Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
49 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,081 Year: 2,727/14,102 Month: 392/703 Week: 45/168 Day: 14/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 48 of 155 (70130)
11-30-2003 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Atapuercan Zusayan
11-30-2003 4:11 PM


AZ,

This may as well be addressed to you too.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=3&t=54&p=6 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=3&t=54&p=6">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=3&t=54&p=6

There is no right answer to the age of the earth as it is a darwinian-inspired imposition with no scientific basis.

You would appear to have a very unscientific view of what is and isn't scientific.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Atapuercan Zusayan, posted 11-30-2003 4:11 PM Atapuercan Zusayan has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 155 (70720)
12-03-2003 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 5:11 AM


Syamsu,

I posted the chapter from the schoolbook for the Hitleryouth in some other thread... which I can't find right now. Anyway I think you're just making an accusation on the technicality that I don't provide full references in my posts, rather then that you want to read the sources to develop your opinion on the subject.

What the Nazis may or may not have done with evolution is irrelevant. Whatever they tried to do with evolution led to them committing the naturalistic fallacy; trying to make an ought from an is.

That said, you have it completely back to front, it is politics trying to become evolutionised (& thus being logically unsound due to the committing of said fallacy), rather than evolution becoming politicised.

As Ipetrich pointed out & I second, find a recent politically motivated evolutionary article or paper on Pubmed. I'm sure you can find plenty of political writings attempting to integrate evolution, but then that's neither logically sound, nor is it evolution being politicised, is it?

Even if I grant you that certain biologists stepped outside their bounds & committed the naturalistic fallacy, I bet you can't find any that are recent. I therefore put it to you that evolution is becoming depoliticised rather than politicised, assuming you can't come up with any modern examples of scientists spouting eugenics & whatnot.

or are actually scientists themselves, are still able to produce a pack of selfserving lies.

I dime to a dollar says you can't catch an recent evolutionary biologist(s) producing a pack of self serving lies. I expect you to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that they are lying. Syamsu's subjective say so isn't evidence, even if Syamsu thinks it is.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 5:11 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 9:58 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 56 of 155 (70745)
12-03-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 9:58 AM


Syamsu,

Recent is evopsych, same sort of thing as social darwinism.

Which isn't science, & is therefore not science becoming politicised. It's politics becoming evolutionised (or more accurately uses evolution to support views which have always existed, nor do I see any evidence of this becoming more prevalent in the last 100 years), which has no bearing on whether evolution is right or wrong.

Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce?

No I wouldn't say that evolutioniary science is getting depoliticized, I think it's getting more politicized.

Of course you would, Syamsu, I just want you to show it.

Produce a recent evolutionary scientific article/paper that proposes a political corollary, or retract.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 9:58 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 12:06 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 58 of 155 (70768)
12-03-2003 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 12:06 PM


Syamsu,

Last post you said;

Syamsu writes:

Evopsych is a generally recognized science, and the science has nothing to do with Social Darwinism by their own words.....

The one before that;

Syamsu writes:

Recent is evopsych, same sort of thing as social darwinism.

Which is it?

You make it up as you go along, don't you?

What political policies is Evopsych itself promoting? Not people who have got ahold of it & are trying to tie it into their own worldview, but Evopsych itself.

Retract what? The facts? The schoolbook for the hitleryouth?

Not recent. And it's by politicians, not evolutionary biologists.

The eugeniclegislation in progress obsessed china?

Not science.

The schoolbook of teacher Scopes of the monkey trial?

Not sure of what you mean here. But it ain't recent.

If it's not recent, then you can hardly support your contention that evolution is in the process of being politicised, can you? In fact, if you can't find anything recent, then the examples you cite are evidence of a more distantly political bent that has decreased over time, like I say, evidence of de-politicising evolution.

There is a long and continuous history of Darwinism being linked to politics, and no that is not just evil politics picking on innocent science, but also Darwinism influencing the intellectual climate of opinion, individually and societally.

Yup, it's always been in the background, & its always been science used for political purposes, not science forcing itself on politics.

