Dawkins smashes the social darwin reasoning for competition and capitalism.

[Kalifornia]

I had the pleasure of watching The Genius of Charles Darwin last night and was absoloutley suprised to see Darwin, Who I believed to be a pro capitalist reactionary, demolish the myths that mass media peddle, where social Darwinism, IE competition and exploitation of the masses, not helping the poor because they need to help themselves or perish ideal etc.

He says how so called "selfish gene" promotes reciprical Altruism and kinship, and how and how the selfish gene gives rise to altruistic human beings.

He says the Altruism is still a prominent factor in human behaviour, due to the fact that our ancestors were in small groups, where kinship for our cousins was in our genes, and seeing ass we are all practically cousins, means we have a deep hardwired ancestoral root, from all that time ago.

This demolishes the human nature arguement.

[Dean]

He says the Altruism is still a prominent factor in human behaviour, due to the fact that our ancestors were in small groups, where kinship for our cousins was in our genes, and seeing ass we are all practically cousins, means we have a deep hardwired ancestoral root, from all that time ago.
I think his analysis is a bit shallow. But he's right about altruism being a fundamental human trait, and that social "Darwinism" is bullshit (which Darwin didn't even believe in!).


This demolishes the human nature arguement.

"Nurture" has a lot more power over our upbringing, but Nature is still a critical, fundamental factor in life.

[Lobotomy]

Social Darwinism is of course absolute pseudoscience, but its influence was so strong in the 19th century--people like Ralph Waldo Emerson who accepted biological Darwinism but rejected social Darwinism were seen as enemies of scientific fact. It's regrettable that social Darwinism still has not been completely discarded in the minds of the public; it has only been replaced with the same shit by different names like objectivism.

[pranabjyoti]

Basically, in my opinion, the gene theory of Dawkins is a very good example of the first principle of dialectic materialism i.e. thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Why we like our own children, because they have our own gene in them. But, that is true for whole human kind because there too our own genes are spread. So, when you do something for the whole humanity, you do a favor to your own gene i.e. yourself. If this isn't thesis-antithesis-synthesis, I don't know what is.
Dawkins, like many other scientists, spoke in favor of DM unknowingly.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, like a few of us have stated before, Dawkins isn't much of a free-market fan at all. He's for a more regulated or collective society (though he doesn't seem to want to say out loud the "S" word).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dialectical Wizard:


He says how so called "selfish gene" promotes reciprical Altruism and kinship, and how and how the selfish gene gives rise to altruistic human beings.

He says the Altruism is still a prominent factor in human behaviour, due to the fact that our ancestors were in small groups, where kinship for our cousins was in our genes, and seeing ass we are all practically cousins, means we have a deep hardwired ancestoral root, from all that time ago.

This demolishes the human nature arguement.

Bot so, he has only succeeded in strengthening it, as I have shown here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-left-hostile-t132454/index.html

And here is what Engels thought of this theory:


"1) Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin's method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. Until Darwin's time the very people who now see everywhere only struggle for existence (Vogt, Büchner, Moleschott, etc.) emphasized precisely cooperation in organic nature, the fact that the vegetable kingdom supplies oxygen and nutriment to the animal kingdom and conversely the animal kingdom supplies plants with carbonic acid and manure, which was particularly stressed by Liebig. Both conceptions are justified within certain limits, but the one is as one-sided and narrow-minded as the other. The interaction of bodies in nature -- inanimate as well as animate -- includes both harmony and collision, struggle and cooperation. When therefore a self-styled natural scientist takes the liberty of reducing the whole of historical development with all its wealth and variety to the one-sided and meagre phrase 'struggle for existence,' a phrase which even in the sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis [with a grain of salt -- RL], such a procedure really contains its own condemnation.

"...I should therefore attack -- and perhaps will when the time comes -- these bourgeois Darwinists in about the following manner:

"The whole Darwinists teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes's doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes [from Hobbes's De Cive and Leviathan, chapter 13-14] and of the bourgeois-economic doctrine of competition together with Malthus's theory of population. When this conjurer's trick has been performed (and I questioned its absolute permissibility, as I have indicated in point 1, particularly as far as the Malthusian theory is concerned), the same theories are transferred back again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved. The puerility of this procedure is so obvious that not a word need be said about it. But if I wanted to go into the matter more thoroughly I should do so by depicting them in the first place as bad economists and only in the second place as bad naturalists and philosophers.

"4) The essential difference between human and animal society consists in the fact that animals at most collect while men produce. This sole but cardinal difference alone makes it impossible simply to transfer laws of animal societies to human societies....

"At a certain stage the production of man attains such a high-level that not only necessaries but also luxuries, at first, true enough, only for a minority, are produced. The struggle for existence -- if we permit this category for the moment to be valid -- is thus transformed into a struggle for pleasures, no longer for mere means of subsistence but for means of development, socially produced means of development, and to this stage the categories derived from the animal kingdom are no longer applicable. But if, as has now happened, production in its capitalist form produces a far greater quantity of means of subsistence and development than capitalist society can consume because it keeps the great mass of real producers artificially away from these means of subsistence and development; if this society is forced by its own law of life constantly to increase this output which is already too big for it and therefore periodically, every 10 years, reaches the point where it destroys not only a mass of products but even productive forces -- what sense is their left in all this talk of 'struggle for existence'? The struggle for existence can then consist only in this: that the producing class takes over the management of production and distribution from the class that was hitherto entrusted with it but has now become incompetent to handle it, and there you have the socialist revolution.

"...Even the mere contemplation of previous history as a series of class struggles suffices to make clear the utter shallowness of the conception of this history as a feeble variety of the 'struggle for existence.' I would therefore never do this favour to these false naturalists....

"6) On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the 'bellum omnium contra omnes' was the first phase of human development. In my opinion, the social instinct was one of the most essential levers of the evolution of man from the ape. The first man must have lived in bands and as far as we can peer into the past we find that this was the case...." [Engels to Lavrov, 17/11/1875.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranajbyoti:


Basically, in my opinion, the gene theory of Dawkins is a very good example of the first principle of dialectic materialism i.e. thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

1. The 'Thesis-antithesis' formual has nothing to do with dialectics. It is in fact Kant and Fichte's method:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

2. But even if you are right, what has Dawkins's flawed theory got to do with dialectical materialism?


Why we like our own children, because they have our own gene in them. But, that is true for whole human kind because there too our own genes are spread. So, when you do something for the whole humanity, you do a favor to your own gene i.e. yourself. If this isn't thesis-antithesis-synthesis, I don't know what is.

This can't be the reason we like our children, since many parents are equally fond of children they adopt. And many are cruel to those with whom they share their genes. Furthermore, siblings are not as caring to one another as parents mostly are. But given inclusive fitness they should be equally caring.


Dawkins, like many other scientists, spoke in favor of DM unknowingly.

On that basis, they also spoke in favour of Zen Buddhism, astrology and crystal gazing 'unknowingly'.:lol:


If this isn't thesis-antithesis-synthesis, I don't know what is.

You obviously think genes can think, since only something with a mind can engage in forming a thesis (never mind the antithesis or the synthesis).

Which is why idealists like Kant and Fichte invented this formula.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Rosa, "opposing ideologies" isn't "science", hence why we separated the two. If you want to go on another anti-dialectics rant, then by all means do so on "opposing ideologies", not science!

[ChrisK]

Rosa, "opposing ideologies" isn't "science", hence why we separated the two. If you want to go on another anti-dialectics rant, then by all means do so on "opposing ideologies", not science!

Why not tell pranabjyoti that science is not metaphysics then?

[¿Que?]

Rosa, are you using Engels to support your argument? Particularly concerning this snippet from your quote:

The interaction of bodies in nature -- inanimate as well as animate -- includes both harmony and collision, struggle and cooperation. When therefore a self-styled natural scientist takes the liberty of reducing the whole of historical development with all its wealth and variety to the one-sided and meagre phrase 'struggle for existence,' a phrase which even in the sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis [with a grain of salt -- RL], such a procedure really contains its own condemnation.No offense, but that sounds pretty dialectical to me.

Furthermore, you say of Engel's:

In contrast, the sort of Mickey Mouse Science one finds in Creationist literature is rightly the target of derision by scientists and Marxists alike. And yet, when it comes to DM, we find in Engels's writings (and those of subsequent dialecticians) little other than Mickey Mouse Science. That's, I believe your writing. Now you will have to forgive me, as I have only read bits and pieces, here and there, but I was almost sure (and have been made more so by mining for such a quote as I have just posted of your work) that you are no Engels fan.

