of putting you on the spot, but rather, to see if I'm wrong about the theory, to see if it's considerably better-developed than I think. Well, maybe. Not all animals get "programmed" correctly. Some individuals have behaviors that run counter to their survival, and so they don't survive. On the other hand, sometimes it happens that behaviors that appear to confer a survival disadvantage on the individual do persist in the population. This is interesting, and a model of "kin selection" or "selfish genes" has been advanced to help explain how behaviors that lead to the individual's death can actually increase the number of that individual's genes that survive. Someody mentioned "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins, that's the book to pick up. It explains in more detail what we're talking about, here. (Dawkins also has a book on memes that you might already be familiar with...)

And here we are! It was this very Dawkins and exactly this book, where he for the first time introduced the concept of memes. Simply because he was not able to explain everything he wanted by his "selfish gene" theory, so he came to conclusion that something like the second replicator is present.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Oh. I knew Dawkins was big into the memes, but I hadn't realized it was that book. (Guess I should read it, sometime?)

Selfish gene isn't really a theory. It's a different way of looking at the same principle of natural selection. As Dawkins put it, think of a two-dimensional drawing of a 3-dimensional cube. If you stare at it long enough, it will appear to flip back and forth between 2 different orientations. Same cube, different perspective. We know genes affect the fitness of an individual organism, so the two are inextricably linked. However, focusing on one as the unit of selection provides a different perspective than the other. Exploring and understanding both views leads to a fuller undersanding of selection.Memetics, as I understand it, is not a way of explaining the holes in the selfish gene idea so much as a tentative logical extension of it. The Extended Phenotype elaborates on this aspect of selfish genes.

Mammathus
It almost would seem a waste of time responding to you because I think your attitude is rather immature. Please use a little more class when debating please.
I will again try to clear up the misconceptions that you have generated.
1. Can you take a step out from behind your firewall and explain with detail first how I have been "making wild unsupporting accusations to people in the science field"?
2. My statements do not show Christian fundamentalism but simply the Creationist side of the debate. If you agreed with it you'd be on this side. But since you don't it still seems silly that you would dismiss it only because you disagree with it.
"My utter lack of science"? Where does that come from. I have been hailed from both sides in my writings as a person who understands both sides. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean I have an utter lack of knowledge in this field.
"Historical Revisionism?" Come on...
And I have never been known to sidestep religious atrocities committed by my own church. As a member of the Roman Church certainly I have a lot to be ashamed of. However those were not my sins and I am still proud that the Church has turned away from certain wrongs.
3. Concerning your links to pages showing how Christianity justifies different crimes, I started to read it but I have not the time to make an in depth response. I didn't find much merit in the one I quickly scanned over. If you would like to make a case for any of those, simplify them and most them on here where I will be more likely to respond.
4. BElieve it or not, but i am losing interest in your responses.I could continue to respond to your points but it will be a waste of time.
5. YOur bitterness about "Elitism and Nazism" comes not from my lips but from biographer P.Hoffman and respected evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith. However because it is I who is the Creationist I must bear the burden.
Very objective of you Mammathus. (Do you note the sarcasm?)

quote:

---

Mammathus

---

It is Mammuthus actually but I sincerely doubt you know what that is the name of.

quote:

---

It almost would seem a waste of time responding to you because I think your attitude is rather immature. Please use a little more class when debating please.

---

The same applies to you. If you want to infer that a group of people i.e. evolutionists share common features with the Nazi's you better be damn sure you have your facts straight and are not misrepresenting the other side. To avoid this task suggests you have extremely low ethical standards.

quote:

---

1. Can you take a step out from behind your firewall and explain with detail first how I have been "making wild unsupporting accusations to people in the science field"?

---

You have failed to show specific influence of Darwinism on Hitler as his motivation for genocide considering his religious motiviation expressed in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. You have failed to acknowlede that eugenics movement is not a direct conclusion of the theory of evolution nor of natural selection for that matter but rather an agenda driven mischaracterization used by Galton and his followers. You have consistently mis-characterized the theory of evolution (though it is clearly in part due to ignorance of the subject and science in general but also motivated by your fanaticism)...shall I continue to dissect your fallacies?Well let's keep going a bit. You started another thread called Natural Selection http://EvC Forum: Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Natural Selection
You have yet to address the errors pointed out to you in your long winded post not to mention the mischaracterizations of evolution and misdefinitions within the total of two posts that you provided in a thread which YOU started....so I maintain that you consistently make unsupported assertions which when shown to be in error results in you becoming angry or discontinuing replying....so I would submit you are the poor and immature debater..or at least you do not appear to take debate seriously.

quote:

---

2. My statements do not show Christian fundamentalism but simply the Creationist side of the debate. If you agreed with it you'd be on this side. But since you don't it still seems silly that you would dismiss it only because you disagree with it.

