Science of Morality, Anyone?

[coberst]

Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

[jake williams]

The idea of formal research into morality, or ethics more broadly, is extremely important, but it's very difficult to do for a number of reasons. Typically the first one that seems to come up is the problem of definitions - you often get into a series of circular definitions, and also different people use wildly different ideas of "morality".

[mikelepore]

In science, one step implies the next step, in logical progression. Society today isn't even advanced to the point where most people believe they they need to have reasons for what they believe is right and wrong. One minute they'll watch a dangerous stunt on TV and say it should be legal to risk one's own safety, and the next minute they'll say it's justified for the government to keep half a million Americans in prison for smoking marijuana, because the substance "might turn out to be bad for them." Note how this follows the same pattern as the majority of Americans believing in astrology, ghosts, etc. -- we're at such a stage of intellectual underdevelopment that most people don't even accept the principle that making any assertion requires having an argument in mind. The illogic of this society is so severe that people cite the reason for their religious beliefs as: I find it comforting to believe that it's true, therefore it must be true. That is about as close to being insane that one can be without actually hallucinating. I agree with the original post, but I can see the steepness of this uphill climb.

[coberst]

The idea of formal research into morality, or ethics more broadly, is extremely important, but it's very difficult to do for a number of reasons. Typically the first one that seems to come up is the problem of definitions - you often get into a series of circular definitions, and also different people use wildly different ideas of "morality".

But the purpose of a science is to resolve such confusion.

[coberst]

In science, one step implies the next step, in logical progression. Society today isn't even advanced to the point where most people believe they they need to have reasons for what they believe is right and wrong. One minute they'll watch a dangerous stunt on TV and say it should be legal to risk one's own safety, and the next minute they'll say it's justified for the government to keep half a million Americans in prison for smoking marijuana, because the substance "might turn out to be bad for them." Note how this follows the same pattern as the majority of Americans believing in astrology, ghosts, etc. -- we're at such a stage of intellectual underdevelopment that most people don't even accept the principle that making any assertion requires having an argument in mind. The illogic of this society is so severe that people cite the reason for their religious beliefs as: I find it comforting to believe that it's true, therefore it must be true. That is about as close to being insane that one can be without actually hallucinating. I agree with the original post, but I can see the steepness of this uphill climb.

I agree with the steepness but I think that it is of the utmost importance that such an effort begins.

[mikelepore]

Does does this differ from what has been done before? The people who argued for natural law or utility for their criteria believed that they were carrying the subject into the age of scientific enlightnment. Then they came up against a few brick walls. One is, you need axioms or assumptions to start with, and every time you propose a basic axiom, other people can say "that's merely your own opinion." That's quite unlike hard science, where the other guy can demand to know "how do you know the atom has a nucleus?" and you can answer "Rutherford's experimental data." Another wall you run into is the inability to apply the theory to a practical situation by distinguishing in an unambiguous way between a true statement and a false statement. Science can perform a public demonstration to make just about any assertion visible to everyone. I don't know of any successful challenge to David Hume, 'Treatise of Human Nature', regarding the point that "is and is not" and "ought and ought not" can never be connected.

[mikelepore]

I believe that these problems arise because right and morality are nothing more than a self-description of each speaker's state of mind. When I say it would be wrong to kill, I mean that I have a strong preference to live in a world in which people won't kill, and, if they try to, some force will interfere with the action. When a gangster says to the contrary that it's acceptable to kill, he means that it would be his preference to have a world in which he is permitted to do it. Each of us are describing our mental processes. This differs from common matters of taste only in intensity. I prefer this flavor of ice cream, but I don't insist that it would be completely intolerable for it to be otherwise. Therefore we call that a matter of taste. However, my mental process which is a preference that no one will ever come and kill my family is of such strong intensity that I would not at all tolerate the opposite situation, I feel it would be worth fighting over. With that greater intensity of preference reaching some threshold of intolerance, I use the words "right" and "wrong". So what are we describing when we say "right" or "morality"? We're describing electrochemical processes in the brain of each speaker who is using those words.

(To correct in advance a common misinterpretation of what I just said: My assertion here is NOT the same as "cultural relativism." I didn't say that the reference point for right and wrong is a society's traditions. I said the reference point is every individual speaker's mental processes and their intensities.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I can think of nothing least fitted for scientific study than 'morality'.

[jake williams]

I can think of nothing least fitted for scientific study than 'morality'.
Why?

[Bilan]

This kind of makes me think of: searching for rationality in irrationality. :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Science nor reason can explore morality. Morality requires a language of the heart beyond the worldly language we use to create logically consistent arguments. We can discuss if some things are consistent with certain moral axioms, but the moral axioms themselves do not come from logically consistent arguments or reason.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jammoe:


Why?

Since science studies and then delivers indicative truths about the world, not imperatives.

[MarxSchmarx]

I can think of nothing least fitted for scientific study than 'morality'.

Well, there's morality and then there's morality.

For example, evolutionary psychology could explain things like why a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon. Many people consider the question of why anyone would do this to be within the purview of what constitutes "the study of morality", and science (rightly or wrongly in the form of evolutionary psychology) studies this.

Moreover, science has its own imperatives; indeed, science could not function unless certain imperatives (such as the willingness to accept that "P and Not P is false" (quantum mechanics aside) or the validity of mathematical statements) are agreed upon.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


For example, evolutionary psychology could explain things like why a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon. Many people consider the question of why anyone would do this to be within the purview of what constitutes "the study of morality", and science (rightly or wrongly in the form of evolutionary psychology) studies this.

I don't think so, and for reasons outlined here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993823&postcount=7


Moreover, science has its own imperatives; indeed, science could not function unless certain imperatives (such as the willingness to accept that "P and Not P is false" (quantum mechanics aside) or the validity of mathematical statements) are agreed upon

That is not an imperative, but an indicative.

[MarxSchmarx]

MarxSchmarx:

I don't think so, and for reasons outlined here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993823&postcount=7


I agree evolutionary psychology has a lot be desired, but that doesn't make it "unscientific". I just raised that as an example of a materialist account of why a soldier would throw him/herself on a grenade to save the platoon. I think there will ultimately be a matieralist and, yes, scientific, explanation for this.



That is not an imperative, but an indicative.

OK, I take the bait:rolleyes: Explicate the difference.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


I agree evolutionary psychology has a lot be desired, but that doesn't make it "unscientific". I just raised that as an example of a materialist account of why a soldier would throw him/herself on a grenade to save the platoon. I think there will ultimately be a matieralist and, yes, scientific, explanation for this.

"A lot to be desired"! Are you joking? The entire theory is based on the belief that Darwin's theory applies to human beings, which it doesn't -- as David Stove's article and book show.


Explicate the difference.

Surely you know the difference between the indicative mood of a verb and its imperative mood?

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/moods.html

[MarxSchmarx]

The entire theory is based on the belief that Darwin's theory applies to human beings, which it doesn't -- as David Stove's article and book show.

Let me be clearer: It is scientifically wrong. I have denounced it on this forum as counter-revolutionary.

However, being "scientifically wrong" is different from being "unscientific". Geocentrism was scientific (it could be disproven) but it was wrong. I put evolutionary psychology in the same category. I give it bonus points for being as politically and ideologically driven as geocentrism was in it's heyday.

Taking the analogy further, evolutionary psychology can inform our understanding of morality the way ptolemic astronomy informed our understanding of cosmology. Fatally flawed? Yes. Scientifically dubious? Yes. But unscientific viz. their relation to the vernacular understanding of what falls outside the purview of science? No.


Surely you know the difference between the indicative mood of a verb and its imperative mood?


Thanks for the clarification, in all seriousness.

But, as a social-scientific ("practical") matter, how would science be possible if scientists couldn't make the imperative statement:

"Accept the conclusions inferred from my empirical results, or don't participate in scientific discourse"

as they do all the time, for example, viz. creationists??

I still fail to see how the "indicative-imperative" distinction has any more substantive merit than the "is-ought" distinction you despise. These distinctions seem to stem from a common source; how can one reject the "is-ought" distinction yet accept "imperative-indicative" distinction?

For anyone thinking of slogging through grammar lessons, English actually isn't my first language, but I studied its grammar formally and have retained almost nothing from those classes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


However, being "scientifically wrong" is different from being "unscientific". Geocentrism was scientific (it could be disproven) but it was wrong. I put evolutionary psychology in the same category. I give it bonus points for being as politically and ideologically driven as geocentrism was in it's heyday.

It is indeed unscientific since it is full of make-believe.


I still fail to see how the "indicative-imperative" distinction has any more substantive merit than the "is-ought" distinction you despise. These distinctions seem to stem from a common source; how can one reject the "is-ought" distinction yet accept "imperative-indicative" distinction?

That problem occurred to me, too. At the moment, I am unable to think of a reply (which is rather unique for me!).

[FreeFocus]

Morality is merely a concept, embedded in most (if not all) cultures to describe what are possibly natural urges. Take killing, for example. Applying evolutionary law to humans, it is disadvantageous to kill other humans. There is a strong aversion to murder among humans, although murder-by-other-names may exist in societies, as a result of environmental (and therefore developmental) differences.

Some biologists have suggested that an appropriate scientific definition of morality is "anything that increases the fitness of a species." A whole lot of things would have to be taken into consideration, including social conflict, if we were to accept that definition (for example, one may argue that polygyny would be moral using this definition. Depending on the society, social strife may be encouraged by such a practice, thus lowering fitness).

There are also several pioneering studies into animal behavior which reveals what may be some underlying principles, including a study in which one chimpanzee risked its life to save another chimp that was drowning.

Just a thought; perhaps "morality" simply boils down to reciprocal altruism, which doesn't seem far-fetched, although there is most likely more to it.