So why bother supporting your argument with what Engels says, when you don't even believe it yourself?

PS Try to be brief, please. If not for my namesake, then because I have other things I should be doing...

[ZeroNowhere]

You just brought up dialectics. What the hell were you thinking? Go and apologize to NoXion this instant.

[Widerstand]

I thought Kropotkin already refuted Social Darwinism and "Evolutionary Egoism" about a hundred years ago in Mutual Aid?


Basically, in my opinion, the gene theory of Dawkins is a very good example of the first principle of dialectic materialism i.e. thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Why we like our own children, because they have our own gene in them. But, that is true for whole human kind because there too our own genes are spread. So, when you do something for the whole humanity, you do a favor to your own gene i.e. yourself. If this isn't thesis-antithesis-synthesis, I don't know what is.
Dawkins, like many other scientists, spoke in favor of DM unknowingly.

Everything is a good example of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis method.


Rosa, are you using Engels to support your argument? Particularly concerning this snippet from your quote:
No offense, but that sounds pretty dialectical to me.

Furthermore, you say of Engel's:
That's, I believe your writing. Now you will have to forgive me, as I have only read bits and pieces, here and there, but I was almost sure (and have been made more so by mining for such a quote as I have just posted of your work) that you are no Engels fan.

So why bother supporting your argument with what Engels says, when you don't even believe it yourself?

PS Try to be brief, please. If not for my namesake, then because I have other things I should be doing...

Wasn't Engels laying smack on Philosophy and apriori knowledge in Anti-Dühring though? Could it not be that not all of Engels' writings are equally bad (I mean his attempts to find dialectics in everything certainly were)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vegan:


Rosa, "opposing ideologies" isn't "science", hence why we separated the two. If you want to go on another anti-dialectics rant, then by all means do so on "opposing ideologies", not science!

It wasn't I who introduced this mystical 'theory' in a thread supposedly about science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El_V:


Rosa, are you using Engels to support your argument? Particularly concerning this snippet from your quote...

No offense, but that sounds pretty dialectical to me.

In what way is it 'dialectical'?:confused:


That's, I believe your writing. Now you will have to forgive me, as I have only read bits and pieces, here and there, but I was almost sure (and have been made more so by mining for such a quote as I have just posted of your work) that you are no Engels fan.

For sure, I'm not a fan of his when he strays into philosophy, or when he lets his philosophy skew the science he discusses. [That was partly the point of the Mickey Mouse Science reference.] But, when he sticks to politics and science itself, he gets most things right (given the time at which he was writing).


So why bother supporting your argument with what Engels says, when you don't even believe it yourself?

Well, even if that were so, I'd still quote it to embarrass the mystics here who do listen to Engels. [A bit like quoting the Bible against Christian Fundamentalists.]


PS Try to be brief, please. If not for my namesake, then because I have other things I should be doing...

Yes, just as 'brief' as Marx and Engels used to be...:lol:

[¿Que?]

El_V:
In what way is it 'dialectical'?:confused:

Well, I immediately associated opposites with dialectics. I suppose opposites do exist after all, even if, maybe, as you say, not dialectical contradictions, or whatever they call it.

For sure, I'm not a fan of his when he strays into philosophy, or when he lets his philosophy skew the science he discusses. [That was partly the point of the Mickey Mouse Science reference.] But, when he sticks to politics and science itself, he gets most things right (given the time at which he was writing).
Thanks for the clarification.

Well, even if that were so, I'd still quote it to embarrass the mystics here who do listen to Engels. [A bit like quoting the Bible against Christian Fundamentalists.]
This is what I figured you were doing.

Yes, just as 'brief' as Marx and Engels used to be...:lol:
Yes, well, in spite of my misuse of the word "namesake" I still am whatever my name means. So much for ironclad discipline, eh.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El_V:


Well, I immediately associated opposites with dialectics. I suppose opposites do exist after all, even if, maybe, as you say, not dialectical contradictions, or whatever they call it.

Sure, that's what the offical brochure would have you believe, but we should no more allow them to get away with that dodge than we are prerpared to allow 'Creation Scientists (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/)', for example, to claim science as their own.


Yes, well, in spite of my misuse of the word "namesake" I still am whatever my name means. So much for ironclad discipline, eh.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this.:confused:

[¿Que?]

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this.:confused:
It's Argie slang. It means a lazy person.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, I see.

[pranabjyoti]

Why not tell pranabjyoti that science is not metaphysics then?
Do you want to mean philosophy by metaphysics. Do you have any idea that the first law of thermodynamics was formulated by Emanuel Kant. Do you know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated by physicist-philosopher Boltzman. Actually you have no idea that without the contribution of so-called meta-physicists, physics would be lame.
Do you want to deny that after Darwin, Engels had correctly formulated the pathway of human evolution that LABOR MADE HUMAN KIND DIFFERENT FROM OTHER APES.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranajbyoti:


Do you want to mean philosophy by metaphysics. Do you have any idea that the first law of thermodynamics was formulated by Emanuel Kant. Do you know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated by physicist-philosopher Boltzman. Actually you have no idea that without the contribution of so-called meta-physicists, physics would be lame.

But, Kant and Boltzman were engaged in both sorts of activities -- particularly Kant. How, for example, would you propose we confirm his idea that space and time are relational?


Do you want to deny that after Darwin, Engels had correctly formulated the pathway of human evolution that LABOR MADE HUMAN KIND DIFFERENT FROM OTHER APES.
(which you k=jsut ignore),

Chris isn't arguing that scientific theories are metaphysical, only that theories like Dialectical Materialism are. You have said nothing to show otherwise.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranajbyoti:



1. The 'Thesis-antithesis' formual has nothing to do with dialectics. It is in fact Kant and Fichte's method:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7
Adopted by Hegel and later by Marx too. As far as I know, the thesis-antithesis-synthesis is the first and law of Dialectic Materialism.

2. But even if you are right, what has Dawkins's flawed theory got to do with dialectical materialism?
Plain and simple, with my little understanding of Dawkins theory, it basically says "altruism" and "selfishness" are just two opposite sides of a same coin. Both type of people actually want to spread their own genes. As per my version, thesis-antithesis-synthesis means if something is fact and the opposite of it is also a fact. "Altruism" and "selfishness" are two totally opposite mentalities, if they are the opposite sides of a same coin, then it certainly is a good example of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

This can't be the reason we like our children, since many parents are equally fond of children they adopt. And many are cruel to those with whom they share their genes. Furthermore, siblings are not as caring to one another as parents mostly are. But given inclusive fitness they should be equally caring.



On that basis, they also spoke in favour of Zen Buddhism, astrology and crystal gazing 'unknowingly'.:lol:



You obviously think genes can think, since only something with a mind can engage in forming a thesis (never mind the antithesis or the synthesis).

Which is why idealists like Kant and Fichte invented this formula.
Kindly stay out of personalized examples while discussing a scientific subjects. Basically, if you understand DM properly, then you can see that loving oneself and loving his/her children are basically same as per Dawkins theory.
Actually, if you have some little understanding of biology, then you will understand that Gene or DNA are some chemical that can have the capability to fight against the destructive forces of nature AND THAT IS THE BASELINE OF LIFE. What you call thinking is the latest development in this process.
Actually, Zen-Buddhism and other influential religions have some level of scientific thoughts at their starting point which was later degenerated with the progress of history. But, at their time of start, those philosophical thoughts are pretty scientific as per the level of development of that time.
Can you give some example of some scientist "unknowingly" said in favor of crystal gazing? If not, then kindly go to chit-chat section. If you want to take part in a scientific discussion, say something with reference.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranajbyoti:



But, Kant and Boltzman were engaged in both sorts of activities -- particularly Kant. How, for example, would you propose we confirm his idea that space and time are relational?
Actually, the laws, that I have mentioned can never be established with laboratory experiments. Basically, they are more philosophy than "science" (the way people like you and Chris know). Kindly explain, what you want to mean by "relational".

Chris isn't arguing that scientific theories are metaphysical, only that theories like Dialectial Materialism are. You have said nothing to show otherwise.
Do you want to say that Engels stayed away from DM during this research work? Making loose, baseless remarks isn't arguing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


Adopted by Hegel and later by Marx too.

Ok, where exactly does Hegel adopt this formula?

And where does Marx?

You clearly did not follow the link I posted which shows this formula is nowhere to be found in Hegel. Even Lenin pointed that out!


As far as I know, the thesis-antithesis-synthesis is the first and law of Dialectic Materialism.

Then you need to re-learn your own theory.