So, I'll ask again, produce a recent evolutionary scientific article/paper that proposes a political corollary, or retract.

It's you who maintain that evolution is being politicised, so we should see lots of recent political agendas by evolutionary scientists, shouldn't we? Or are you still failing to understand the difference between a scientist who forms hypotheses based on facts, showing what is, as opposed to a politician who grabs at a scientific theory in order to support his views on what should be?

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-03-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 12:06 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 8:41 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 61 of 155 (70899)
12-03-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 8:41 PM


Syamsu,

Last post you said;

Syamsu writes:

Evopsych is a generally recognized science, and the science has nothing to do with Social Darwinism by their own words.....

The one before that;

Syamsu writes:

Recent is evopsych, same sort of thing as social darwinism.

Which is it?

You make it up as you go along, don't you?

What political policies is Evopsych itself promoting? Not people who have got ahold of it & are trying to tie it into their own worldview, but Evopsych itself.

Well?

Sorry, I have no overview of science journals. Besides much of evolutionary science happens outside the journals, in books like Dawkins "The selfish gene", which also has a chapter on familyplanning and things like that.

Which ones espouse a political agenda?

Dawkins points out that we will suffer starvation unless human populations are controlled. It is a fact. So what? Extrapolational maths is hardly politics. Furthermore, Wynne-Edwards theory was discredited decades ago, so it's not even accepted evolutionary theory that Dawkins (even then) was basing his comments on. The accepted evolutionary mechanisms which take up the vast majority of chapter 7 are something else entirely.

Meaning evolution isn't being used for political ends.

You are yourself highly politicized of course, ignoring, or being hyperskeptical of facts that don't suit your agenda.

I'm skeptical because you won't support your claims. All I get is vague nonsense about you not having an overview of science journals that are required for you to actually support your claim.

Some posts before *YOU RULED OUT ALL EVIDENCE* of a link between evolution and pollitics as irrellevant, because of the naturalistic fallacy.

It goes like this, because the sun rises in the east, I must get out of bed on the eastern side of my bed. Because mantis males have their heads eaten during copulation, I must allow my head to be eaten during sex. Because houseflies vomit over their food before eating, I must vomit over my food before eating.

Get it Syamsu? Just because something is doesn't mean you ought to.

That you don't consistently turn an is into an ought makes you inconsistent. Given logic = consistency, it makes you illogical, too. I'm assuming you aren't a virgin & refuse to allow yourself to be eaten during sex, & don't try to digest your food outside of your stomach, of course.

So why don't you respond to my criticism of the naturalistic fallacy?

Just did. Now why don't you answer this question from a few posts ago.

Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce?

Why do you want me to go look for politicized evolutionary science papers, when you say that those papers are irrellevant?

I never said they were irrelevant. Where did I say that? And it's rather an a priori assumption by you to assume they are politicised, wouldn't you say? Given you claim you have no overview of scientific journals, that is.

What I said was, in order to support your tired old claim that evolution is becoming politicised (ie. becoming more so), it is incumbent on you to provide recent statements by evolutionary biologists that are political in nature & are based upon accepted evolutionary theory.

Tell me how you view the system of natural rights? Is that a naturalistic fallacy, or some kind of crime because it was largely derived from a Newtonian view of things?

What system of natural rights? A Newtonian view, or Newtonian science? & who made a claim of crime?

otherwise there seems to be no point in me looking for irrellevant things.

It's not irrelevant. You still need to support your claim. Why would that be irrelevant? Perhaps in the whacky world where Syamsu's word is evidence, maybe?

Please answer the following:

What logic compels politicians to consistently force natural mechanisms & theory into policy?

What logic compels scientists to exhort politicians to turn a scientific is into policy?

What repercussions on the correctness of the theory are there?

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-03-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 8:41 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 3:20 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 155 (70932)
12-04-2003 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 3:20 AM


Syamsu,

It is my opinion that evopsych is the same sort of thing as Social Darwinism, and this opinion is not shared by evopsychs. I admit this may have been unclear to people who don't know about evolutionary psychology.

Your opinion is worth diddly-squat. Tell me what policies evopsychs propose as a direct result of their science.