[JorgeLobo]

Morality is not a science. Perhaps it could lend itself to scientific study in context of a behaviour.

freefocus - where do you get this silliness?
"...murder-by-other-names may exist in societies, as a result of environmental (and therefore developmental) differences."???? what environmental(developmental??) differences?
Evolution has no "laws." It is a theory accepted by the great majority of biologists to explain relevant observations. I'd like to see the poll that:lol: reports"most biologists" think a "scientific" definition (or any definition) of morality equates to "anything that increases the fitness of the species."
Action and anthropomorphic interpretation of one chimp's behaviour is hardly proof of any "principle" (another term of no technical signficance).

Do you know what science means? http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, MarxSchmarx, I have not had time to give this much thought, but when I came to do so tonight the answer seemed reasonably clear: science deals with indicatives, and although these certainly can be used to derive imperatives, it is not the business of science to do this.

Certainly scientists as individuals can do this, but if they do, it is not science they'd be using but ethical and/or practical reasoning.

An analogy might help here: doctors treat disease (among other things), but if a doctor tells you to use vinegar to get a stain out of the carpet, that would not be medical advice.

[JimmyJazz]

For example, evolutionary psychology could explain things like why a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon.

Because the platoon includes three of his brothers?

Or nine cousins? :lol:

[Lynx]

Evolutionary psychology could help explain more basic things, for example why we fear snakes and spiders more than we fear driving a car. Some biologists accept that evolution can produce spandrels - and if you have spandrels you can have seemingly inexplicable behavior (from an evolutionary standpoint) such as suicide.

We already have a science of morality, its called politics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Evolutionary psychology could help explain more basic things, for example why we fear snakes and spiders more than we fear driving a car. Some biologists accept that evolution can produce spandrels - and if you have spandrels you can have seemingly inexplicable behavior (from an evolutionary standpoint) such as suicide.

Evolutionary psychologists can try to speculate about why we fear such things, but they would never be able to verify these speculations -- and more especially since Darwinism when applied to human beings is seriously theoretically flawed.

And this 'spandrels' stuff is just another word for 'we can't account for this adaptation on Darwinian grounds'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jimmy Jaz:


Because the platoon includes three of his brothers?

This is a reference to 'inclusive fitness', another seriously flawed neo-Darwinain concept.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The problem with trying to apply scientific analysis to morality is that morality is invented rather than inferred from the world.

Science is concerned with the explanation of naturally occurring physical phenomena, i.e The things we can discover. We as humans have not discovered morality, we have made it up. It is arbitrary, there is no point scientifically analysing something that we dictate the nature of.

Now, I'm not saying the some form of moral system is necessarly undesirable; it can help society if we collectively encourage the idea that we ought not to rape and murder one another. We've got to keep in mind, though, that rape and murder are not 'Wrong' in some mystical, higher sense, it's just that it's better for everyone concerned if it doesn't happen.

Rosa - I don't know where you're getting all this "humans are exempt from darwinian evolution" stuff. Every organism is a product of it, remember? Sure we might have all but eliminated the process of natural selection in modern human society, but that does not discount the fact that everything we are is a product of evolutionary processes. This fact is the basis for, surprise surprise, evolutionary psychology. Believe me, I'm the first to rubbish the field, it's 99% bunk, but that does not mean that it cannot ever be right. Like fight or flight is an evolutionary and psychological phenomena, observed and verifiable. What's ya beef?

-Alex

[Hit The North]

Burn, what is your evidence that morality is arbitrary?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It is arbitrary in the sense that it is not based on anything separate from humans. We make it up, based on our material situation.

I did not mean arbitrary as in random, rather that morality is not some higher, mystical set of laws that we can scientifically scrutinise, but instead something we invent.

-Alex

[Hit The North]

So it is not arbitrary in terms of being accidental, either?


We make it up, based on our material situation.

Isn't that a scientific hypothesis which is open to testing?

[FreeFocus]

Morality is not a science. Perhaps it could lend itself to scientific study in context of a behaviour.

freefocus - where do you get this silliness?
"...murder-by-other-names may exist in societies, as a result of environmental (and therefore developmental) differences."???? what environmental(developmental??) differences?
Evolution has no "laws." It is a theory accepted by the great majority of biologists to explain relevant observations. I'd like to see the poll that:lol: reports"most biologists" think a "scientific" definition (or any definition) of morality equates to "anything that increases the fitness of the species."
Action and anthropomorphic interpretation of one chimp's behaviour is hardly proof of any "principle" (another term of no technical signficance).

Do you know what science means? http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif


Murder-by-other-names, for example, human sacrifice which arose because of environmental conditions - a harsh climate, perhaps prompting the society to develop a religion with an emphasis on weather gods which "require" human sacrifice to be pleased. I consider human sacrifice to be murder. You may not. The environment largely dictates differences in development and sophistication.

Furthermore, I didn't say "most biologists," so do not put words in my mouth. I clearly said "some." Evolution is, quite frankly, a clearly observed fact in nature, which serious people don't really dispute given the overwhelming evidence. Therefore, it could in fact be considered a law, although I'll admit that I should've used the word "principles" instead of "law" in that context.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Rosa - I don't know where you're getting all this "humans are exempt from darwinian evolution" stuff. Every organism is a product of it, remember? Sure we might have all but eliminated the process of natural selection in modern human society, but that does not discount the fact that everything we are is a product of evolutionary processes. This fact is the basis for, surprise surprise, evolutionary psychology. Believe me, I'm the first to rubbish the field, it's 99% bunk, but that does not mean that it cannot ever be right. Like fight or flight is an evolutionary and psychological phenomena, observed and verifiable. What's ya beef?

From here (I posted this on page one of this thread):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993823&postcount=7

See also the rest of this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/natural-selection-t62803/index.html?t=62803&highlight=David+Stove

And from here:

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

And, even Astrology can be 'right' sometimes, but that does not make is scientific.

[coberst]

It is arbitrary in the sense that it is not based on anything separate from humans. We make it up, based on our material situation.

I did not mean arbitrary as in random, rather that morality is not some higher, mystical set of laws that we can scientifically scrutinise, but instead something we invent.

-Alex

Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Anything that we "know" or feel is subjected to human mental manipulation. Moral feelings are a result of human emotions (instincts) just as fear, sadness, happiness, etc. What we call objective is a result of our common biology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Coberst:


Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Anything that we "know" or feel is subjected to human mental manipulation. Moral feelings are a result of human emotions (instincts) just as fear, sadness, happiness, etc. What we call objective is a result of our common biology.

In that case, this is 'subjective', and if that is so, we need not pay it any heed.

[Lynx]

Lynx:
Evolutionary psychologists can try to speculate about why we fear such things, but they would never be able to verify these speculations --
Agreed. Their speculation seems reasonable to me.

and more especially since Darwinism when applied to human beings is seriously theoretically flawed.
Darwinism? As in Social Darwinism??
Regardless of speculation concerning 'modern' human beings and society, it is well within our abilities to predict and manipulate the behavior of masses of people. That should be more worrisome than what Richard Dawkins or his detractors have to say.


And this 'spandrels' stuff is just another word for 'we can't account for this adaptation on Darwinian grounds'.
This is a concept applicable to several fields. The Law of Unintended Consequences can be seen thoughout history. Witness the link between Sickle Cell Anemia and Malaria, or the march of cane toads across Northern Australia.

p.s. for the record:


Darwinian Fairytales is a book by David Stove which criticizes application of the theory of evolution as an explanation for sociobiological behavior such as altruism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Their speculation seems reasonable to me

In what way?


Darwinism? As in Social Darwinism??

No, Darwinisn as in Darwinism.


This is a concept applicable to several fields. The Law of Unintended Consequences can be seen thoughout history. Witness the link between Sickle Cell Anemia and Malaria, or the march of cane toads across Northern Australia.

As I said, this is just shorthand for "we can't explain this in evolutionary terms".


Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Darwinian Fairytales is a book by David Stove which criticizes application of the theory of evolution as an explanation for sociobiological behavior such as altruism.

If you read that book, and do not rely on a Wiki summary, you will soon see that it is a sustained attack on the application of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian concepts to the development of our species.

[Lynx]

Lynx:
In what way?
1. It doesn't mention God.
2. It appears to fit the pre-historical condition of our species as described by anthropologists.


No, Darwinisn as in Darwinism.
Of which evolutionary psychology is a small part of.


As I said, this is just shorthand for "we can't explain this in evolutionary terms".
If you accept the premise, the conclusion is that evolution can produce side effects that negatively affect or indirectly enhance the fitness of a species.


If you read that book, and do not rely on a Wiki summary, you will soon see that it is a sustained attack on the application of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian concepts to the development of our species.
It is an attack on its most populist proponent(s), on theories that are speculative and cannot definitively be proved one way or the other until we build a time machine. If I read it, I doubt I would end up agreeing more with Mr. Stove than I do with Mr. Dawkins. He's not challenging the theory of evolution, is he? Just its application to sociology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


1. It doesn't mention God.

2. It appears to fit the pre-historical condition of our species as described by anthropologists.

1. Critics of evolutionary psychology also do not mention 'god'.

2. What they say is even more in line with anthropology.


Of which evolutionary psychology is a small part of.

Indeed, and that is why evolutionary psychology cannot account for human characteristics, since Darwinian theory does not apply to our species.


If you accept the premise, the conclusion is that evolution can produce side effects that negatively affect or indirectly enhance the fitness of a species.

What premise is that?


It is an attack on its most populist proponent(s), on theories that are speculative and cannot definitively be proved one way or the other until we build a time machine. If I read it, I doubt I would end up agreeing more with Mr. Stove than I do with Mr. Dawkins. He's not challenging the theory of evolution, is he? Just its application to sociology.

Not so, he attacks Darwin himself and other core Darwinians (such as Fisher, Williams, and Hamilton), and once more his main target is not sociobiology but Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

And he is indeed attacking the theory of evolution as it is applied to our species (and he also has serious criticisms of parts of it applied to other species -- such as 'inclusive fitness'). Moreover, he is a militant atheist too.