Plain and simple, with my little understanding of Dawkins theory, it basically says "altruism" and "selfishness" are just two opposite sides of a same coin. Both type of people actually want to spread their own genes. As per my version, thesis-antithesis-synthesis means if something is fact and the opposite of it is also a fact. "Altruism" and "selfishness" are two totally opposite mentalities, if they are the opposite sides of a same coin, then it certainly is a good example of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Well, even if this pantomine theory of yours were correct, as I pointed out in my last reply to you, this idea would mean that genes must be little minds, since only minds can advance theses, anti-theses and syntheses.

But, genes can't be selfish any more than they can be amusing or bored.


Kindly stay out of personalized examples while discussing a scientific subjects.

What does that mean?


Basically, if you understand DM properly, then you can see that loving oneself and loving his/her children are basically same as per Dawkins theory.

In fact, this can't be derived from his 'theory', as I have shown above. May I suggest you read what I posted?


Actually, if you have some little understanding of biology, then you will understand that Gene or DNA are some chemical that can have the capability to fight against the destructive forces of nature AND THAT IS THE BASELINE OF LIFE. What you call thinking is the latest development in this process.

Maybe so, but what has this got to do with anything I have argued?


Actually, Zen-Buddhism and other influential religions have some level of scientific thoughts at their starting point which was later degenerated with the progress of history. But, at their time of start, those philosophical thoughts are pretty scientific as per the level of development of that time.

I'd like to see the proof of this!


Can you give some example of some scientist "unknowingly" said in favor of crystal gazing? If not, then kindly go to chit-chat section. If you want to take part in a scientific discussion, say something with reference.

I can't, but then you can't give an example of a scientist unknowingly 'in favour' of dialectal materialism either.

That is precisely why I made that point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


Actually, the laws, that I have mentioned can never be established with laboratory experiments.

I afree, and that is why some theorists regard them as metaphysical.


Basically, they are more philosophy than "science" (the way people like you and Chris know). Kindly explain, what you want to mean by "relational".

Try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_theory


Do you want to say that Engels stayed away from DM during this research work? Making loose, baseless remarks isn't arguing.

Well, it's up to you to show how it helped him in any way at all. I claim it didn't, but just ended up confusing him.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranabjyoti:



Ok, where exactly does Hegel adopt this formula?

And where does Marx?

You clearly did not follow the link I posted which shows this formula is nowhere to be found in Hegel. Even Lenin pointed that out!
Your words remind me of the book Lenin Who are 'friends of the people' and how they oppose social-democrats. In that book, against the question of the gobbet Mikhailovsky ("in which book Marx said and proved DM"), Lenin just replied "in which of his books Marx didn't proved DM".
Actually, the men you mentioned are just as gobbet as Mikhailovsky and concluded that as Hegel never mentioned Dialectics in any of his writings, therefore Hegel can formulate or adopt thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Philosophers like Debiprasad Chatterjee, scientist like J B S Haldane all agreed on this matter and with some little exception like you and your references, it's almost unanimously accepted worldwide.

Then you need to re-learn your own theory.
I suggest you better have some idea about what DM is.

Well, even if this pantomine theory of yours were correct, as I pointed out in my last reply to you, this idea would mean that genes must be little minds, since only minds can advance theses, anti-theses and syntheses.

But, genes can't be selfish any more than they can be amusing or bored.
Already clearly answered, don't want to repeat.

What does that mean?
Means give some statistical data about what % of parents don't love their children and how much siblings have bitter rivalry than feeling of love and compassion instead of just remarks.

In fact, this can't be derived from his 'theory', as I have shown above. May I suggest you read what I posted?
REALLY? Then what can be derived from this?

Maybe so, but what has this got to do with anything I have argued?
Plain and simple that "thinking" is the latest outcome of genes struggling ability to fight against the destructive forces of nature.

I'd like to see the proof of this!
To have "proof" you have to have some idea of those religious teachings and also some idea about the level of development of the time of their evolving and think of the teachings in that perspective. Can you do so?

I can't, but then you can't give an example of a scientist unknowingly 'in favour' of dialectal materialism either.

That is precisely why I made that point.
DO YOU KNOW THAT ENGELS WROTE ORIGIN OF FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND STATE IS BASED ON THE RESEARCH OF MORGAN. Have you ever read Science and Marxism by Haldane?
If not, I want to give you one example. Paul Dirac, once stated that every particle of this universe must have an anti-particle. No anti-particle of any particle known at that time was discovered then. But, later Dirac has been proved to 100% right and whenever any particle is discovered now, physicists just now drive to find out the anti-particle.
THAT'S ENOUGH FOR TODAY.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranabjyoti:



I afree, and that is why some theorists regard them as metaphysical.
Well, most physicists I know accepted them as laws and so far, no example has been found where these "metaphysical" laws has been violated.

Well, it's up to you to show how it helped him in any way at all. I claim it didn't, but just ended up confusing him.
To understand, you need some basic knowledge of DM.

[Widerstand]

Kindly stay out of personalized examples while discussing a scientific subjects. Basically, if you understand DM properly, then you can see that loving oneself and loving his/her children are basically same as per Dawkins theory.
Actually, if you have some little understanding of biology, then you will understand that Gene or DNA are some chemical that can have the capability to fight against the destructive forces of nature AND THAT IS THE BASELINE OF LIFE.

Wherever that came from, none of it could be found in my biology textbooks, and believe me I've read a lot of fucking biology textbooks. How does this "fight" against the "destructive force of nature" (whatever the fuck that is) look like?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


Your words remind me of the book Lenin Who are 'friends of the people' and how they oppose social-democrats. In that book, against the question of the gobbet Mikhailovsky ("in which book Marx said and proved DM"), Lenin just replied "in which of his books Marx didn't proved DM".

In other words, it's not only a confused 'theory' that cannot explain change (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html) it hasn't been confirmed!


Actually, the men you mentioned are just as gobbet as Mikhailovsky and concluded that as Hegel never mentioned Dialectics in any of his writings, therefore Hegel can formulate or adopt thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

And yet you can't quote a single passage from Hegel that supports your contention that he did use this triad. And you ignore Lenin who also rejected it!


Philosophers like Debiprasad Chatterjee, scientist like J B S Haldane all agreed on this matter and with some little exception like you and your references, it's almost unanimously accepted worldwide.

And they screwed up, too, since they too failed to quote a single passage from Hegel that supports this attribution of yours -- unless, of course, you know of just such a passage. [But you would have quoted it by now, if you did, wouldn't you?]


I suggest you better have some idea about what DM is.

It looks like you have no better idea than me then, and probably worse, since you think it involves the discredited triad.:lol:


Already clearly answered, don't want to repeat.

No wonder you don't want to repeat it, since it failed to show why this triad of yours does not imply genes are little minds.


Means give some statistical data about what % of parents don't love their children and how much siblings have bitter rivalry than feeling of love and compassion instead of just remarks.

Are you committed to the odd belief that every single parent in human history has shown exemplary love to all of their natural children? If not, then you agree with me. If you do, then you are in the grip of some rather bizarre ideas.


REALLY? Then what can be derived from this?

That human beings are irredeemably selfish, and that it can't explain altruism.


Plain and simple that "thinking" is the latest outcome of genes struggling ability to fight against the destructive forces of nature.

But how can genes be part of a 'thesis' if they can't think?


To have "proof" you have to have some idea of those religious teachings and also some idea about the level of development of the time of their evolving and think of the teachings in that perspective. Can you do so?

So, no proof there either, eh?


DO YOU KNOW THAT ENGELS WROTE ORIGIN OF FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND STATE IS BASED ON THE RESEARCH OF MORGAN. Have you ever read Science and Marxism by Haldane?

Yes, but what has that got to do either with Dawkins or Dialectical Materialism?

And there's no need to SHOUT!


If not, I want to give you one example. Paul Dirac, once stated that every particle of this universe must have an anti-particle. No anti-particle of any particle known at that time was discovered then. But, later Dirac has been proved to 100% right and whenever any particle is discovered now, physicists just now drive to find out the anti-particle.
THAT'S ENOUGH FOR TODAY.

Indeed, he did, but as I have pointed out already, these particles and anti-particles do not 'struggle' with one another, nor do they turn into one another, as the Dialectical Classics tell us they should (quotations supporting that allegation can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31)), they just annihilate one another.

So, even these particles are reassuringly non-dialectical.:)


Well, most physicists I know accepted them as laws and so far, no example has been found where these "metaphysical" laws has been violated.

So what? They used to think the earth was the centre of the universe, too.


To understand, you need some basic knowledge of DM.