And that you conflate the two only weakens your case since the Social Darwinists aren't evolutionary biologists, they are sociologists.

The system of natural rights as it is in the American constitution / declaration of independence, the constitution of France etc. Which is derived from Newtonian view of things, derived by people such a John Locke and Thomas Payne I think.... On equal terms your attack on social Darwinism is an attack on the system of natural rights, as a naturalistic fallacy.

And what objective scientific observations did they base their ideas on? Cite please.

Did they observe that many hymenopteran females are subservient infertile population slaves & that therefore all human females bar one should be? No, I guess they were just picking & choosing what science they hijacked & what they didn't, just like any other eugenecist, rather than using an objective method to determine policy from nature.

I put it to you that any "natural" occurrence that you would wish to base policy on I could counter with another contradictory example & it wouldn't change a thing. Locke & Payne & the eugenecists wouldn't care because they aren't basing their ideas not on observation, but their own preconceived subjectivisms, rightly or wrongly. It is not the objective study of nature, but cherry picking from nature in order to label their ideas "natural" in order to convince lay-people of the quality of their propositions. And no, natural law was not universally accepted, it wasn't even close to being globally accepted.

If it isn't possible to be consistent in this way, then it is impossible to be logical, either.

What logic compels politicians to consistently force natural mechanisms & theory into policy?

What logic compels scientists to exhort politicians to turn a scientific is into policy?

What repercussions on the correctness of the theory are there?

Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce?

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 3:20 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 5:42 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 68 of 155 (70939)
12-04-2003 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 5:42 AM


Syamsu,

Well I'm surprised that you would just trivialize the US and France constitution as a naturalistic fallacy. That position is just too far out for me to care to think about.

Oh, I'm not trivialising it, I'm just under no obligation to accept that they did base their ideas on objective natural facts rather than subjectivisms. So, I'm asking you AGAIN "what objective scientific observations did they base their ideas on?" I'm not convinced they committed the same fallacy at all. That you think that there is no logical error is neither here nor there, you have to show it's the same thing.

The reason I'm not trivialising their ideas is because they are only inconsistent when you claim they are based on natural facts, but ignore other related facts. Remove that requirement & I have no problem with the logic.

The fact is, Syamsu, that natural rights does not base it's underlying claims in empirical evidence. It is a philosophical construct based upon untested assumptions. As Thomas Jefferson said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Self evident? Endowed by their Creator? Doesn't sound very scientific to me, Syamsu, certainly not a naturally occurring "is" being turned into an ought, is it? And "that all men are created equal" is a patently false claim. So much for natural rights committing the naturalistic fallacy.

More like supernatural rights based upon subjectivisms, wouldn't you say?

I'm also asking you some other questions that you are avoiding like you'll catch the plague.

What logic compels politicians to consistently force natural mechanisms & theory into policy?

What logic compels scientists to exhort politicians to turn a scientific is into policy?

What repercussions on the correctness of the theory are there?

Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce?

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 5:42 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 8:12 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 70 of 155 (70941)
12-04-2003 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 6:48 AM


You asked for it.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 6:48 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 75 of 155 (70957)
12-04-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 8:26 AM


Syamsu,

Has any other evolutionist/darwinist ever heared of these supposedly infuential papers Mammuthus referenced? No? Would anyone offer the same papers as influential as Mammuthus did? No?

So what? The point is that there are a helluva lot more evolutionary biology papers being published relative to your limited popular science reading.

May I remind you it is YOU who are claiming evolution is becoming politicised. It is therefore incumbent upon YOU to show it. Thus far you have failed. It is not Mammuthus' job to provide papers influential or otherwise to support your argument. The fact that YOU can't show evolutionary biology spouting politics is your problem, & leads to the rather obvious conclusion that evolutionary science isn't political, despite your evidenceless assertions.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 8:26 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 81 of 155 (71066)
12-04-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 8:12 PM


Syamsu,

Actually it does sound a bit scientific to me

Really?