Now, you may or may not be persuaded by what he says, but then you will have to read it first.

[Ratatosk]

Surely you know the difference between the indicative mood of a verb and its imperative mood?

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/moods.htmlAre you serious? The sentence "murder is wrong" is grammatically in the indicative mood. Surely this cannot be what you meant by indicative vs. imperative. What you must mean is something like that we treat them like orders - which we don't, as we can argue for or against them, believe them, provide examples and counter-examples for them etc.

[Lynx]

1. Critics of evolutionary psychology also do not mention 'god'.
2. What they say is even more in line with anthropology.
Okay, that's interesting.

Indeed, and that is why evolutionary psychology cannot account for human characteristics, since Darwinian theory does not apply to our species.
I believe EP can account for some human characteristics. I don't understand what you mean by Darwinian theory, except as some grander, old fashioned view built before and around the theory of evolution.

What premise is that?
That a distinction be made between an adaptation and its consequences. An adaptation is an evolved solution to a specific problem, a spandrel is an unintended side effect of an adaptation. (This does not mean that a trait which cannot be explained as an adaptation is automatically and conveniently 'explained away' as a spandrel.)

Not so, he attacks Darwin himself and other core Darwinians (such as Fisher, Williams, and Hamilton), and once more his main target is not sociobiology but Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

And he is indeed attacking the theory of evolution as it is applied to our species (and he also has serious criticisms of parts of it applied to other species -- such as 'inclusive fitness'). Moreover, he is a militant atheist too.

Now, you may or may not be persuaded by what he says, but then you will have to read it first.
I read his critique of ten Darwinist propositions, described as an 'advertisement' for his book. They are the equivalent of a kitten attacking a roll of toilet paper. His main target appear to be quotes made by crazy people, making it all too easy to agree with him. Nevertheless I will assume this book is substantive and worthwhile, based on your reply to points 1 and 2.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ratatosk:


Are you serious? The sentence "murder is wrong" is grammatically in the indicative mood. Surely this cannot be what you meant by indicative vs. imperative. What you must mean is something like that we treat them like orders - which we don't, as we can argue for or against them, believe them, provide examples and counter-examples for them etc.

Who said ethical propositionals were always and only in the imperative mood?

Not me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I believe EP can account for some human characteristics.

Well, we have yet to see you show how it can account for a single one.


I don't understand what you mean by Darwinian theory, except as some grander, old fashioned view built before and around the theory of evolution.

I think I have been pretty clear: Darwinism and neo-Darwinism does not apply to our species.


That a distinction be made between an adaptation and its consequences. An adaptation is an evolved solution to a specific problem, a spandrel is an unintended side effect of an adaptation. (This does not mean that a trait which cannot be explained as an adaptation is automatically and conveniently 'explained away' as a spandrel.)

Well it seems that way to me. Anthing that adaptationism cannot explain is automatically called a 'spandrel'.

As one of those articles I linked to said:


Stove's article, 'So you think you are a Darwinian?'[1] was essentially an advertisement for his book, Darwinian Fairytales.[2] The central argument of the book is that Darwin's theory, in both Darwin's and recent sociobiological versions, asserts many things about the human and other species that are known to be false, but protects itself from refutation by its logical complexity. A great number of ad hoc devices, he claims, are used to protect the theory. If co-operation is observed where the theory predicts competition, then competition is referred to the time of the cavemen, or is reinterpreted as competition between some hidden entities like genes or abstract entities like populations....

[This] confirms Stove's central thesis that Darwinism can 'explain' anything. It is sad that he is no longer around to enjoy such 'refutation'.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=994445&postcount=15

Which is somewhat akin to the creationist ploy that anything they cannot account for on their theory is called 'miracle'.


I read his critique of ten Darwinist propositions, described as an 'advertisement' for his book. They are the equivalent of a kitten attacking a roll of toilet paper. His main target appear to be quotes made by crazy people, making it all too easy to agree with him. Nevertheless I will assume this book is substantive and worthwhile, based on your reply to points 1 and 2.

Well, these were quotes from Darwin and prominent Darwinians. If you are now telling us that the founders of this theory were all crazy, I can see your point -- when they apply Darwinism to our species.

[Ratatosk]

Ratatosk:



Who said ethical propositionals were always and only in the imperative mood?

Not me.

You said that you "can think of nothing least fitted for scientific study than 'morality'" because "science studies and then delivers indicative truths about the world, not imperatives." I took it that you believe that moral claims are in the imperative mood (in fact, I wouldn't say that any moral claim is in the imperative mood, so the question is what the hell are you talking about). You don't have any objection against science studying the truth of claims like "murder is wrong" or "you shouldn't have hit John", then?

(Not that I necessarily think it can, it's just that your reason for denying it can seems kinda irrelevant.)

[Lynx]

Lynx:
Well, we have yet to see you show how it can account for a single one.
I'm satisfied with the explanations I've read, perhaps I will soon read an article critical of those explanations, or one that offers an alternative scenario.


Well it seems that way to me. Anthing that adaptationism cannot explain is automatically called a 'spandrel'.
That is not so. Otherwise you'd end up with lots of spandrels with no adaptations to base them on. An adaptation must pass a litmus test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_psychological_mechanism


Well, these were quotes from Darwin and prominent Darwinians. If you are now telling us that the founders of this theory were all crazy, I can see your point -- when they apply Darwinism to our species.
I assume there is something more substantial worth refuting and Stove reveals this in his book. Please tell me I'm correct in this assumption.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ratatosk:


You said that you "can think of nothing least fitted for scientific study than 'morality'" because "science studies and then delivers indicative truths about the world, not imperatives." I took it that you believe that moral claims are in the imperative mood (in fact, I wouldn't say that any moral claim is in the imperative mood, so the question is what the hell are you talking about). You don't have any objection against science studying the truth of claims like "murder is wrong" or "you shouldn't have hit John", then?

Where did I say that science studies every indicative proposition, or even sentence?


so the question is what the hell are you talking about

In fact the question is "Where the hell did you learn to read?"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I'm satisfied with the explanations I've read, perhaps I will soon read an article critical of those explanations, or one that offers an alternative scenario.

You said this several posts ago, but we have yet to hear one of these 'explanations'.


Otherwise you'd end up with lots of spandrels with no adaptations to base them on. An adaptation must pass a litmus test:

I think you mis-read what I said, Try again:


Anything that adaptationism cannot explain is automatically called a 'spandrel'

I am not denying that these 'spandrels' are alleged to be dependent on adaptations, only that anything that adaptationsts cannot account for as an adaptation is automatically called a 'spandrel', which in fact illustrates the truth of one of Stove's criticisms.


I assume there is something more substantial worth refuting and Stove reveals this in his book. Please tell me I'm correct in this assumption.

1. You have yet to refute a single one of these 10 allegations.

2. I have been reading anti-Darwinian material now for well over 30 years (some good, most rather poor), but Stove's book is in a league of its own. So much so that Darwinians just ignore it (they can't refute it), just like dialecticians ignore my Essays.

But, don't take my word for it...

[MarxSchmarx]

The sentence "murder is wrong" is grammatically in the indicative mood. Perhaps, but where does the grammatical interpretation get us? I mean, it's one thing to say that "Answer A is wrong" is an indicative, but this isn't the sense in which this statement "Murder is Wrong" is used.

Indeed, I think it is still an imperative. The word "wrong", as used here, is "that which you must not do", so if "Murder is wrong" is true, then this immediately implies "Thou shalt not murder". "Thou shalt not murder" also implies "Murder is wrong", so the two statements are equivalent. Therefore, where does the indicative/imperative distinction get you?


science deals with indicatives, and although these certainly can be used to derive imperatives, it is not the business of science to do this.

Certainly scientists as individuals can do this, but if they do, it is not science they'd be using but ethical and/or practical reasoning.

An analogy might help here: doctors treat disease (among other things), but if a doctor tells you to use vinegar to get a stain out of the carpet, that would not be medical advice.Although your example is fine, I was thinking of something a little deeper. For instance, when scientists say things like "the weight of evidence 'compels' us to accept anthropogenic global warming is a reality", they are engaged in a crucial part of scientific practice. Isn't this therefore at once both a scientific statement and also a statement in the imperative?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


Although your example is fine, I was thinking of something a little deeper. For instance, when scientists say things like "the weight of evidence 'compels' us to accept anthropogenic global warming is a reality", they are engaged in a crucial part of scientific practice. Isn't this therefore at once both a scientific statement and also a statement in the imperative?

Unfortunately, this is in the indicative mood.

I take your point that you want to translate this so that we read this as an imperative, but then I would merely question whether your example is indeed a scientific proposition, and not the conclusion of a practical inference, which escape route I have already covered:


Ok, MarxSchmarx, I have not had time to give this much thought, but when I came to do so tonight the answer seemed reasonably clear: science deals with indicatives, and although these certainly can be used to derive imperatives, it is not the business of science to do this.

Certainly scientists as individuals can do this, but if they do, it is not science they'd be using but ethical and/or practical reasoning.

An analogy might help here: doctors treat disease (among other things), but if a doctor tells you to use vinegar to get a stain out of the carpet, that would not be medical advice.

You might now be tempted to respond that the above analogy is inapt, but if a doctor were to say "The results of your test compel me to prescribe an antibiotic" her subsequent actions may indeed be medical, but her conclusion is once more a result of a common or garden practical inference.

So, the imperative, if there is one here (and, as I indicated earlier, I am not sure you are right in this) is not the result of the science of medicine, but a consequence of ordinary reasoning.

Now, you may be tempted further to claim this sort of reasoning is part of science. Sure scientists use practical reasoning all the time, but they also use other devices drawn from informal logic. But, that does not make informal logic an exclusive part of science any more than it makes sentences, say, the exclusive property of scientists.

Put it this way: no scientist gets a degree in practical reasoning, nor do research bodies fund studies entitled "When do results compel action?"

