Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 252 (286893)
02-15-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-15-2006 11:46 AM


Correction
Hi, Faith.
quote:
I believe that the evidence on the side of an old earth is restricted entirely to radiometric dating methods. There is no other objective evidence.
Scientists accepted an old earth long before radiometric dating, which indicates that there is more objective evidence than radiometric dating.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-15-2006 11:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 02-15-2006 12:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 252 (293081)
03-07-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Silent H
03-07-2006 5:54 PM


Re: Holmes arguing techniques = mental disorder?
quote:
I am familiar with the concept of symmetry being a factor.
Especially since humans in general seem to find symmetry aesthetically pleasing in contexts other than human appearance. Look at how geometric art is so common across the world. The notion that symmetry in humans is attractive (if it is) might be for whatever reason that symmetry in general is considered attractive and not necessarily for any reasons directly related to choice of breeding partner.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2006 5:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by 1.61803, posted 03-07-2006 6:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 235 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 3:21 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 252 (293198)
03-08-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Silent H
03-08-2006 3:21 AM


argh! change the subtitle!
As I have stated before, this is a problem I have for a lot of the "research" that supposedly finds evolutionary "adaptive" reasons for human beauty.
1) Standards of beauty are so culture specific, and even within a given culture are affected by fads and temporary fashions, that researchers should have to realize they need to work a little harder to even establish that there is some sort of innate standards of beauty.
2) Even if there are innate standards of beauty, they could, as you point out, be the "unintentional" result of brain processes that were selected for other reasons.
3) Finally, even if certain standards of beauty were selected for, it could be the result of sexual selection that has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of fitness of the individuals.
A lot of the pop evopsych that I see in the mainstream media seem just like the "just so" stories that the creationists complain about.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 3:21 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024