No good looking to you for help then is there?

You do not even know your own theory! :lol:

[Blackscare]

HEY GUYS THAT DAWKINS SHIT IS PRETTY INTERESTING LET'S ALL TALK ABOUT THAT.



Considering that that's what this thread is about.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackscared:


HEY GUYS THAT DAWKINS SHIT IS PRETTY INTERESTING LET'S ALL TALK ABOUT THAT.

I certainly wanted to do so, until Pranabjyoti mentioned the 'theory' that sets your teeth on edge.

And I wish you'd use more captials.:lol:

[ChrisK]

Do you want to mean philosophy by metaphysics. Do you have any idea that the first law of thermodynamics was formulated by Emanuel Kant. Do you know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated by physicist-philosopher Boltzman.

I never said Immanuel Kant didn't ever engage in science. In fact, I see no reason why a scientist can't engage in philosophy and a philosopher can't engage in science. Your problem is that you are claiming that Dawkin's gene theory is proof of a metaphysical doctrine.

Further, Vegan has no place telling Rosa not to smack you in the teeth for using dialectics in a scientific analysis when you brought it up to begin with.


Actually you have no idea that without the contribution of so-called meta-physicists, physics would be lame.

Proof? At what point does making grand claims about reality without any evidence constitute physics?


Do you want to deny that after Darwin, Engels had correctly formulated the pathway of human evolution that LABOR MADE HUMAN KIND DIFFERENT FROM OTHER APES.

Eh? Where do I imply that? You have reading problems.

[pranabjyoti]

Wherever that came from, none of it could be found in my biology textbooks, and believe me I've read a lot of fucking biology textbooks. How does this "fight" against the "destructive force of nature" (whatever the fuck that is) look like?
You have read a lot of biology books but just don't understand that natural forces tend wear and tear and ultimately destroy everything. Nothing in this universe can stay forever, but DNA and gene just tried to fight back by replicating itself.
You have read a lot of biology books but I doubt that how much you have understood them.

[NewSocialist]

Here's what Richard Dawkins thinks of dialectical biology - http://dba.fc.ul.pt/evo/textos/dawkins_review_not_in_our_genes.pdf

[pranabjyoti]

Pranabjyoti:



In other words, it's not only a confused 'theory' that cannot explain change (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html) it hasn't been confirmed!
So, everybody, including Lenin, Haldane and many other people are confused but only GREAT ROSA AND HIS SUPPORTERS CAN SEE THE LIGHT.

And yet you can't quote a single passage from Hegel that supports your contention that he did use this triad. And you ignore Lenin who also rejected it!
Again, I will just quote Lenin, if you can not understand that, it's your incapability.

And they screwed up, too, since they too failed to quote a single passage from Hegel that supports this attribution of yours -- unless, of course, you know of just such a passage. [But you would have quoted it by now, if you did, wouldn't you?
HAIL TO GREAT ROSA, WHO SHOW US LIGHT AFTER LONG YEARS OF CONFUSION. Who even suspected laws of physics and thermodynamics to be metaphysical. HAIL TO HER.

It looks like you have no better idea than me then, and probably worse, since you think it involves the discredited triad.:lol:
You have no idea about DM and I have at least a little and that's why I rarely engage into personal attack which, whenever something goes against you, you just jump into that.

No wonder you don't want to repeat it, since it failed to show why this triad of yours does not imply genes are little minds.
If you can not understand that MIND itself is the latest product of genes fighting with nature to stay alive and continue, I am helpless.

Are you committed to the odd belief that every single parent in human history has shown exemplary love to all of their natural children? If not, then you agree with me. If you do, then you are in the grip of some rather bizarre ideas.
This is a good example of what the level of your understanding of science and scientific data. Nothing in this universe is 100% and in case of biology, there is a proverb that EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE. If statistics showed that more than 50% of parents love their children, then that's enough.
I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE FACT THAT LOVING YOURSELF AND LOVING YOUR CHILDREN ARE BASICALLY SAME FROM GENETIC THEORY.

That human beings are irredeemably selfish, and that it can't explain altruism.
Sorry, in future I just don't want to go into debate with you in this respect. It's just waste of time.

But how can genes be part of a 'thesis' if they can't think?
Genes have the ability to replicate itself and fight against their destruction of natural forces and THINKING is the latest outcome. I am tired to repeat this again and again.

So, no proof there either, eh?
Sorry, I can not have the time to place "proofs" that can be understood by you. It's my inability.

Yes, but what has that got to do either with Dawkins or Dialectical Materialism?
That means, a person, who just don't have any idea of DM come to a conclusion that support DM theory very much. If you don't agree, then kindly show that Engels have stayed away from DM while writing this book.

And there's no need to SHOUT!
Can you show some way by which something can be told to you easily.

Indeed, he did, but as I have pointed out already, these particles and anti-particles do not 'struggle' with one another, nor do they turn into one another, as the Dialectical Classics tell us they should (quotations supporting that allegation can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31)), they just annihilate one another.

So, even these particles are reassuringly non-dialectical.:)
What a profound understanding of physics. It's just stunning that how one can argue based on his/her ignorance.
Just one example, as per Stephen Hawking, black holes also emit radiation. How? In space, EM radiation automatically divided into matter and anti-matter, but in open then soon collide and again become radiation. But, while near a black hole, those anti-matters were much more attracted towards black hole than the matter and they fall on the black whole. While the matter stayed and their presence can be verified by radiation from a the zone just outside space-time boundary. THIS THEORY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS.
That means, radiation can automatically brake down into two opposite particles and again united and then again broke. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS CAN BE AN EXAMPLE HOW OPPOSITES CAN BE TURNED INTO ONE ANOTHER.
With my little understanding of physics, positron remain at the center of atom i.e. nuclease and electrons revolve around it. Electrons have speed but the EM attraction of positrons at the nuclease force them to orbit the nuclease in a fixed trajectory, which makes the atoms.
And this formation isn't stand still, otherwise phenomenons like radio-activity can never occur.
Actually, you are just unable to understand that we are now starting to know about the sub-atomic particles and we have a great lot to learn how they behave and about their other properties. But, you start your argument based on the lack of knowledge that THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THOSE PARTICLES AND ANTI-PARTICLES REACT WITH EACH OTHER AND TURN INTO ONE ANOTHER.
Have you read the materials in your own thread. All, including Engels, Lenin and many other repeatedly said about SPECIFIC CONDITIONS in which opposites change into one another. Do you want to say that in no condition those particles can not change into one another.

So what? They used to think the earth was the centre of the universe, too.
It's not physicists, but religious leaders thought that way. And I want to ask you whether the term "physicists" exist at that time, when most people thought that Earth was the center of Universe.

No good looking to you for help then is there?

You do not even know your own theory! :lol:
You don't have the capability to judge who knows DM and who don't because you are anti-DM without proper knowledge of DM.

[pranabjyoti]

I never said Immanuel Kant didn't ever engage in science. In fact, I see no reason why a scientist can't engage in philosophy and a philosopher can't engage in science. Your problem is that you are claiming that Dawkin's gene theory is proof of a metaphysical doctrine.
So, DM is a "metaphysical doctrine" in your opinion. Kindly keep your personal opinion to yourself. I have not only claimed by put my reasons with that. You may not agree with me, but in that case put stronger reasons and facts. Do just put forward your personal opinion.

Further, Vegan has no place telling Rosa not to smack you in the teeth for using dialectics in a scientific analysis when you brought it up to begin with.
Not only me, but those people, scholars like Haldane and many others, who had studied DM found DM to be scientific enough and they, unlike you, just put forward their personal opinions, wrote books explaining their opinions with facts and reasons. I agreed with them. If you don't, put forward stronger reasons and facts.

Proof? At what point does making grand claims about reality without any evidence constitute physics?
The first and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of mass, the atomic theory of Dalton are basically "metaphysical" in this regard. We have seen the photograph of atmos very recently, and in the time of Dalton, there is no way of taking the photo on an atom. But, still it was accepted all over the world.

Eh? Where do I imply that? You have reading problems.
I don't have reading problem, but you have some problem in understanding. If Engels had done something useful, he did that on the basis of DM so at least DM helped in scientifically forumaling something in any stream of science.

[ChrisK]

So, DM is a "metaphysical doctrine" in your opinion. Kindly keep your personal opinion to yourself. I have not only claimed by put my reasons with that. You may not agree with me, but in that case put stronger reasons and facts. Do just put forward your personal opinion.

Its not opinion. Due to it being imposed on the entire universe without any evidence, DM is metaphysical.