This is, of course, because it is part and parcel of being an ordinary human being to be able to reason practically, and not a special province of the sciences.

If scientists could not reason practically, they'd not survive much past childhood.

And the same goes for the rest of us.

[Ratatosk]

Where did I say that science studies every indicative proposition, or even sentence?You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I don't understand how that makes your original argument relevant, since moral claims are pretty much by definition in the indicative. I mean, no-one was talking about imperative sentences, so I don't understand why uou made the (true but irrelevant) remark that science doesn't deal with imperatives. How difficult is that to understand?

Perhaps, but where does the grammatical interpretation get us? I mean, it's one thing to say that "Answer A is wrong" is an indicative, but this isn't the sense in which this statement "Murder is Wrong" is used.Indicative and imperative are grammatical moods, not senses in which statements can be used. You are confusing grammatical categories like mood with and categories like statement, question, order, etc.

ETA: which is exactly what I'm saying. If that's her point (which it might be, because as it stands, her original point is clearly irrelevant), Rosa should have said that they are orders, not that they are in the imperative. But as I said, we do not treat them like orders, so they are not.

Indeed, I think it is still an imperative. The word "wrong", as used here, is "that which you must not do", so if "Murder is wrong" is true, then this immediately implies "Thou shalt not murder". "Thou shalt not murder" also implies "Murder is wrong", so the two statements are equivalent. Therefore, where does the indicative/imperative distinction get you?I don't know, ask Rosa, she was the one who brought it up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ratatosk:


You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I don't understand how that makes your original argument relevant, since moral claims are pretty much by definition in the indicative. I mean, no-one was talking about imperative sentences, so I don't understand why uou made the (true but irrelevant) remark that science doesn't deal with imperatives. How difficult is that to understand?

Your inferences suggest that this is indeed how you read me.

And I am not inlcined to debate with someone who misreprents me so badly.

[Ratatosk]

Your inferences suggest that this is indeed how you read me.

And I am not inlcined to debate with someone who misreprents me so badly.You said:

I can think of nothing least fitted for scientific study than 'morality'.

Why?

Since science studies and then delivers indicative truths about the world, not imperatives.No-one except you was talking about imperatives. You even explicitly mentioned grammatical mood (post #16), so I have no choice but to conclude that you believed it was somehow relevant to the topic (and that you were talking about a grammatical distinction from the beginning). So I don't think I'm misrepresenting what you wrote. Of course, if what you wrote is not what you wished to express, that's not really my problem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R:


No-one except you was talking about imperatives. You even explicitly mentioned grammatical mood (post #16), so I have no choice but to conclude that you believed it was somehow relevant to the topic (and that you were talking about a grammatical distinction from the beginning). So I don't think I'm misrepresenting what you wrote. Of course, if what you wrote is not what you wished to express, that's not really my problem.

I refer the honourable comrade to my previous reply to him.

[Lynx]

You said this several posts ago, but we have yet to hear one of these 'explanations'.
The basic explanation for our fear of snakes and spiders was that a long time ago our ancestors lived for an extended period of time in an environment where snakes and spiders posed a threat to their survival. Over the course of many generations, humans who possessed a greater fear response trait had a higher survival/reproductive success rate than humans who did not. This led to the near ubiquitousness of this trait 10-20,000 years ago and its persistence today. Fear of snakes and spiders are thus hypothesized to be adaptations. For humans living in modern environments, this adaptation is consistent with mismatch theory.


I think you mis-read what I said, Try again:
I am not denying that these 'spandrels' are alleged to be dependent on adaptations, only that anything that adaptationsts cannot account for as an adaptation is automatically called a 'spandrel', which in fact illustrates the truth of one of Stove's criticisms.
If this is what they are doing in practice, it violates their theoretical framework:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/spandrels.html


[...]Without specifying the origin of the adaptation that produced the by-product that was co-opted to become a spandrel, the hypothesis that something is a spandrel generally cannot be tested.
[...]Hypotheses about functionless by-products must meet rigorous scientific standards that include a functional analysis of the original adaptations responsible for producing the functionless by-products and the existing human cognitive and motivational mechanisms responsible for the co-opting. Without this specification, the mere assertion that this or that characteristic is an exaptation encounters the same problem that Gould (1991) leveled against adaptationists–the telling of "just-so stories."


1. You have yet to refute a single one of these 10 allegations.
Allegations? Stove presents 10 absurd propositions made by Darwinists and proceeds to refute them. He shamelessly begs the question and invites readers to agree with him. He also says he can present 10 more, and another 10, and so on and so forth.

Obviously, I (the reader) can respond to this in two ways:
a) OMG, Darwinism is absurd. What a devastating attack. Case closed.
b) This is just a teaser, Darwinism is still taken seriously, and any substantial refutations are reserved for the book.

I'm assuming (b).


2. I have been reading anti-Darwinian material now for well over 30 years (some good, most rather poor), but Stove's book is in a league of its own. So much so that Darwinians just ignore it (they can't refute it), just like dialecticians ignore my Essays.
From looking at the 10 propositions I'm amazed it took 30 years to put those Darwinist fiends in their place. No word on the dialecticians.

But, don't take my word for it...
Adding an excerpt from the book wouldn't hurt your recommendation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


The basic explanation for our fear of snakes and spiders was that a long time ago our ancestors lived for an extended period of time in an environment where snakes and spiders posed a threat to their survival. Over the course of many generations, humans who possessed a greater fear response trait had a higher survival/reproductive success rate than humans who did not. This led to the near ubiquitousness of this trait 10-20,000 years ago and its persistence today. Fear of snakes and spiders are thus hypothesized to be adaptations. For humans living in modern environments, this adaptation is consistent with mismatch theory.

Sounds like a 'just so' story to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story


If this is what they are doing in practice, it violates their theoretical framework:

But that is my point; so it's no use telling me this!


Allegations? Stove presents 10 absurd propositions made by Darwinists and proceeds to refute them. He shamelessly begs the question and invites readers to agree with him. He also says he can present 10 more, and another 10, and so on and so forth.

These are direct quotations from Darwin, Trivers and Hamilton (as well as Dawkins). It's hardly Stove's fault if what they is as ridiculous as you now allege.


Obviously, I (the reader) can respond to this in two ways:
a) OMG, Darwinism is absurd. What a devastating attack. Case closed.
b) This is just a teaser, Darwinism is still taken seriously, and any substantial refutations are reserved for the book.

Yes, he was being deliberately provocative.


From looking at the 10 propositions I'm amazed it took 30 years to put those Darwinist fiends in their place. No word on the dialecticians.

Where did I say I had put Darwinist 'friends in their place'?

Once more: I accept Darwin's theory (but not applied to our species).

And you have yet to refute those ten propositions. Either you can't or you won't.


Adding an excerpt from the book wouldn't hurt your recommendation.

It used to be on-line (but it was withdrawn when the second edition came out). I have a PDF copy of it somewhere. I'll look it up and post parts of it.

Unrepresentative excerpts can be found here (but this is a creationist site!):

http://www.geocities.com/kubyimm2/stoved.htm

There is a review here:

http://erudito.livejournal.com/496167.html

Another two here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/ai_n17190153

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060406.shtml

[Lynx]

Sounds like a 'just so' story to me.
As long as there is a lack of empirical data, yes.


But that is my point; so it's no use telling me this!
Very well, I shall find them and spank them.


These are direct quotations from Darwin, Trivers and Hamilton (as well as Dawkins). It's hardly Stove's fault if what they is as ridiculous as you now allege.

Yes, he was being deliberately provocative.
If most of his target audience prefer provocative, then I can't blame him.


Where did I say I had put Darwinist 'friends in their place'?
Fiends, I meant it took 30 years for [David Stove] to come along and put those fiends in their place.


Once more: I accept Darwin's theory (but not applied to our species).

And you have yet to refute those ten propositions. Either you can't or you won't.
You mean refute Stove's refutations? On the face of it, this looks like a slam dunk. If this is the best that Darwinists can come up with, then I may as well ignore them. Trying to defend those propositions would be like trying to defend the Flat Earth Society.


It used to be on-line (but it was withdrawn when the second edition came out). I have a PDF copy of it somewhere. I'll look it up and post parts of it.
Thanks. I'm a frugal shopper.
p.s. The links are helpful too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


As long as there is a lack of empirical data, yes.

As there is in this case.


If most of his target audience prefer provocative, then I can't blame him.

He was generally provocative, and not just over Darwinism.


You mean refute Stove's refutations? On the face of it, this looks like a slam dunk. If this is the best that Darwinists can come up with, then I may as well ignore them. Trying to defend those propositions would be like trying to defend the Flat Earth Society.

Indeed, when applied to human evolution, Darwinism is little better than Flat Earth 'theory'.

[Lynx]

As there is in this case.
I hope this doesn't alarm anyone. Sometimes it takes awhile to cross all the i's and dot all the t's, or vice versa.


He was generally provocative, and not just over Darwinism.
Ann Coulter is generally provocative, and I assumed she was an example of style over substance.


Indeed, when applied to human evolution, Darwinism is little better than Flat Earth 'theory'.
Was r/k selection theory a part of Darwinism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I hope this doesn't alarm anyone. Sometimes it takes awhile to cross all the i's and dot all the t's, or vice versa.

Unfortunately, unless someone invents a time machine, the evidence in support of this fable will never emerge.


Ann Coulter is generally provocative, and I assumed she was an example of style over substance.

So are several characters on the 'left', but in Stove's case, there is plenty of substance.


Was r/k selection theory a part of Darwinism?

Apparently not (except potentially, perhaps); but what has this got to do with Stove's criticisms?

[Lynx]

Unfortunately, unless someone invents a time machine, the evidence in support of this fable will never emerge.
We could say the same for soft tissue structures, such as the lungs. Should we consider the idea that lungs are an adaptation a fable?


Apparently not (except potentially, perhaps); but what has this got to do with Stove's criticisms?
Does he have any criticisms in his book with the idea that humans are k-strategists?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


We could say the same for soft tissue structures, such as the lungs. Should we consider the idea that lungs are an adaptation a fable?