Please educate me as to how that all men are created equal when it is directly falsified by some men being stronger, more intelligent, having genetic or congenital illnesses etc? In fact the only men "created" equal are identical twins, a tiny minority in the population at large.

Please tell me how these men who are created "equal", *snicker*, have unalienable rights bestowed upon them by their creator is in some way a testable, falsifiable hypothesis based upon evidence?

Please tell me how life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness is in any way more scientific than, shag the women, rape the men, & rob them blind?

I guess it's not a scientific hypothesis

Damn right! So why did you say it was? And that admission makes your entire claim irrelevant. You are now saying what we always knew. That politics isn't science, it should be informed by it, but not led by it.

Recently an evolutionist did the same sort of thing, derived a plethora of more then a dozen natural rights from evolution / darwinism, among them a natural right to education and things like that. If it is a naturalistic fallacy, then naturalistic fallacies seem to be irrellevant.

I'm going to out on a limb & say this is utter bullshit that you haven't a shred of support for. Based on the rest of this thread, I'm on very, very solid ground.

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 8:12 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 11:15 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 155 (71140)
12-05-2003 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 11:15 PM


Syamsu,

Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature, Larry Arnhart

And is the author an evolutionary biologist? A biologist even? An evolutionary scientist of any stripe? No? In that case it's not evolution politicising itself, is it? It's politics getting a hold of science again, not the other way around.

Even by your own metric this is crap. How many university evolutionary biology reading lists is this on? None? How influential is it in evolutionary circles? Not at all.

I beg to differ, Gould's final book for instance is much influential

Rubbish, Goulds final book is a history of evolutionary theory, nothing more. Unlike you, I've read it.

Again the rest of your writings is just too far out for me to consider.

Again, RUBBISH. You claimed Jeffersons quote was scientific, then said it wasn't ?! Is this one of your I agree that comparitive method is valid. but actually it isn't, hypocricies again? Your last but one post made no point whatsoever. What is so hard to understand about a contradiction being meaningless?

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 11:15 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2003 7:13 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 91 of 155 (71171)
12-05-2003 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Syamsu
12-05-2003 7:13 AM


Syamsu,

The point in referencing that book was to argue that the naturalistic fallacy is meaningless, which point you ignored.

But a book reference hasn't supported your contention that an is has become an ought, & all you have potentially done is show that a political scientist is capable of the same fallacy.

Since I was good enough to tackle your rebuttals, please would you be good enough to answer these question?

What logic compels politicians to consistently force natural mechanisms & theory into policy?

What reasoning compels scientists to exhort politicians to turn a scientific "is" into policy?

What repercussions on the correctness of the theory are there?

Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce based upon the ToE, & why/why not?

You're right that this particular book was not written by a biologist, but it still means that evolutionary biology becomes politicized, whether you like it or not.

But it's not evolutionary biology doing the politicising, therefore it is blameless in this regard, which has been my point all along.

we all know that influential Darwinist scientists also mix up a lot of politics and religion in their main works.

No, we don't. We know you assert it, but that's about it.

Gould's final book, which I haven't read, is not just a history, it talks about trends or something as what should be the focus of present and future of evolutionary biological research.

No, it's just a history. It juxtaposes the ideas & personalites from the earliest notions of evolution to the modern day (well, last year). It is not an advocational work. If you want to read Gould advocating punctuated equilibrium then read Gould & Eldredge 1972.

Don't you have some self-awareness when you throw out all the evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized, throw it out due to the naturalistic fallacy?

Actually, I don't. I throw it out because it is inconsistent & therefore illogical to make an ought from an is in one instance, & not do it in another. I made this clear in a previous post, the point of which you ignored.

Politics should be informed by science, not led by it. Morals & ethics are outside the domain of science & there is no reason why one natural fact should be transposed onto policy & not another. I have no problem with science serving those morals & ethics, but whether they are right is not a scientific one.

Or do you think it is correct to wage war because ants do?

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-05-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2003 7:13 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2003 10:39 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 93 of 155 (71279)
12-05-2003 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Syamsu
12-05-2003 10:39 AM


Syamsu,

I don't trust your explanation of Gould's work, I take the word of others who have read it.