Dialectics…prevails throughout nature…. [T]he motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites…determines the life of nature.



Not only me, but those people, scholars like Haldane and many others, who had studied DM found DM to be scientific enough and they, unlike you, just put forward their personal opinions, wrote books explaining their opinions with facts and reasons. I agreed with them. If you don't, put forward stronger reasons and facts.

Yet demanding that it is universal makes it a metaphysical doctrine. That is not personal opinion, I have stated a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be metaphysics.


The first and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of mass, the atomic theory of Dalton are basically "metaphysical" in this regard. We have seen the photograph of atmos very recently, and in the time of Dalton, there is no way of taking the photo on an atom. But, still it was accepted all over the world.

We don't have to see an atom to demonstrate that it exists. There are many ways of doing this, including prediction and successful application of the theory. While I am not a scientist, I know that there is more than one way to prove that a hypothesis is true. This has not happened with dialectics.


I don't have reading problem, but you have some problem in understanding. If Engels had done something useful, he did that on the basis of DM so at least DM helped in scientifically forumaling something in any stream of science.

No he didn't. If you claim he did, then you have to demonstrate how it was a dialectical idea. Quite simply, I did not indicate that Engels idea was flawed. You just forced a stupid theory on it.

[ChrisK]

So, everybody, including Lenin, Haldane and many other people are confused but only GREAT ROSA AND HIS SUPPORTERS CAN SEE THE LIGHT.

Again, I will just quote Lenin, if you can not understand that, it's your incapability.

If you can not understand that MIND itself is the latest product of genes fighting with nature to stay alive and continue, I am helpless.


What was that you told me about having to support my claims? Your doing a hell of job at it! Good supporting your claims!

[pranabjyoti]

Its not opinion. Due to it being imposed on the entire universe without any evidence, DM is metaphysical.
I want to ask you what is the proof that gravity and other laws of physics are universal? Much before Hubble Space Telescope went into orbit, gravity and other laws of physics were considered to be universal.
And so far, as far as I now, nothing in the known part of the universe contradicts DM.

Yet demanding that it is universal makes it a metaphysical doctrine. That is not personal opinion, I have stated a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be metaphysics.
Already answered it. If DM is metaphysics, then there is no "physics" at all, everything is metaphysics.
Most exobiologists considered laws of evolution to be universal wherever life will evolve. Are they wrong?

We don't have to see an atom to demonstrate that it exists. There are many ways of doing this, including prediction and successful application of the theory. While I am not a scientist, I know that there is more than one way to prove that a hypothesis is true. This has not happened with dialectics.
You better have some idea of dialectics first.

No he didn't. If you claim he did, then you have to demonstrate how it was a dialectical idea. Quite simply, I did not indicate that Engels idea was flawed. You just forced a stupid theory on it.
That means you want to say that Engels stayed away from DM while writing The role of labor in transition from Ape to Man. You first read the book and have some idea of DM first, then continue your argument.

[ChrisK]

I want to ask you what is the proof that gravity and other laws of physics are universal? Much before Hubble Space Telescope went into orbit, gravity and other laws of physics were considered to be universal.

Which is a bad claim. Claiming that the universe follows laws of physics is an extremely Newtonian view, which is no longer the supported view. It would be more correct to claim that in all observed instances and models gravity acts in x way.


And so far, as far as I now, nothing in the known part of the universe contradicts DM.

What was that about having to support one's argument? Leaving personal opinion out was something I heard somewhere.....

Oh, and protons don't change so there goes that part of DM theory.


Already answered it. If DM is metaphysics, then there is no "physics" at all, everything is metaphysics.

Wow, how scientific. So everything is the study of reality really is. How brilliant you are.


Most exobiologists considered laws of evolution to be universal wherever life will evolve. Are they wrong?

1. Proof.

2. Yes.


You better have some idea of dialectics first.

I do. I was a major supporter of DM until I ran into Rosa's website.


That means you want to say that Engels stayed away from DM while writing The role of labor in transition from Ape to Man. You first read the book and have some idea of DM first, then continue your argument.

Actually, I would claim he very rarely actually used dialectics in his arguments. But the burden of proof is on you. You claim that the work is dialectical so show it.

[pranabjyoti]

Which is a bad claim. Claiming that the universe follows laws of physics is an extremely Newtonian view, which is no longer the supported view. It would be more correct to claim that in all observed instances and models gravity acts in x way.
By the same manner, I want to say that all observed instances and models, DM acts in y way.

What was that about having to support one's argument? Leaving personal opinion out was something I heard somewhere.....

Oh, and protons don't change so there goes that part of DM theory.
Is there anything you can call a proton inside a nuclease? Inside complex nuclease, there is always exchange of particles that gives rise to nuclear forces which binds the nuclease together. And you want to say that protons don't change? Do you understand that a proton is nothing but a combination of a neutron and positron?

Wow, how scientific. So everything is the study of reality really is. How brilliant you are.
At least I follow the normal method other scientists use.

1. Proof.

2. Yes.
Do you every tried to do something by theorizing it. If so, then you must understand that you have to start from a starting point. Your mode of argument is "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and whole study of exobiology is useless, because that stands on "metaphysics".

I do. I was a major supporter of DM until I ran into Rosa's website.
Good for DM that "supporters" like you are away from it now.

Actually, I would claim he very rarely actually used dialectics in his arguments. But the burden of proof is on you. You claim that the work is dialectical so show it.
You just said that you do have some idea of DM but unable to understand that throughout their life and in all their works, both Marx and Engels tried to prove the DM and there is NOTHING not connected to DM in any of their works.

[ChrisK]

By the same manner, I want to say that all observed instances and models, DM acts in y way.

And like I said before you have to prove it. You are a priori demanding that the world functions dialectically. You need evidence.


Is there anything you can call a proton inside a nuclease? Inside complex nuclease, there is always exchange of particles that gives rise to nuclear forces which binds the nuclease together. And you want to say that protons don't change? Do you understand that a proton is nothing but a combination of a neutron and positron?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html
Knock yourself out.


At least I follow the normal method other scientists use.

hypothetico-deductive model?


Do you every tried to do something by theorizing it. If so, then you must understand that you have to start from a starting point. Your mode of argument is "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and whole study of exobiology is useless, because that stands on "metaphysics".

Not at all. Don't put words into my mouth. I claim that we can't make grand claims about the entire universe. We can posit rules, which is what scientists do. They create rules that apply to whatever they were researching.


Good for DM that "supporters" like you are away from it now.

You just said that you do have some idea of DM but unable to understand that throughout their life and in all their works, both Marx and Engels tried to prove the DM and there is NOTHING not connected to DM in any of their works.

Actually, being from that understanding lets me see clearly that such ideas do not appear in the works of Marx, and only in some aspects of Engels. Now you still need proof not, as you put it, personal opinion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


So, everybody, including Lenin, Haldane and many other people are confused but only GREAT ROSA AND HIS SUPPORTERS CAN SEE THE LIGHT.

Until you can show otherwise, the answer is 'yes'.

And, Lenin rejected the triad (see below), as I have pointed out to you twice, now.

[Still shouting I see.:lol:]


Again, I will just quote Lenin, if you can not understand that, it's your incapability.

But you didn't quote him, nor can you, since he rejected this triad.


HAIL TO GREAT ROSA, WHO SHOW US LIGHT AFTER LONG YEARS OF CONFUSION. Who even suspected laws of physics and thermodynamics to be metaphysical. HAIL TO HER.

Somebody had to wake you lot up, you mystics have been in self-inflicted darkness now for far too long. Too bad for you, it's me.:cool:


You have no idea about DM and I have at least a little and that's why I rarely engage into personal attack which, whenever something goes against you, you just jump into that.

Not so; you engage in personal attacks above.

But, even if you'd didn't, it's now plain you don't even understand your own theory, since you have confused it with Kant and Fichte's triad.:lol:


If you can not understand that MIND itself is the latest product of genes fighting with nature to stay alive and continue,

But, according to you, genes are little minds already. You now need to explain how you know this. Has a gene been talking to you, perhaps?


I am helpless.

I'd use the word 'clueless', in fact.


This is a good example of what the level of your understanding of science and scientific data. Nothing in this universe is 100% and in case of biology, there is a proverb that EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE. If statistics showed that more than 50% of parents love their children, then that's enough.

I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE FACT THAT LOVING YOURSELF AND LOVING YOUR CHILDREN ARE BASICALLY SAME FROM GENETIC THEORY.

So, you don't have any evidence to back up your assertions.