These two cases are not at all the same. We have abundant physiological evidence of the role that lungs play in breathing (etc), just as we have anatomical evidence from the fossil record that supports theories about the development of such soft tissues.

We have none at all that supports whimsical ideas about the origin of certain psychological traits in the past.


Does he have any criticisms in his book with the idea that humans are k-strategists?

Only in so far as these sorts of ideas do not apply to human beings.

Plus the observation that this merely reflects the disingenuous nature of Darwinians, brought out in this article:

Reply to Blackburn:


Stove's Anti-Darwinism

By James Franklin

Stove's article, 'So you think you are a Darwinian?'[1] was essentially an advertisement for his book, Darwinian Fairytales.[2] The central argument of the book is that Darwin's theory, in both Darwin's and recent sociobiological versions, asserts many things about the human and other species that are known to be false, but protects itself from refutation by its logical complexity. A great number of ad hoc devices, he claims, are used to protect the theory. If co-operation is observed where the theory predicts competition, then competition is referred to the time of the cavemen, or is reinterpreted as competition between some hidden entities like genes or abstract entities like populations. In a characteristic sally, Stove writes of the sociobiologists' oscillation on the meaning of kin altruism:

Any discussion of altruism with an inclusive fitness theorist is, in fact, exactly like dealing with a pair of balloons connected by a tube, one balloon being the belief that kin altruism is an illusion, the other being the belief that kin altruism is caused by shared genes. If a critic puts pressure on the illusion balloon - perhaps by ridiculing the selfish theory of human nature - air is forced into the causal balloon. There is then an increased production of earnest causal explanations of why we love our children, why hymenopteran workers look after their sisters, etc., etc. Then, if the critic puts pressure on the causal balloon - perhaps about the weakness of sibling altruism compared with parental, or the absence of sibling altruism in bacteria - then the illusion balloon is forced to expand. There will now be an increased production of cynical scurrilities about parents manipulating their babies for their own advantage, and vice versa, and in general, about the Hobbesian bad times that are had by all. In this way critical pressure, applied to the theory of inclusive fitness at one point, can always be easily absorbed at another point, and the theory as a whole is never endangered.[3]

Now, it is uncontroversial to assert that Darwinism is a logically complex theory, and that its relation to empirical evidence is distant and multi-faceted. One does not directly observe chance genetic variations leading to the development of new species, or even continuous variations in the fossil record, but must rely on subtle arguments to the best explanation, scaling up from varieties to species, and so on. The strength or otherwise of these arguments, individually and collectively, is a purely logical question. It is therefore no answer to Stove's attack on Darwinism to sermonise, as Blackburn does,[4] about how disgraceful it is for philosophers to delve in matters that do not concern them. Marxists, or Freudians, or astrologers, or phrenologists are not allowed to 'answer' philosophers' doubts about the relation of their theories to the evidence by saying, 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'. Evolutionists have no such rights either.

Stove's article listed ten propositions that were, he claimed, asserted by Darwinians, and indeed were characteristic of Darwinian theory, but were obviously false. The statements are all universal generalizations - 'every organism has as many descendants as it can'; 'all communication is manipulation of signal-receiver by signal-sender'; 'in every species child-mortality is extremely high', and the like. To answer Stove, it would be initially natural to claim that the 'all' in these statements was not seriously meant. But, obviously, that would be to fall into Stove's trap, since his claim is precisely that Darwinians save their theory by weakening contentful assertions they appear to have made. If they don't mean 'all', why do they say it, if not to dress up a logically flabby theory as much more falsifiable than it is?

Yet this is exactly the strategy Blackburn uses in attempting to refute Stove. The problem is most evident in his answer at the point where he thinks Stove has most grossly misrepresented the Darwinians. Stove listed as one of the 'Darwinian falsities':

…no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but ... everyone will sacrifice it (for) more than two brothers, or four half-brothers, or eight first-cousins.[5]

Blackburn points out that the original quote began, 'To express the matter more vividly, in the world of our model organisms, whose behaviour is determined strictly by genotype, we expect to find that no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but that everyone ...' He is then much scandalized at Stove's omission of the phrase 'in the world of our model organisms', and treats this correction as a full answer to Stove.

But this does not help the Darwinian evade Stove's attack. What is the point of 'model organisms' unless they model organisms? As Blackburn himself says, 'Hamilton went on to apply (my italics) the model to solve a famous problem for Darwinian theory: how it can be that in species of hymenoptera, sterile workers exist?' If Hamilton is speaking about a purely mathematical world of model organisms, then he has said nothing about biological evolution, while if real organisms satisfy the assumptions of the model, then there can be no objection to taking the predictions of the model as literally asserted of the organisms. It was a point not lost on Stove, who wrote:

It is true I have omitted a qualification which Hamilton prefixed to the words just quoted: namely, '... in the world of our model organisms, whose behaviour is determined strictly by genotype .'. But Professor Hamilton could hardly object to this omission. For his disciples such as Dawkins constantly do the same thing: that is, read off the results of Hamilton's 'model', as being true descriptions of biological reality. No doubt the reason is, that they believe that the proviso - behaviour being determined strictly by genotype - is satisfied everywhere in fact.[6]

If Stove is to be criticized for omitting the words of others, it is fair to ask that others criticize him only after having all his own words on the subject to hand.

Of course, it is perfectly true that models do not fit real cases perfectly, and a degree of looseness of fit has to be allowed to any theory. But there is little comfort for Darwinians in this line of thought. To the extent that organisms do satisfy the model, to that extent failure of the predictions tells against the theory; and to the extent that organisms do not satisfy the model, to that extent Darwinians are asserting something apparently contentful, then withdrawing it under pressure. And this particular model would be ill-advised to compare itself with respectable mathematical models. In a case like Newton's theory of gravity, there is a clear sense of numerical approximation, and the predictions of the theory can be measured to be true to within so many percent. Nothing could be further from the situation that obtains with Hamilton's 'prediction'. It is not as if the model predicts that animals will sacrifice themselves for 8 first cousins, whereas observation shows the true figure is 8.3. The truth is more, as Stove says, that a robin red breast cannot tell the difference between his first cousin and a bit of red wool on a wire.[7]

In the rest of his paper, Blackburn strives to assure us that Darwinian theory deals only in possible explanations, and that 'nothing in Darwinian theory allows you to say that because some pattern of behaviour would increase the amount of genetic material in future generations, therefore it will exist'. Dawkins does not really mean what his extreme rhetoric seems to mean, while Trivers' explanation of lesbianism in gulls is merely 'speculative', and it is quite easy for Darwinism to explain why some species have low birthrates, even though they are trying to maximize their descendants. All of which is true, and confirms Stove's central thesis that Darwinism can 'explain' anything. It is sad that he is no longer around to enjoy such 'refutation'.

University of New South Wales

1. D.C. Stove, 'So you think you are a Darwinian?', Philosophy 69, 1994, 267-277.
2. Darwinian Fairytales (Aldershot: Avebury, 1996).
3. 167.
4. S. Blackburn, 'I rather think I am a Darwinian', Philosophy 71, 1994, 605-616.
5. 'W. D. Hamilton, 'The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour', The Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1, 1964, 1-52, at p.16.
6. Darwinian Fairytales, 156.
7. 152

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/ar...rticle.php?id=7 (http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=7)

[Lynx]

These two cases are not at all the same. We have abundant physiological evidence of the role that lungs play in breathing (etc), just as we have anatomical evidence from the fossil record that supports theories about the development of such soft tissues.
Yes, today they are not in the same league. But at one point in history they might have been. In other words, the creation of a just-so hypothesis, waiting out a storm of criticism until enough evidence is gathered to satisfy colleagues (and even some Creationists).


We have none at all that supports whimsical ideas about the origin of certain psychological traits in the past.
Perhaps in the future, higher resolution neuro-imaging will provide enough data to form correlations between seemingly unconnected brain responses and shed new light on today's 'fairytales'. In the meantime, I accept the legitimacy of unproven hypotheses. Future developments in science and engineering will eventually pass judgment. I can rest assured that today's ideas will someday be refined, discarded or replaced.


Only in so far as these sorts of ideas do not apply to human beings.
Well, it seems that this idea is being applied: humans are K-strategists, they are K-selected. I don't know what the implications of this theory are for the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Is it a loophole for more fairytales?


Plus the observation that this merely reflects the disingenuous nature of Darwinians, brought out in this article:
Destroying disingenuous Darwinist positions leaves open the possibility of the crafting of new ones. You hear *chirping of crickets* (in terms of a Darwinist response), I predict there will be another round of "signal senders manipulating signal receivers", to the tune of 29.99 plus tax.

What else is disingenuous? Political agendas. Debates between 'heavyweights'. And target audiences comprised of little more than ignorance.

p.s. When you say you don't believe in the application of Darwinism to human beings, I translate this to mean "don't believe in the application of the theory of evolution to human psychology". Is this translation accurate enough?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


But at one point in history they might have been. In other words, the creation of a just-so hypothesis, waiting out a storm of criticism until enough evidence is gathered to satisfy colleagues (and even some Creationists).

Unfortunately, the evidence will never turn up in support of these whimsical psychological tales. That was never true of theories about soft structures.


Perhaps in the future, higher resolution neuro-imaging will provide enough data to form correlations between seemingly unconnected brain responses and shed new light on today's 'fairytales'. In the meantime, I accept the legitimacy of unproven hypotheses. Future developments in science and engineering will eventually pass judgment. I can rest assured that today's ideas will someday be refined, discarded or replaced.

I deny these 'correlations' have anything to do with our psychology.


p.s. When you say you don't believe in the application of Darwinism to human beings, I translate this to mean "don't believe in the application of the theory of evolution to human psychology". Is this translation accurate enough?

In fact to the vast majority of traits that make us human: language, psychology, social organisation, class struggle...