---

There is no evidence for creationism and there is no such thing as creation science. I could never be for it or on your side as you suggest. I prefer the scientific method, hypothesis testing and evidence over dogmatic belief in mythology any day or can you do the following to prove me wrong about creationism:1. propose a testable hypothesis of creationism
2. explain how it is falsifiable
3. provide the supporting evidence
4. show how it better explains what is observed in nature and in the lab than competeing hypothesis or theories.If you cannot do that simple exercise I have no more reason to take your religion seriously than to believe that the universe is the anus of a giant pink goat which spews out new species occassionally ex nihilo.

quote:

---

"My utter lack of science"? Where does that come from. I have been hailed from both sides in my writings as a person who understands both sides. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean I have an utter lack of knowledge in this field.
"Historical Revisionism?" Come on...

---

Must have missed all the "hailing of your writings"...but maybe then you could define or explain the following again.The theory of evolution
natural selection
abiogenesisyour so called writings or internet postings or whatever you have claimed you are being hailed for are so full of errors I would like to see you again concisely address the above...for more examples of your errors here again is the thread you bailed out on when questioned earlier http://EvC Forum: Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Natural SelectionYes you are a historical revisionist by denying the christian role in the holocaust and claiming it is the theory of evolution and evolutionists that were responsible.

quote:

---

However those were not my sins and I am still proud that the Church has turned away from certain wrongs.

---

That Galton did not know diddly about evolution and was in this case a very poor scientist is not my fault that there was a eugneics movement...Darwin is also not to be blamed that religiously motivated hate mongers like Hitler used religion and eugenics to perpetrate crimes.....that I study changes in allele frequency over time in mammoths and elephants does not make me a nazi...the thread you have started implies that I am...or that anyone who does not share your religious views must also be genocidal...if Darwin is responsible for eugenics by your logic...you are responsible directly for the crimes of your church as you support the organization that perpetrated the crimes as I accept the theory of evolution. I find that logic invalid, you should to.

quote:

---

3. Concerning your links to pages showing how Christianity justifies different crimes, I started to read it but I have not the time to make an in depth response. I didn't find much merit in the one I quickly scanned over. If you would like to make a case for any of those, simplify them and most them on here where I will be more likely to respond.

---

If you are interested in the subject, start another thread perhaps in the Faith and Belief thread. You suggested that there was no evidence for christian justification of various crimes. I provided interpretations that suggest otherwise. I will also point out, a creationist fundamentalist on this board also used the bible to justify slavery (Wordswordsman) claiming it was beneficial to the lower cultures. Thus, there has been and and continues to be interpretation of religion used to justify crimes including slavery. According to your logic all religion is therefore guilty...seems like a pretty lousy proposition.

quote:

---

4. BElieve it or not, but i am losing interest in your responses.I could continue to respond to your points but it will be a waste of time.

---

Believe it or not I don't care. If you post fallacies on an open internet forum you should be confident enough to withstand criticism and views that differ from yours. If you are unable to support your claims then get your facts straight and post substantive arguements or go post somewhere where you a prioi know people will agree with you to make yourself feel important if that is what your goal is.

quote:

---

5. YOur bitterness about "Elitism and Nazism" comes not from my lips but from biographer P.Hoffman and respected evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith. However because it is I who is the Creationist I must bear the burden.
Very objective of you Mammathus. (Do you note the sarcasm?)

---

My bitterness comes from buttheads who attempt to minimalize the holocaust (I live in Germany not far from Dachau) by using it to further their religious agenda by claiming that people they disagree with are Nazi's. You are badly guilty of this crime and should be a little more introspective when slinging around such an accusation. Especially considering your shallow grasp of the facts and your shoddy presentation of the key issues. I have never heard of Sir Arthur Keith so your ascribing some special importance to him for evolution is of your own making as the sciences do not rely on appeal to authority like religion..todays star is tomorrows guy who was totally wrong. That you hold such perverted views of science and scientists is truly sad and a failure on your own part to inform yourself better.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-09-2003]

I think it's more the case that you minimalize the holocaust by your constant lawyering against positions about it you don't like, but which are based on substantial amounts of evidence.To refer to the religious motivation in "Mein Kampf", but to choose to omit the numerous references to selection in the work, to omit that the work is generally classed as social Darwinism by historians, generally recognized as similar to Haeckel's Darwinism.The Hitler youth was taught Darwinism, in Darwinist styled schools. How quaint, a political youth organization instructed in a modern scientific theory, and their schools styled by their chief educators on the principle of continuous selection.Now maybe you will ask references for all of that, but I'm not willing to provide, since it's just a game with you. You seek to minimalize the link between Darwinism and Nazism and put all your cleverness to work for that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Now maybe you will ask references for all of that, but I'm not willing to provide, since it's just a game with you. You seek to minimalize the link between Darwinism and Nazism and put all your cleverness to work for that.

---

I see the Admins let you out of your hole....so you will will not provide any references or anything to substantiate the crap you spew and then claim I am the one minimalizing the the 3rd Reich...you are an unbelievable hypocrite...with an emphasis on unbelievable since you never ever substantiate anything you say there is absolutely no reason to believe you.

quote:

---

The Hitler youth was taught Darwinism, in Darwinist styled schools.

---

I hear they were also taught that if X + 5 = 8, then X = 3.Therefore, algebra leads to Nazism.This is why the Nazi army's belt buckles were emblazoned with the motto "The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the remaining sides."