No change there then.:(


I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE FACT THAT LOVING YOURSELF AND LOVING YOUR CHILDREN ARE BASICALLY SAME FROM GENETIC THEORY.

How do you work that one out?

Perhaps you think that human beings are identical to their children?:lol:

And, please, use more CAPITALS!


Sorry, in future I just don't want to go into debate with you in this respect. It's just waste of time.

I'm happy to accept your capitulation in view of your manifest incapacity to defend your class-compromised ideas.


Genes have the ability to replicate itself and fight against their destruction of natural forces and THINKING is the latest outcome. I am tired to repeat this again and again.

And I suppose one of your 'thinking' genes told you this?

Mine are quiet today. They usually keep me up all night.


Sorry, I can not have the time to place "proofs" that can be understood by you.

So, still no proof then?


It's my inability.

You'll be telling us grass is green and the sky is up, next.:lol:


That means, a person, who just don't have any idea of DM come to a conclusion that support DM theory very much.

Can I suggest you take those boxing gloves off before you bash away at your keyboard in future, since the above sentence makes no sense at all?


If you don't agree, then kindly show that Engels have stayed away from DM while writing this book.

It's not a matter of 'staying away from DM', it's that it nowhere appears in that book -- unless of course you can show where it does. After all, it was your allegation that it does, and you need to back up what you say with a few quotations.

[Silly of me to ask -- you don't do proof do you?]


What a profound understanding of physics. It's just stunning that how one can argue based on his/her ignorance.

Never mind, let's hear what you have to say anyway...


Just one example, as per Stephen Hawking, black holes also emit radiation. How? In space, EM radiation automatically divided into matter and anti-matter, but in open then soon collide and again become radiation. But, while near a black hole, those anti-matters were much more attracted towards black hole than the matter and they fall on the black whole. While the matter stayed and their presence can be verified by radiation from a the zone just outside space-time boundary. THIS THEORY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS.

All very interesting but what has this got to do with your assertions about anti-matter?


That means, radiation can automatically brake down into two opposite particles and again united and then again broke. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS CAN BE AN EXAMPLE HOW OPPOSITES CAN BE TURNED INTO ONE ANOTHER.

But, they can't:

Let us call one of these particles "P(1)", and it's alleged opposite "P(2)".

For P(1) to turn into P(2) it must struggle with it. But, P(2) already exists, so P(1) can't change in to it. If P(2) didn't already exist, it couldn't struggle with P(1).

So, your 'theory' would make change impossible.


With my little understanding of physics, positron remain at the center of atom i.e. nuclease and electrons revolve around it. Electrons have speed but the EM attraction of positrons at the nuclease force them to orbit the nuclease in a fixed trajectory, which makes the atoms.

Oops! You are confusing positrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron) with protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton).

So, not only do you not understand your own 'theory' (having confused it with Kant and Fichte's triad) you do not seem to know the difference between protons and positrons.:lol:


And this formation isn't stand still, otherwise phenomenons like radio-activity can never occur.

Err...yes, but so what? Your 'theory' would imply this could not happen, anyway.


Actually, you are just unable to understand that we are now starting to know about the sub-atomic particles and we have a great lot to learn how they behave and about their other properties. But, you start your argument based on the lack of knowledge that THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THOSE PARTICLES AND ANTI-PARTICLES REACT WITH EACH OTHER AND TURN INTO ONE ANOTHER.

I'm glad you have now been forced to agree with this, and thus that these particles are reassuringly non-dialectical.:)


Have you read the materials in your own thread. All, including Engels, Lenin and many other repeatedly said about SPECIFIC CONDITIONS in which opposites change into one another. Do you want to say that in no condition those particles can not change into one another.

But they also call it an "absolute".

But, even if these happened under specific conditions, when they occur these things turn into their opposites, as the dialectical classicists tell us. But, as I have shown above, and in more detail here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html), that would make change impossible.


It's not physicists, but religious leaders thought that way. And I want to ask you whether the term "physicists" exist at that time, when most people thought that Earth was the center of Universe.

Ah, but check out what these top physicists say about Ptolemy's system:

For example, here is what Professor Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mills_(physicist)) had to say about it:


"Another way of stating the principle of equivalence, a way that better reflects its name, is to say that all reference frames, including accelerated reference frames, are equivalent, that the laws of Physics take the same form in any reference frame…. And it is also correct to say that the Copernican view (with the sun at the centre) and the Ptolemaic view (with the earth at the centre) are equally valid and equally consistent!" [Mills (1994), pp.182-83. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]



Mills, R. (1994), [I]Space, Time And Quanta (W H Freeman).

Here is what Nobel Laureate Max Born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born) had to say about it:


"Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod."

Rosser, W. (1967), Introductory Relativity (Plenum Press).

And here is what Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) FRS had to say:


"Instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view....

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense...." [Hoyle (1973), pp.78-79.]

"We now know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. But such an understanding had to await Einstein's theory of gravitation in order to be fully clarified." [Hoyle (1975), p.416.]

Hoyle, F. (1973), Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay On His Life And Work (Heinemann).

--------, (1975), Astronomy And Cosmology. A Modern Course (W H Freeman).

So, it is physics.


You don't have the capability to judge who knows DM and who don't because you are anti-DM without proper knowledge of DM.

Ah, the weasel words of a 'true believer'!

Alas for you, we have already established that you do not even understand your own 'theory' -- once more, you have confused it with Kant and Fichte's triad -- which Lenin described, following Hegel, as "hollow".:


Briefly repeating Kant’s proofs, thesis and antithesis, Hegel notes the [B]hollowness of these proofs....

Bold added.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm

[Widerstand]

You have read a lot of biology books but just don't understand that natural forces tend wear and tear and ultimately destroy everything. Nothing in this universe can stay forever, but DNA and gene just tried to fight back by replicating itself.
You have read a lot of biology books but I doubt that how much you have understood them.

Some facts:

1. DNA doesn't replicate itself.
2. Genes are small parts of DNA (consisting of three or more triplets).
2.1 Genes don't replicate themselves either.

And some questions:

What are these "natural forces"?
And how do they "wear and tear and ultimately destroy everything"?

[pranabjyoti]

And like I said before you have to prove it. You are a priori demanding that the world functions dialectically. You need evidence.
Just tell me any instance of change, I will explain it by DM. Just take arbitrarily and I will show you.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html)
Knock yourself out.
Well, as per quantum mechanics, force only generate whenever there is an exchange of particles. Which particle exchange will be give rise to the strong nuclear forces in your opinion?

hypothetico-deductive model?
Whatever you want to say it.

Not at all. Don't put words into my mouth. I claim that we can't make grand claims about the entire universe. We can posit rules, which is what scientists do. They create rules that apply to whatever they were researching.
I don't put words in your mouth, but the way you are arguing simply represent that. Just show me one example where DM can not explain the change. Though this kind of examples only proved the ignorance of the arguers so far.

Actually, being from that understanding lets me see clearly that such ideas do not appear in the works of Marx, and only in some aspects of Engels. Now you still need proof not, as you put it, personal opinion.
Well, everybody have a skeleton that isn't visible. DM in the writings of Marx is like the skeleton and inner body parts that need some insight to view and understand. Marx, on all of his works rarely mentioned about DM but that is the basic structure of his life's work. Denying DM means denying Marx (and many other brilliant scholars).

[pranabjyoti]

Some facts:

1. DNA doesn't replicate itself.
2. Genes are small parts of DNA (consisting of three or more triplets).
2.1 Genes don't replicate themselves either.

And some questions:

What are these "natural forces"?
And how do they "wear and tear and ultimately destroy everything"?
Are you from another universe? Can't you see how water, wind and sun everyday wears and tears everything around us.
If DNA's and genes don't replicate themselves, then what happened during the time of cell division.

[Widerstand]

Just tell me any instance of change, I will explain it by DM. Just take arbitrarily and I will show you.

[...]

I don't put words in your mouth, but the way you are arguing simply represent that. Just show me one example where DM can not explain the change. Though this kind of examples only proved the ignorance of the arguers so far.

This game is fun! I want to play too, if I may?

Ok then!

Just tell me any instance of change, I will explain it by "God did it". Just take arbitrarily and I will show you! What, you don't believe in God? Just show me one example where "God did it" can't explain the change! Ohhhh you can't? Hm, well I guess it follows then that "God did it" is a good explanation for change, no?

Reality check: No, and neither is DM.


Are you from another universe? Can't you see how water, wind and sun everyday wears and tears everything around us.

