Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9032 total)
42 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Happy Birthday: glowby
Post Volume: Total: 884,809 Year: 2,455/14,102 Month: 120/703 Week: 99/272 Day: 34/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
mark24
Member (Idle past 4047 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 62 of 155 (70900)
12-03-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 8:41 PM


Syamsu, you were going to give me an alternative to methodological naturalism weren't you? Over in the thread for that purpose.

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 64 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 3:27 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 63 of 155 (70927)
12-04-2003 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by mark24
12-03-2003 10:19 PM


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.

Again, you said, as far as I can tell, that the naturalistic fallacy made all links of Darwinism to politics irrellevant.

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.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 10:19 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 4:53 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 64 of 155 (70928)
12-04-2003 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NosyNed
12-03-2003 10:21 PM


I don't see any need to add to what's been said. In stead of materialism, you could have energism, or informationism, or even anti-materialism, or nihilism. I think I raised enought doubts about the initiative to inflate the importance of doing something that has been standard human behaviour throughout time.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 10:21 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4047 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

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 66 of 155 (70933)
12-04-2003 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mark24
12-04-2003 4:53 AM


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.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 4:53 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 6:44 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5327 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 67 of 155 (70934)
12-04-2003 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 8:41 PM


quote:
Sorry, I have no overview of science journals.

This is painfully obvious

quote:
Besides much of evolutionary science happens outside the journals,

How would you know? Since you admit that you are completely ignorant of the literature where practicing scientists communicate their results and methodologies to one another how would you know where evolutionary science happens? This is a convenient statement by you to attempt to justify your profoundly lazy scholarship and also explains why you fail to grasp even the most basic concepts of science.

quote:
in books like Dawkins "The selfish gene", which also has a chapter on familyplanning and things like that.

So you base your unwarranted conclusions on popular books? Why am I not surprised? I guess you base your knowledge of genetics from renting The X-Men?

I'm wondering, is anybody in Nganjuk impressed by anything you say or do they just smile and hand you there laundry?


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 69 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 6:48 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4047 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

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 69 of 155 (70940)
12-04-2003 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Mammuthus
12-04-2003 5:43 AM


Can anyone point me to an evolutionist or preferrably a darwinist paper that is considered to be influential within evolutionist/darwinist science community? No?

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 5:43 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 6:51 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 7:32 AM Syamsu has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4047 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

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5327 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 71 of 155 (70942)
12-04-2003 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 6:48 AM


influential evolutionists...easy...here is the editorial board of the evolutionary biology section for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA...note, this list is FAR from comprehensive wrt influential evolutionists.

Alexander, Richard D.

Anderson, Wyatt W.

Avise, John C.

Ayala, Francisco J.

Bartholomew, George A.

Berenbaum, May R.

Bonner, J. T.

Britten, Roy J.

Carson, Hampton L.

Clegg, M. T.

Colwell, Rita R.

Crane, Peter R.

Deming, Jody W.

Doolittle, W. Ford

Eisner, Thomas

Felsenstein, Joseph

Fitch, Walter M.

Gadgil, Madhav

Harper, John L.

Holldobler, Bert

Kerr, Warwick E.

Kidwell, Margaret G.

Li, Wen-Hsiung

Margulis, Lynn

Maynard Smith, John

Mayr, Ernst

Michener, Charles D.

Nei, Masatoshi

Nevo, Eviatar

Ohta, Tomoko

Orians, Gordon H.

Sarukhan, Jose

Schaal, Barbara A.

Schopf, J. William

Selander, Robert K.

Sokal, Robert R.

Valentine, James W.

Wake, David B.

Wallace, Bruce

West-Eberhard, Mary Jane

Williams, George C.

Influential papers? The list would necessarily be enormous (as opposed to the patheticly sparse reading you have done on evolution)..but here are a few recent gems from areas of my own interest,

Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo S.
Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.
Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.

Cann RL, Stoneking M, Wilson AC.
Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.
Nature. 1987 Jan 1-7;325(6099):31-6.

For any other species you will have to do your own heavy lifting such as the importance of the discovery of reverse transcriptase on evolutionary biology, or introns, or horizontal transfer etc. etc. etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 6:48 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 8:26 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 72 of 155 (70947)
12-04-2003 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Mammuthus
12-04-2003 7:32 AM


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?

A paper dealing with a single species, human beings, would not likely be regarded as influential IMO, unless it dealt with the one species as an example of how all or many species evolve. For instance one might regard the paper on white/black moths as influential, but then I don't think that paper (or was it published as a novella?) is regarded that way much anymore.

I think this would be different when I asked the same sort of questions on a chemics or physics forum.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 7:32 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 8:37 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Quetzal, posted 12-04-2003 9:12 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 75 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 9:18 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2003 10:17 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 77 by sfs, posted 12-04-2003 11:56 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5327 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 73 of 155 (70949)
12-04-2003 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 8:26 AM


quote:
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?

Does Syamsu have his head up his butt? Yes...could that be why he never heard of the Neandertal DNA study or the molecular basis for the Out of Africa hypothesis of human origins? maybe

Crawl out from under the rock you are living under Sy...the Neandertal results were broadcast in just about every major media network and scientific circles for more than a year after they were published. The Out of Africa hypothesis was on the cover of Time magazine so both of these studies were heavily covered by both scientific AND mass media....that you seem to have missed both suggests you should close your mouth more often, get out of the laundromat, and actually read before spouting you ridiculous nonsense.

quote:
A paper dealing with a single species, human beings, would not likely be regarded as influential IMO, unless it dealt with the one species as an example of how all or many species evolve.

And you show your complete ignorance yet again...the neandertal paper dealt particularly with whether neandertals were the same or a different species from Homo sapiens. And Out of Africa deals with the ORIGIN OF Homo sapiens...both of which you would know if you had even the slightest clue...but thanks for yet again confirming that you do not.

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


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

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 155 (70956)
12-04-2003 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 8:26 AM


As far as hearing or reading specific papers, in most cases it it depends on your area of interest. For instance, I've read the Paabo paper Mammuthus cited, but wouldn't really want to comment on how "influential" it might be or may have been. Mine is a different area. For example, I would have cited Orr, HA 1995 "The Population Genetics of Speciation: The Evolution of Hybrid Incompatibilities" (Genetics 139:1805-1813) as an influential paper, or maybe even the book Wilson EO, MacArthur RH, 1967 "The Theory of Island Biogeography" (Princeton Uni Press) which although dated somewhat was the seminal work that mostly launched the entire field by providing a theoretical framework for all the observations that had been made since Wallace and Darwin on biogeography.

I can probably come up with a number of other papers I consider "influential" in my field, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make in reference to Mammuthus's choices - he works with ancient DNA, I work(ed) as an ecologist. Thus the choice of what would be considered "influential" in our respective fields is going to be different. Maybe you could explain what you're asking for?


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 4047 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021