Tough, I've read it, you haven't, you aren't entitled to hold an opinion on it.

Obviously arguing with you about politicalization of evolutionary biology is meaningless since you have defined this to be an impossiblity.

No, I haven't.

I have clearly & unequivocally told you the evidence I will accept. You need to produce recent evolutionary biologists politicising on the strength of their field of expertise. Given the sheer size & scope of evolutionary theory & its related disciplines I would actually expect some of these scientists to overstep the mark. Yet the fact remains that you haven't produced a single example of evolutionary theory, that is embodied by the scientists that work within it doing just that, politicising. I'm not interested in everyone else trying to draw conclusions from evolution, it's a comment on them, not evolution.

May I remind you once again that I have stated the evidence I will accept, & I did so when we started debating this subject. Not only that, but I had to keep repeating it for poor old Syamsu who can't take a point on board & hold it for longer than ten minutes. It seems you still can't.

I have stated what I will accept for you to support your contention that evolution is becoming more politicised no less than FOUR times previous to this post.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=53#53 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=53#53">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=53#53
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=56#56 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=56#56">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=56#56
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=58#58 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=58#58">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=58#58
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=61#61 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=61#61">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=27&m=61#61

Aren't you embarrassed?

Your lies that there is not much politics / religion in the most influential Darwinist / evolutionist works, should be read in the context that you don't actually accept any evidence whatsoever to the point at issue.

Liar? As Rrhain would say, *blink*.

I think the descriptor "liar" could be better attached to you, who has repeatedly failed to provide the necessary support to his argument. How can I possibly be lying when I say evolution isn't becoming more politicised, when you haven't provided a shred of anything relevant?

Now, forget the naturalistic fallacy, I'll grant you that it doesn't exist for the purposes of this discussion. Your only hiding behind it anyway, to stop from actually addressing the issue that you have no evidence of recent evolutionary theory being politicised.

Let's have all those cites from all those professional evo's, then. They must be legion! But forgive me if I don't hold my breath whilst I wait.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-05-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2003 10:39 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2003 11:01 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 155 (71345)
12-06-2003 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Syamsu
12-05-2003 11:01 PM


Syamsu,

Ok if you drop the naturalistic fallacy, then I'm satisfied to have proven evolutionary biology is becoming more politicized by pointing a finger at evolutionary psychology and it's related self-help books, and ethical theory books, etc.

You'll have to do more than point the finger, you'll have to show actual evolutionary scientists politicising. But you haven't read them in order to know, have you? All you have done so far is cite a few books that you think contains them politicising. I need you to show lots of them. I have already asked you to cite an example of evolutionary psychologists actually proposing a political outcome of their study. Strangely, but not surprisingly I was met with an eery silence on the issue. Just like the rest of the questions I asked.

I don't believe you have an overview of the sciencepapers either, to the point at issue. But you don't need to have an overview of it, because, again, the mainstay of evolutionary biology is prosaic books ,not sciencepapers, like the books of Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Fischer, Lorenz... and others.

Might I suggest you read their bibliographies? I think you will find the vast majority of citations are papers, not books.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2003 11:01 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 12-11-2003 12:03 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 101 of 155 (72249)
12-11-2003 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Syamsu
12-11-2003 12:03 AM


Syamsu,

I've read parts of those books I'm referring to and yes there is politicizing in them.

And once again you fail to provide.

Science papers aren't easily accesible to me, pubmed only gives abstracts as far as I can tell.

Tough, given most professional writing on the subjects are in the papers you haven't read your opinion is as about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Anyway you said yourself that it's possible scientists crossed the line even in the papers.

But you haven't shown where!

Since they cross the line in the books all the time, I kind of expect them to have done so in the papers as well.

You haven't provided a SINGLE legitimate example of that, either.

Anyway it's hardly the point, evolutionary psychology (not molecular evolution) and the prosaic books are the main areas where the politics is expressed.

But you haven't shown where!

I've told you what you need to provide for you to support your claim, why are you still not doing it? Your say-so is not good enough.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 12-11-2003 12:03 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021