No I can't. I'm sorry, you will have to explain this. Are "water, wind and sun" these "forces of nature" you speak of? Why are they out to destroy live? And indeed, how do they do this? How does the sun "wear and tear everything"? How does the wind "wear and tear everything"? How does water? Doesn't water also nurture live? Doesn't the sun give plants energy? And how does live fight against them? By DNA "replicating itself?"



If DNA's and genes don't replicate themselves, then what happened during the time of cell division.

You are right that DNA is being duplicated during cell division. You are wrong in saying that DNA replicates itself. The replication is done by enzymes.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranabjyoti:



Until you can show otherwise, the answer is 'yes'.

And, Lenin rejected the triad (see below), as I have pointed out to you twice, now.

[Still shouting I see.:lol:]
In your mentioned thread, Lenin wrote that Hegel noted the Hollowness, where did he said that the method of Hegel himself is hollow altogether?
Your method of argument is like that:
1. Triad had been formulated by Fichte and Kant.
2. Hegel (Marx too) never mentioned triad in their works.
3. Lenin wrote that "Hegel pointed out the hollowness of Kant and Fichte" and thus Lenin rejected the triad.
I am curious to know if Lenin was alive today, what he would have said to you.

But you didn't quote him, nor can you, since he rejected this triad.
LENIN REJECTED THE TRIAD AND BOTH HEGEL AND MARX NEVER MENTIONED TRIAD IN ANY OF THEIR WORKS. WHAT A PROFOUND UNDERSTANDING OF DM AND THEIR FOUNDERS!

Somebody had to wake you lot up, you mystics have been in self-inflicted darkness now for far too long. Too bad for you, it's me.:cool:
Lets, take an opinion poll in revleft here. Just start a thread mentioning all Hegel, Marx, Lenin as Mystics I just want to see how many want to support you. You have just awakened me up, but there are a lot more here who needed to be awakened. TRY IT.

Not so; you engage in personal attacks above.
Probably as result of arguing with you.

But, even if you'd didn't, it's now plain you don't even understand your own theory, since you have confused it with Kant and Fichte's triad.:lol:
My theory is much better than your OWN ANTI-DIALECTIC THEORY.

But, according to you, genes are little minds already. You now need to explain how you know this. Has a gene been talking to you, perhaps?
NO REMARKS.

I'd use the word 'clueless', in fact.
Hey, can anybody give me any clue about how to teach Rosa? She had already done a revolution, but are little people to support her. I am 'clueless' why she had so little followers.

So, you don't have any evidence to back up your assertions.

No change there then.:(
You better read Dawkins, I think his book certainly have some good example.



How do you work that one out?

Perhaps you think that human beings are identical to their children?:lol:

And, please, use more CAPITALS!
If you have a little idea about genetics, then you must know that in children, the genes of both father and mother mixed up to form the gene of the offspring. And it's common sense (do you have that?) whenever two things mixed up, that can not be identical with anyone of the previous.
DON'T PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

I'm happy to accept your capitulation in view of your manifest incapacity to defend your class-compromised ideas.
At least glad to know that you believe in class at least.

And I suppose one of your 'thinking' genes told you this?

Mine are quiet today. They usually keep me up all night.
My little understanding of biology told me that. Have it and probably you too can hear what the 'genes' says.

So, still no proof then?
No proof that can satisfy you. I think none in revleft (other than your blind followers) can put some 'proof' before you.

You'll be telling us grass is green and the sky is up, next.:lol:
Great Rosa had done a revolution in logic and philosophy.

Can I suggest you take those boxing gloves off before you bash away at your keyboard in future, since the above sentence makes no sense at all?
To you, but certainly those can make senses to others.

It's not a matter of 'staying away from DM', it's that it nowhere appears in that book -- unless of course you can show where it does. After all, it was your allegation that it does, and you need to back up what you say with a few quotations.

[Silly of me to ask -- you don't do proof do you?]
Again, what a profound understanding of

Never mind, let's hear what you have to say anyway...
Already said, don't want to repeat.

All very interesting but what has this got to do with your assertions about anti-matter?
If EM radiation can automatically brake down into matter and anti-matter and then again reunited to form EM radiation and still you want to have proof that opposites can change into one another, I am helpless to teach you.

But, they can't:

Let us call one of these particles "P(1)", and it's alleged opposite "P(2)".

For P(1) to turn into P(2) it must struggle with it. But, P(2) already exists, so P(1) can't change in to it. If P(2) didn't already exist, it couldn't struggle with P(1).

So, your 'theory' would make change impossible.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh, what a profound understanding of DM again.



Oops! You are confusing positrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron) with protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton).

So, not only do you not understand your own 'theory' (having confused it with Kant and Fichte's triad) you do not seem to know the difference between protons and positrons.:lol:
Wonderful understanding of physics. At least, do you that protons and positrons are equal in respect of charge and in constituting an atom, EM forces are much much ........ (10^39 times) stronger than gravity and therefore the mass of Proton is irrelevant here.
Can you answer, which exchange of particles between protons and neutrons gives rise to the "strong nuclear forces". Many scientists suspect that it's the positron. Do you know that the mass of a neutron and positron together equals the mass of a Proton?
Well, what happened if P(1) and P(2) just interact with each other and come out as something new totally? As for example, when electrons and positrons fall on each other, they for an EM radiation. This EM radiation can again be broke into electrons and positrons.
MY little understanding of DM says that P(1) can change into P(2), if P(2) can change to P(1) at the same instance. THAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONDITION.

Err...yes, but so what? Your 'theory' would imply this could not happen, anyway.

I'm glad you have now been forced to agree with this, and thus that these particles are reassuringly non-dialectical.:)
OHH, what a profound understanding of physics.

But they also call it an "absolute".

But, even if these happened under specific conditions, when they occur these things turn into their opposites, as the dialectical classicists tell us. But, as I have shown above, and in more detail here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html), that would make change impossible.
So, as per you, no change is occurring in anywhere in the universe and if yes, no clash and conflict is behind that.

Ah, but check out what these top physicists say about Ptolemy's system:

For example, here is what Professor Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mills_%28physicist%29) had to say about it:





Mills, R. (1994), [I]Space, Time And Quanta (W H Freeman).

Here is what Nobel Laureate Max Born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born) had to say about it:



Rosser, W. (1967), Introductory Relativity (Plenum Press).

And here is what Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) FRS had to say:



Hoyle, F. (1973), Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay On His Life And Work (Heinemann).

--------, (1975), Astronomy And Cosmology. A Modern Course (W H Freeman).

So, it is physics.
Actually, what they want to say is length, time and mass are relative to frame and reference but speed of light is constant irrespective of any frame of reference. Only a gobbet can take their words just literally.
Can you say that how the movement of planets can be explained with geocentric model. That would seem like totally irregular zigzag movements with no explanation. Only the heliocentric model can explain the movements of planets and asteroids.
Thanks to physicists and astronomers, who can look beyond 'literal meanings' of words of scholars. No idiot at present want to explain the movements of planets based on geocentric model.

Ah, the weasel words of a 'true believer'!

Alas for you, we have already established that you do not even understand your own 'theory' -- once more, you have confused it with Kant and Fichte's triad -- which Lenin described, following Hegel, as "hollow".:



Bold added.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm
What you mentioned is that Lenin wrote that 'Hegel pointed out the hollowness of methods of Fichte and Kant'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


In your mentioned thread, Lenin wrote that Hegel noted the Hollowness, where did he said that the method of Hegel himself is hollow altogether?
Your method of argument is like that:
1. Triad had been formulated by Fichte and Kant.
2. Hegel (Marx too) never mentioned triad in their works.
3. Lenin wrote that "Hegel pointed out the hollowness of Kant and Fichte" and thus Lenin rejected the triad.
I am curious to know if Lenin was alive today, what he would have said to you.

Probably that you have failed to show he approved of your use of the triad, or that he, too, approved of it. Just as you have failed to show Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov or Mao did.


LENIN REJECTED THE TRIAD AND BOTH HEGEL AND MARX NEVER MENTIONED TRIAD IN ANY OF THEIR WORKS. WHAT A PROFOUND UNDERSTANDING OF DM AND THEIR FOUNDERS!

I do wish you'd use more capitals; they are so much more effective than providing any proof of your empty assertions.

However, and once more, you have yet to find/quote a single passage from Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin or Mao that shows they thought this triad of yours was part of DM. But you have the cheek to point a few fingers at me.


Lets, take an opinion poll in revleft here. Just start a thread mentioning all Hegel, Marx, Lenin as Mystics I just want to see how many want to support you. You have just awakened me up, but there are a lot more here who needed to be awakened. TRY IT.