Not all of these are psychological traits.

And I seriously doubt Darwinism has much of use to say about the origin of our physical structure, too.

[Lynx]

Unfortunately, the evidence will never turn up in support of these whimsical psychological tales. That was never true of theories about soft structures.
You are being as unfair resorting to crystal ball gazing with 20/20 hindsight as you believe I am unfair in comparing the struggle of the new with the establishment of the old.


I deny these 'correlations' have anything to do with our psychology.
You can deny the moon is made of green cheese. Even then I would hold you to the formality of demolishing fairytales, just as David Stove has done.

Are you familiar with the Velikovsky Affair?


In fact to the vast majority of traits that make us human: language, psychology, social organisation, class struggle...

Not all of these are psychological traits.
It would be illogical to attribute to evolution any non-biological developments related to our species. Thus anything begotten from the existence of written language (a primary effect being the accumulation of a 'body of knowledge') would result in non-biological systemics. Our access to knowledge, our interaction with technology and with each other through technological means are not attributable to evolution. That doesn't mean our brains suddenly become blank slates.


And I seriously doubt Darwinism has much of use to say about the origin of our physical structure, too.
Doubt, skepticism, cynicism, belief, faith, certainty, denial, que sera sera .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


You are being as unfair resorting to crystal ball gazing with 20/20 hindsight as you believe I am unfair in comparing the struggle of the new with the establishment of the old.

In what way?


You can deny the moon is made of green cheese. Even then I would hold you to the formality of demolishing fairytales, just as David Stove has done.

This is not a frivolous denial on my part. It is in fact a well-established part of Wittgensteinian Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vbhlJUfx9MwC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Wittgenstein+mental+processes&source=web&ots=nf-JhBSyzV&sig=CbAumGtGinpriyrE8QCsBNB1xVM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

I will be posting a long Essay at my site on this in the next month or so.


Are you familiar with the Velikovsky Affair?

Yes, I was reading about Velikovsky probably before you were born. But what has this got to do with anything?


It would be illogical to attribute to evolution any non-biological developments related to our species. Thus anything begotten from the existence of written language (a primary effect being the accumulation of a 'body of knowledge') would result in non-biological systemics. Our access to knowledge, our interaction with technology and with each other through technological means are not attributable to evolution. That doesn't mean our brains suddenly become blank slates.

It is not as simple as that, but I will say no more about this until after the aforementioned Essay is published (since I am still fine-tuning my own ideas in this area).

And, I do not know why you mentioned the 'Blank Slate', which is an inappropriate metaphor anyway.


Doubt, skepticism, cynicism, belief, faith, certainty, denial, que sera sera .

Eh?:confused:

[Lynx]

In what way?
In that a whimsical idea may survive many years of criticism until confirmed empirically, or may never be confirmed - or that an established idea may be believed for many years and then disproven, or confirmed.


This is not a frivolous denial on my part. It is in fact a well-established part of Wittgensteinian Philosophy:
As I obviously do not share this philosophy, nor understand it, it is something I can summarily dismiss. My request that you debunk junk science is not trivial, although this means we follow separate paths.


Yes, I was reading about Velikovsky probably before you were born. But what has this got to do with anything?
It is where I formed my views on the issue of outlandish, whimsical fairytales.


It is not as simple as that, but I will say no more about this until after the aforementioned Essay is published (since I am still fine-tuning my own ideas in this area).

And, I do not know why you mentioned the 'Blank Slate', which is an inappropriate metaphor anyway.
The blank slate is one extreme. Not even Darwinism could claim to represent the other.

Que sera sera means "what will be, will be".

[JorgeLobo]

Velikovsky!!! I haven't thought of that extended fairy tale for decades!!

[Lynx]

Velikovsky!!! I haven't thought of that extended fairy tale for decades!!
Carl Sagan's presentation of it on Cosmos was priceless. Fond memories :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


In that a whimsical idea may survive many years of criticism until confirmed empirically, or may never be confirmed - or that an established idea may be believed for many years and then disproven, or confirmed.

In that case, I was not beiong "unfair" as you alleged.


As I obviously do not share this philosophy, nor understand it, it is something I can summarily dismiss. My request that you debunk junk science is not trivial, although this means we follow separate paths.

Whereas I understand evolutionary theory -- clearly, that means one of us is well-informed, while the other is not.


The blank slate is one extreme. Not even Darwinism could claim to represent the other.

Yes, I understand what the 'Blank Slate' means. I just do not know why you mentioned it.


Que sera sera means "what will be, will be".

And I know what that phrase means, too -- I just did not understand your comment.

Still don't...:(

[Lynx]

Lynx:
In that case, I was not beiong "unfair" as you alleged.
In any case, you were being unfair.


Whereas I understand evolutionary theory -- clearly, that means one of us is well-informed, while the other is not.
Whereas you are a Wittgenstein advocate and I am not. We have discussed this before, I do not remember if you had started your essay then, but you did recommend an online article of another viewpoint.


Yes, I understand what the 'Blank Slate' means. I just do not know why you mentioned it.
Because some people believe it.


And I know what that phrase means, too -- I just did not understand your comment.

Still don't...:(In terms of scientific progress, what will be, will be. No matter how many mistakes are made, regardless of how we feel about the state of knowledge, or from philosophical differences. The process is inevitable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


In any case, you were being unfair.

We'll just have to disagree on that one.


Whereas you are a Wittgenstein advocate and I am not.
.

Whereas I am an advocate of Wittgestein's philosophy and evolution (but not applied to our species).


We have discussed this before, I do not remember if you had started your essay then, but you did recommend an online article of another viewpoint

I have been a Wittgensteinian since at least 1978, and the Essay I mentioned was in fact begun in 1999.

And what online article was this that advocated a different viewpoint? I do not recall doing this, nor what other view I would have defended.


Because some people believe it.

Who for example? I know Pinker alleges this, but he is mistaken. No even John Locke believed it!


In terms of scientific progress, what will be, will be. No matter how many mistakes are made, regardless of how we feel about the state of knowledge, or from philosophical differences. The process is inevitable.

This sounds very unscientific to me.

[Lynx]

We'll just have to disagree on that one.
Let's look at it this way:
The hypothesis regarding the fear of snakes and spiders is contingent upon future developments. These developments may arrive in the following forms:
- as a change in evidence for or against
- by refinement or refutation of the hypothesis
If no developments occur, the hypothesis maintains its status, which is (by necessity and by possibility) the default consensus.
The hypothesis is not contingent upon:
- denials based upon the prediction of future events
- denials due to political, emotional, or philosophical considerations

So we disagree, even though a Wittgensteinian inspired denial may be the best of the bunch.


Whereas I am an advocate of Wittgestein's philosophy and evolution (but not applied to our species).
Whereas I am a believer in the theory of evolution, my belief being contingent upon future developments.


I have been a Wittgensteinian since at least 1978, and the Essay I mentioned was in fact begun in 1999.

And what online article was this that advocated a different viewpoint? I do not recall doing this, nor what other view I would have defended.
The article was a .pdf and may have been long enough to consider it a book. We were discussing the lack of explanation for natural phenomena, and you recommended this article or book because it was the best defense of an alternative position you had read. I thought my position was a 'contingency' - you called it something else (consequentialist?). Whatever the term was, it was not Wittgensteinian. I'll search for it later, if this doesn't jog your memory.


Who for example? I know Pinker alleges this, but he is mistaken. No even John Locke believed it!
Has it been abandoned? It is merely a legacy of earlier times, then. When I consider my long term memory, I would tend to see it as a blank slate. From the article, Pinker appears to argue for a partial blank slate, other arguments include anti-sexist, anti-racist positions. This is as 'pro-nuture' as one can get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

This sounds very unscientific to me.
It's a kludge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Let's look at it this way:
The hypothesis regarding the fear of snakes and spiders is contingent upon future developments. These developments may arrive in the following forms:
- as a change in evidence for or against
- by refinement or refutation of the hypothesis
If no developments occur, the hypothesis maintains its status, which is (by necessity and by possibility) the default consensus.
The hypothesis is not contingent upon:
- denials based upon the prediction of future events
- denials due to political, emotional, or philosophical considerations

But, there is no way that such psychological 'evidence' will ever turn up, whereas we do have hard evidence for soft structure evolution.

The alleged modern-day correlations between brain activity (or whatever) and the fear of snakes (for example) in no way sanctions inferences about psychological events 100,000 or more years ago -- even if such correlations were acceptable, or meant what you might want to allege of them.


So we disagree, even though a Wittgensteinian inspired denial may be the best of the bunch.

The Wittgensteinian objection is not that these correlations are in fact false, but that they are shot-through with conceptual confusion. So, they do not make it that far.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:zEHuZBepmHoJ:www2.psy.uq.edu.au/CogPsych/Noetica/Articles/Candlish_ozcogsci02.pdf+Conceptual+confusion+psych ology+Wittgenstein&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

PDF of the above:

http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/CogPsych/Noetica/Articles/Candlish_ozcogsci02.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=700OAAAAQAAJ&dq=Wittgenstein's+Philosophy+of+Psychology&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=B6W8WBYZdB&sig=l24_XvVOOnvaTcpkB2l8GymgIyw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

The best single book on this is:

Bennett, M., and Hacker, P. (2003), Philosophical Foundations Of Neuroscience (Blackwell).

[Bennett is both a Wittgensteinian and a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience; Hacker is a Wittgensteinian philosopher.]

There is an online discussion of this book here:

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/original1.wav


The article was a .pdf and may have been long enough to consider it a book. We were discussing the lack of explanation for natural phenomena, and you recommended this article or book because it was the best defense of an alternative position you had read. I thought my position was a 'contingency' - you called it something else (consequentialist?). Whatever the term was, it was not Wittgensteinian. I'll search for it later, if this doesn't jog your memory.