So, let me get this straight: you seem to think truth is to be ascertained by counting votes. Instead of addressing what I have to say, you propose a vote! :lol:


Probably as result of arguing with you.

Well, yes I can understand your frustration. You can't counter my arguments effectively, so you find you have to resort to personal attack. No worries, it just confirms how desperate you have become.


My theory is much better than your OWN ANTI-DIALECTIC THEORY.

1. We have already established that you do not even understand your own 'theory', and can't find a single passage from Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin or Mao that supports your use of Kant and Fichte's triad.

2. I have no theory (and I defy you to show otherwise). So, you are not only struggling to cope with your own theory, you seem not to be able to read too good.


NO REMARKS.

No clue, more like.

So, you still can't show why genes, according to you, are in effect little minds, and can form theses, etc.


Hey, can anybody give me any clue about how to teach Rosa?

You first of all need a "clue" how to teach yourself your own theory, before you seek to proselytise anyone else. As things stand, you need help from me since you want to saddle Dialectical Marxism with Fichte and Kant's triad!.


She had already done a revolution,

Indeed, in your little dream world, I am all powerful.:)


but are little people to support her. I am 'clueless' why she had so little followers.

As you are about so many other things. Good of you to own up.:)


You better read Dawkins, I think his book certainly have some good example.

I have, many times (unfortunately) -- but, if you are right, you will find it easy to give me the page references.

[Ooops, there I go again, expecting you to back up what you assert with proof! Better not hold my breath, then.]


If you have a little idea about genetics, then you must know that in children, the genes of both father and mother mixed up to form the gene of the offspring. And it's common sense (do you have that?) whenever two things mixed up, that can not be identical with anyone of the previous.
DON'T PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

In that case, as I pointed out earlier, if inclusive fitness were true sibling care and self-sacrifice would be as intense and as common as parent childcare and self-sacrifice is, but it isn't. How many sibling cats, say, have you seen care for their brothers and sisters as much as their mother does? How many birds care for their siblings as well as their parents do?


And it's common sense (do you have that?)

If your arguments are anything to go by, quite a lot more than you, sonny.


At least glad to know that you believe in class at least.

And, at least enough to be able to spot in your 'theory' its boss-class origins.


My little understanding of biology told me that. Have it and probably you too can hear what the 'genes' says.

Yes, we already know that your 'theory' implies genes can think.


No proof that can satisfy you.

One quotation from Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin or Mao will do. But what do you do instead? Post personal comments about me instead!


I think none in revleft (other than your blind followers) can put some 'proof' before you.

Well, here's your opportunity to help your mystical comrades out: provide them with at least one passage from Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin or Mao that shows they uses/approved of this triad of yours. At least they will then be able to see you know what you are talking about, and are not, as now seems reasonably clear, just full of hot air.


Great Rosa had done a revolution in logic and philosophy.

Ah, still drifting in and out of that dream word where I am all powerful, I see.:lol:


To you, but certainly those can make senses to others.

Well, do us all a favour, and ask one of the multitudes, who you seem to think can understand this odd sentence of yours, to explain it to us; you obviously can't. In fact, i am far from certain you understand it yourself. So, they'd be doing you a favour too.


Again, what a profound understanding of[?QUOTE]

Of what?

And we are still waiting for you to do this:


unless of course you can show where it does. After all, it was your allegation that it does, and you need to back up what you say with a few quotations.

[No prizes for anyone reading this being able to predict that Pranabjyoti here will once again fail to support his allegations with anything that even remotely looks like evidence.:lol:]

You:


Already said, don't want to repeat.

As you have said many times...


If EM radiation can automatically brake down into matter and anti-matter and then again reunited to form EM radiation and still you want to have proof that opposites can change into one another, I am helpless to teach you.

But they do not change into one another, do they, as my argument showed?


what a profound understanding of DM again.

In that case, you will find it easy to show where I go wrong, won't you? [Ha! Some hope!]


Wonderful understanding of physics. At least, do you that protons and positrons are equal in respect of charge and in constituting an atom,

And what has that got to do with your obvious confusion of positrons with protons?


EM forces are much much ........ (10^39 times) stronger than gravity and therefore the mass of Proton is irrelevant here.

Again, how does this get you off the hook?


Can you answer, which exchange of particles between protons and neutrons gives rise to the "strong nuclear forces".

When you answer my questions, I might condescend to answer yours.

Anyway, what has this got to do with your confusion of positrons with protons?


Many scientists suspect that it's the positron.

Again what has that got to do with your confusion of positrons with protons?


Do you know that the mass of a neutron and positron together equals the mass of a Proton?

Again how does that absolve you of confusing positrons with protons?


Well, what happened if P(1) and P(2) just interact with each other and come out as something new totally? As for example, when electrons and positrons fall on each other, they for an EM radiation. This EM radiation can again be broke into electrons and positrons.

In that case, the classical DM-account a change (wherein, opposites struggle with one another, and turn into one another), found In Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin and Mao's work is wrong, since it can't cope with such change.


MY little understanding of DM says that P(1) can change into P(2), if P(2) can change to P(1) at the same instance. THAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONDITION.

Unfortunately, as my argument shows, this can't happen, since P(2) already exists. All that P(1) can do is turn onto a copy of P(2), not P(2) itself.


OHH, what a profound understanding of physics.

Well, you are the one who confused of positrons with protons, not me.


So, as per you, no change is occurring in anywhere in the universe and if yes, no clash and conflict is behind that.

Not at all. What I have shown is that if your 'theory' were true, change would be impossible. So, if things do in fact change, your 'theory' must be false.


Actually, what they want to say is length, time and mass are relative to frame and reference but speed of light is constant irrespective of any frame of reference. Only a gobbet can take their words just literally.

In fact, they say this:


[QUOTE]"Another way of stating the principle of equivalence, a way that better reflects its name, is to say that all reference frames, including accelerated reference frames, are equivalent, that the laws of Physics take the same form in any reference frame…. And it is also correct to say that the Copernican view (with the sun at the centre) and the Ptolemaic view (with the earth at the centre) are equally valid and equally consistent!" [Mills (1994), pp.182-83. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]


"Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod."


"[b]Instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view....

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense...." [Hoyle (1973), pp.78-79.]

Bold added.

Looks pretty literal to me. If you think differently, perhaps you can point out those parts of the above quotations that suggest otherwise.


Can you say that how the movement of planets can be explained with geocentric model. That would seem like totally irregular zigzag movements with no explanation. Only the heliocentric model can explain the movements of planets and asteroids.

Thanks to physicists and astronomers, who can look beyond 'literal meanings' of words of scholars. No idiot at present want to explain the movements of planets based on geocentric model.

But, according to the above experts, the two systems are equivalent. Perhaps you should take issue with Einstein's theory?

And good luck with that one!


What you mentioned is that Lenin wrote that 'Hegel pointed out the hollowness of methods of Fichte and Kant'.

I notice you find you have to alter what Lenin in fact said. [No surprise there then!]

Here it is again (for you to alter some more!):


Briefly repeating Kant’s proofs, thesis and antithesis, Hegel notes the hollowness of these proofs...

1. Notice he does not mention Fichte -- you added that.

2. Notice, too, Lenin focuses, not on Kant's method in general, but on a specific part of it:


Kant’s proofs, thesis and antithesis, Hegel notes the hollowness of these proofs

So, Lenin is reminding us that Hegel saw how hollow this triad is.

Now, the question is: in place of altering what Lenin actually said, can you provide one quotation from Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin or Mao that supports your use of Kant's triad?

[But we all know the answer to that one; if you could, you'd have done so by now.]

[ChrisK]

Just tell me any instance of change, I will explain it by DM. Just take arbitrarily and I will show you.

Breathing and turning O2 to CO2.


[URL="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html"]
Well, as per quantum mechanics, force only generate whenever there is an exchange of particles. Which particle exchange will be give rise to the strong nuclear forces in your opinion?

I'm no expert on particle exchange. Any resources?


Whatever you want to say it.

So you admit that your method is not dialectical materialism.


I don't put words in your mouth, but the way you are arguing simply represent that. Just show me one example where DM can not explain the change. Though this kind of examples only proved the ignorance of the arguers so far.

How does my argument style say that "the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence?"

I'll show you in the above example by picking apart your argument.


Well, everybody have a skeleton that isn't visible. DM in the writings of Marx is like the skeleton and inner body parts that need some insight to view and understand. Marx, on all of his works rarely mentioned about DM but that is the basic structure of his life's work. Denying DM means denying Marx (and many other brilliant scholars).

And you have to demonstrate this. That is how debate works; you make a claim and then you must support it.