Ok, but you must remember that I do not rely solely on Wittgenstein (in fact, in places I disagree with him), nor do I necessarily agree with everything contained in papers, books and articles to which I link -- indeed, I disagree with many of Stove's ideas (especially his reactionary ones!).


Has it been abandoned? It is merely a legacy of earlier times, then. When I consider my long term memory, I would tend to see it as a blank slate. From the article, Pinker appears to argue for a partial blank slate, other arguments include anti-sexist, anti-racist positions. This is as 'pro-nuture' as one can get.

It has never been advocated by anyone! [So far as we know!]

On that see here:

http://www.powells.com/review/2002_11_21.html

In fact, I have already posted this article at RevLeft, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1099887&postcount=43

And I am not sure you are right about Pinker; he is a Nativist, and believes in 'innate ideas', etc.

[By the way, I am still trying to find (in all the DVD back-up files and storage disks I have) that PDF of Stove's book!]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On this, comrades might also like to read this article by Gerry Fodor:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html

[Lynx]

But, there is no way that such psychological 'evidence' will ever turn up, whereas we do have hard evidence for soft structure evolution.
The evidence would have to come from paleo and archaeological data. If none is forthcoming, the hypothesis will fail to become a theory.


The alleged modern-day correlations between brain activity (or whatever) and the fear of snakes (for example) in no way sanctions inferences about psychological events 100,000 or more years ago -- even if such correlations were acceptable, or meant what you might want to allege of them.

The Wittgensteinian objection is not that these correlations are in fact false, but that they are shot-through with conceptual confusion. So, they do not make it that far.
I don't understand how the examples given in the article are applicable. Please demonstrate the conceptual problems inherent in the snakes and spiders example.

Btw, I did not mean to suggest that correlations had been found or this was in relation to the snakes and spiders example. I was describing a future hypothetical invention that would be able to image the brain in real time at very high resolution. Such a device would produce large data sets, with various parameters representing "brain activity in response to stimuli". I surmised that crunching these numbers would yield previously unknown correlations. That in turn might lead to further conjecture and/or hypotheses.

For the snakes and spiders hypothesis, part of the necessary work is to measure physiological responses to the stimulus, including brain activity.


The best single book on this is:

Bennett, M., and Hacker, P. (2003), Philosophical Foundations Of Neuroscience (Blackwell).

[Bennett is both a Wittgensteinian and a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience; Hacker is a Wittgensteinian philosopher.]

There is an online discussion of this book here:

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/original1.wav
*On to do list, pending bandwidth and time limitations*

It has never been advocated by anyone! [So far as we know!]
It is a mythical position then, used for demon-baiting. Would it make a difference if a 'blank slate-ist' were sitting at the debate table as opposed to that chair remaining empty?


And I am not sure you are right about Pinker; he is a Nativist, and believes in 'innate ideas', etc.
The reviewer rated him 9 on a scale of 10, with 10 = nature. If you've read his work, you should have an idea what his views are and if they are consistent.

[By the way, I am still trying to find (in all the DVD back-up files and storage disks I have) that PDF of Stove's book!]
I'll check back for further news. Thanks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


The evidence would have to come from paleo and archaeological data. If none is forthcoming, the hypothesis will fail to become a theory.

Well, it is never going to turn up (unless we invent a time machine, and then psychologically test our ancestors). And that is why these fables are called 'Just so stories'.


I don't understand how the examples given in the article are applicable. Please demonstrate the conceptual problems inherent in the snakes and spiders example.

I did not quote those articles in order to refute this particular example, but to make a general point about psychological traits and central nervous system/brain processes.

The conceptual confusion in this case is that it treats emotions as inner processes, when they are a behavioural traits directed at the object of that emotion.


Btw, I did not mean to suggest that correlations had been found or this was in relation to the snakes and spiders example. I was describing a future hypothetical invention that would be able to image the brain in real time at very high resolution. Such a device would produce large data sets, with various parameters representing "brain activity in response to stimuli". I surmised that crunching these numbers would yield previously unknown correlations. That in turn might lead to further conjecture and/or hypotheses

Yes, I am aware of that, but such imaging will be based on correlations. They are not based on wild guesses!

Emotions are not activities in the brain, either. They are episodes of overt behaviour governed by outer criteria.


It is a mythical position then, used for demon-baiting. Would it make a difference if a 'blank slate-ist' were sitting at the debate table as opposed to that chair remaining empty?

Indeed, it is mythical, but Pinker has helped spread the myth!

Would
it make a difference if a 'blank slate-ist' were sitting at the debate table as opposed to that chair remaining empty?

Presumably not.


I'll check back for further news. Thanks.

Still can't find it, but most of my time this week has been taken up arguing with dialectical dunderheads over at the Socialist Unity blog (link in the '@nti-dialectics Made Easy Thread').

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, I have found the zipped PDF of Stove's book. Does anyone know of an online site I can upload it to?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, I have uploaded this PDF to Rapidshare. Anyone who wants this file can download it in the next 90 days from here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/163090803/Darwinian_Fairytales_complete.pdf.html

[black magick hustla]

Evolution is applied to our species. Evolution is just the changes inflicted by the ability of certain elements in a species to pass on there gene. The notion of evolution as progressive is human and does not mean anything beyond arbitrarily treating evolution as some sort of moral category. For example, it is said that short people are becoming less common in some areas because it is more difficult for them to attract partners. It does not mean anything, it just means that some people with certain phenotypes tend to fuck more than others of us.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot, the sophisticated argument presented in Stove's work shows that what you say is not in fact the case.

[Lynx]

Well, it is never going to turn up (unless we invent a time machine, and then psychologically test our ancestors). And that is why these fables are called 'Just so stories'.
A more active approach would be to falsify the existing hypothesis or come up with a more plausible one.


The conceptual confusion in this case is that it treats emotions as inner processes, when they are a behavioural traits directed at the object of that emotion.
[...]
Emotions are not activities in the brain, either. They are episodes of overt behaviour governed by outer criteria.
Emotions are a response to stimuli. The stimulus can be external or internal or both. And of course they involve brain activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions


Indeed, it is mythical, but Pinker has helped spread the myth!
In terms of classifying the human body, why couldn't we say it is entirely a product of evolution? We can disagree over what was an adaptation, spandrel, exhaptation, contingent development, or noise - but all of these are contained within the evolution model. As soon as we say 'evolution does not apply to humans' the mystics will pounce.

p.s. Will attempt download (I'm on dialup with a 4 hour connection limit, but 15 MB should be able to complete with time to spare)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


A more active approach would be to falsify the existing hypothesis or come up with a more plausible one.

There are several ways to defeat an hypothesis, among which are: 1) Falsifying evidence, and 2) Demonstrating the incohernece of its supposed propositions.

1) Is not possible in this case (without a time machine, as I pointed out), and 2) has already been done.


Emotions are a response to stimuli. The stimulus can be external or internal or both. And of course they involve brain activity.

You arte confusing the cause of emotions with ewhat they are, and how we characterise them in language.

I never said they were not accompanied by brain activity, only that they cannot be equated with them.

And it is no use quoting Wiipedia at me; I am already aware of the conceptual confuison that runs through the brain sciences here.


In terms of classifying the human body, why couldn't we say it is entirely a product of evolution? We can disagree over what was an adaptation, spandrel, exhaptation, contingent development, or noise - but all of these are contained within the evolution model. As soon as we say 'evolution does not apply to humans' the mystics will pounce.

The mystics will "pounce" anyway. What we need is well-founded science to confound them, and neo-Darwinism (as applied to humans) is not well-founded.

[Lynx]

There are several ways to defeat an hypothesis, among which are: 1) Falsifying evidence, and 2) Demonstrating the incohernece of its supposed propositions.

1) Is not possible in this case (without a time machine, as I pointed out),
a) It remains possible
b) Only part of potential falsifiable evidence lies in interpreting the past
c) Failure to falsify is not a reason to discard a hypothesis

and 2) has already been done.
How so?
The snakes and spiders hypothesis involves instinctual behavior. The idea of instincts as adaptations are amongst the least controversial. Its probably why I chose that example instead of a more outlandish one.


You arte confusing the cause of emotions with ewhat they are, and how we characterise them in language.

I never said they were not accompanied by brain activity, only that they cannot be equated with them.
Of course you didn't 'say it', I thought something was being implied and I tried to guess what that might be.

Equating emotions with brain activity is a blunt explanation. It would be more accurate to say that we associate emotions with a subset of brain activity. Currently, our ability to correlate specific brain activity with specific emotions is limited by a lack of proper measuring apparatus. We are better able to identify emotions (on a macro level) than we are at resolving the neurological structures and chemical processes hypothesized as a mechanism for emotion.


The mystics will "pounce" anyway. What we need is well-founded science to confound them, and neo-Darwinism (as applied to humans) is not well-founded.
What we have is a series of conjectures, hypotheses and theories at various states of development and supported by varying amounts of evidence. What more could we hope for? Fewer books and essays and more peer reviewed journals?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


a) It remains possible

How?


Failure to falsify is not a reason to discard a hypothesis

Who said it was?


How so?

Stove's book. [Did you see the link I posted to it?]


It would be more accurate to say that we associate emotions with a subset of brain activity. Currently, our ability to correlate specific brain activity with specific emotions is limited by a lack of proper measuring apparatus. We are better able to identify emotions (on a macro level) than we are at resolving the neurological structures and chemical processes hypothesized as a mechanism for emotion.

In that case, you are revising the word 'emotion', which simply means that the science you hypothesise for the future (it certainly hasn't been discovered yet) is about 'emotion', and about emotion.


What we have is a series of conjectures, hypotheses and theories at various states of development and supported by varying amounts of evidence. What more could we hope for? Fewer books and essays and more peer reviewed journals?

The peer review system is not all it is cracked up to be. It stifles innovation, and is inherently conservative (for example, it held up Plate Techtonics for at least 60 years). It is now working in reverse to prevent anyone seriously questioning M-theory (Superstrings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review

Moreover, many of the greatest advances in science were not peer reviewed: for example, the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Carnot, Dalton, Darwin, Einstein...

Sure, what we want is more and better science, but the ideologically-driven right wing biology behind noe-Darwinism is not it.

[Lynx]

How?
It remains possible that improved methods will be found to aid archaeologists.

Who said it was?
Those who are uncomfortable with 'just so' stories imply just that.

Stove's book. [Did you see the link I posted to it?]
I have a copy of his book you provided to Rapidshare. I'm at Essay 3 and there has been no mention of the fear of snakes and spiders. What he rails against in the first two essays became largely moot due to the adoption of r/K-selection theory. His essays are enjoyable none-the-less.


In that case, you are revising the word 'emotion', which simply means that the science you hypothesise for the future (it certainly hasn't been discovered yet) is about 'emotion', and about emotion.
'Science of emotion', 'mechanics of emotion' and the definitions of the original term can be used if need be. If in doubt, qualify.


The peer review system is not all it is cracked up to be. It stifles innovation, and is inherently conservative (for example, it held up Plate Techtonics for at least 60 years). It is now working in reverse to prevent anyone seriously questioning M-theory (Superstrings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review

Moreover, many of the greatest advances in science were not peer reviewed: for example, the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Carnot, Dalton, Darwin, Einstein...

Sure, what we want is more and better science, but the ideologically-driven right wing biology behind noe-Darwinism is not it.
Sometimes it makes sense to ignore 'slanders against the human race' and other rhetoric. This is what people do, whether they be scientists, polemicists or publicity seeking authors. If we could learn to do that, then maybe there would be less 'sideshow' and more progress.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


It remains possible that improved methods will be found to aid archaeologists.

Even a mountain of archaeological evidence could not reveal the psychology of our distant ancestors.


Those who are uncomfortable with 'just so' stories imply just that.

I don't think so -- anyway, that is certainly not the case with me.


I'm at Essay 3 and there has been no mention of the fear of snakes and spiders. What he rails against in the first two essays became largely moot due to the adoption of r/K-selection theory. His essays are enjoyable none-the-less.

I agree; his book is a little out-of-date (he died 15 or so years ago, and his researches ended in the late 1980s, I think), but the things he says in later chapters can easily be used to show that r/K-theory is shaky in the extreme.

Moreover, he does not go into the specifics about snakes and spiders -- but the general things he says affect how theory is to be interpreted even here.

About his style: he is widely recognised to be a consumate essayist -- the best philsophical essayist since Descartes, some say.


'Science of emotion', 'mechanics of emotion' and the definitions of the original term can be used if need be. If in doubt, qualify.

I deny all this, and for the reasons I gave.


Sometimes it makes sense to ignore 'slanders against the human race' and other rhetoric. This is what people do, whether they be scientists, polemicists or publicity seeking authors. If we could learn to do that, then maybe there would be less 'sideshow' and more progress.

Unfortunately, the class war prevents most people from following your excellent advce.

[Lynx]

Even a mountain of archaeological evidence could not reveal the psychology of our distant ancestors.
If we are to draw conclusions about possible futures then I'm forced to disagree. Future archaeological evidence may be surprisingly revealing - or not. We would need a time machine (or immortality & patience) to confirm this.

I don't think so -- anyway, that is certainly not the case with me.
It seems to me there is something about just-so stories you find unacceptable. You protest the legitimacy of theoretical frameworks and/or question the need to create such frameworks. You don't accept interim explanations.

I deny all this, and for the reasons I gave.
I still don't comprehend your reasons.
If your reasons were widely incorporated, would scientific progress be accelerated?

Meanwhile, I'm content to accept the ideas put forward today. As usual, judgment is delayed until numbers, correlations, and predictions have been sworn and testified.

Unfortunately, the class war prevents most people from following your excellent advice.
Carl Sagan wrote eloquently about the isle of Samos and other times and places when remarkable scientific progress appeared to occur. Was he accurate in his historical assessments? Would the isle of Samos have been a time and place where class warfare had subsided?

[Tribune]

Rosa,

Are you arguing that natural selection, or Darwinism, what have you, functions as a "shaping" process until, at some point, matter and conditions "select for" consciousness and cooperation, as in the case of our primate and mammalian phylogeny?

That Darwinism "works" at one order of magnitude, but ceases to function as a primary selector of traits somewhere along the rhizomy of development, as a species "self-liberates" from the restrictions of non-consciousness?

That culture, a product, if you will, of evolution, changes the agency and effect evolution?

Thank you,

Tribune.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tribune:


Are you arguing that natural selection, or Darwinism, what have you, functions as a "shaping" process until, at some point, matter and conditions "select for" consciousness and cooperation, as in the case of our primate and mammalian phylogeny?

I go further, and argue that the word 'consciousness' is a meaningless term.

[As you probably have already guessed, I am a Wittgensteinian; that might help you situate my comments.]

Moreover, 'select for' is anthropomorphic and teleological.


That Darwinism "works" at one order of magnitude, but ceases to function as a primary selector of traits somewhere along the rhizomy of development, as a species "self-liberates" from the restrictions of non-consciousness?

I am sorry, I did not understand this.

[Tribune]

Rosa,

You appear to have combined someone else's posts with my own question to you. That in mind, I have a difficult time demonstrating any evidence for the teleology inherent in "selects for" which is why, somewhat clumsily, I put the words in quote marks.

Tribune

(As for my final question - are you arguing for some sort of evolution, but a process, such as the word applies, which is not adaptionist-selectionist? That adaptionism "works," often enough, for species which are more closely bound to food supplies, et cetera?)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tribune, sorry for my mix-up! I'll correct it.


As for my final question - are you arguing for some sort of evolution, but a process, such as the word applies, which is not adaptionist-selectionist? That adaptionism "works," often enough, for species which are more closely bound to food supplies, et cetera?

Well, no -- I am not a scientist, so I will leave this to them.

On the other hand, if metaphysical, ideological or teleological ideas creep into their explanations, then I will certainly point this out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


If we are to draw conclusions about possible futures then I'm forced to disagree. Future archaeological evidence may be surprisingly revealing - or not. We would need a time machine (or immortality & patience) to confirm this.

In that case, give me an example of a possible archaeological discovery that could confirm the genetic/somatic or psychological origin of a single emotion.


I still don't comprehend your reasons.

Our words for the emotions have certain applications that do not match the scientific use of typographically similar words. In that case, while scientists might study the 'emotions' what they have to tell us are in no way connected to the meaning of the words we use to depict the emotions.


Carl Sagan wrote eloquently about the isle of Samos and other times and places when remarkable scientific progress appeared to occur. Was he accurate in his historical assessments? Would the isle of Samos have been a time and place where class warfare had subsided?

Forgive me, but I could not see the relevance of this for anything I have said.

[Lynx]

In that case, give me an example of a possible archaeological discovery that could confirm the genetic/somatic or psychological origin of a single emotion.
Soft tissue evidence of the brain and nervous systems of mammals, reptiles and birds. Ditto for DNA samples. If there are additional methods of comparison, I'm unaware of them or they have yet to be developed.

Our words for the emotions have certain applications that do not match the scientific use of typographically similar words. In that case, while scientists might study the 'emotions' what they have to tell us are in no way connected to the meaning of the words we use to depict the emotions.
I'm assuming a causal link has been hypothesized and that scientists wish to explain how brain activity translates into behaviors we perceive as emotion, as well as other behaviors, psychology, etc.
If these inquiries are successful, the general public can expect to read updated explanations of cause, translation and effect. The 'ultimate success' is if some of what is learned has practical application elsewhere.

What the individual interprets or 'makes of such findings' is up to them, and is related to their level of interest in the topic.

Forgive me, but I could not see the relevance of this for anything I have said.
Does class warfare hinder scientific progress?
Does 'ruling class ideology' hinder it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Soft tissue evidence of the brain and nervous systems of mammals, reptiles and birds. Ditto for DNA samples. If there are additional methods of comparison, I'm unaware of them or they have yet to be developed.

Eevn if this were possible, how would that show the origin of a single emotion?


I'm assuming a causal link has been hypothesized and that scientists wish to explain how brain activity translates into behaviors we perceive as emotion, as well as other behaviors, psychology, etc.

If these inquiries are successful, the general public can expect to read updated explanations of cause, translation and effect. The 'ultimate success' is if some of what is learned has practical application elsewhere.

In that case, these scientists will be studying 'emotion' not emotion, as I noted.


Does class warfare hinder scientific progress?
Does 'ruling class ideology' hinder it?

Ah, I see.

Yes and Yes.

[Drace]

The science of morality?

There is no science in morality. Morality is not a materialist object to study...:confused:

[Lynx]

Even if this were possible, how would that show the origin of a single emotion?
In much the same way as analysis of living organisms today and in the future. I can't show you what is contingent upon future advances.

In that case, these scientists will be studying 'emotion' not emotion, as I noted.
Is there a more formal method to make this distinction?

The science of morality?

There is no science in morality. Morality is not a materialist object to study...
I suppose I've tended to call the 'science of morality', ethics. Or should I say, 'ethics'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


In much the same way as analysis of living organisms today and in the future. I can't show you what is contingent upon future advances.

You have still to explain how this could show the origin of certain emotions; the best it could do is show when those parts of the central nervous system we now associate with certain emotions arose. But, they could have arisen for other reasons.

And there is no way we could confirm the ancient interactions between spiders and snakes you alluded to earlier. Such events do not show up in soft tissue.


Is there a more formal method to make this distinction?

Why would that affect the method I have already outlined?

[Lynx]

You have still to explain how this could show the origin of certain emotions; the best it could do is show when those parts of the central nervous system we now associate with certain emotions arose. But, they could have arisen for other reasons.
I'm working from the assumption that the path to confirming these hypotheses is unclear. In any case, archaeological evidence does not indicate 'how'. It may indicate 'when' and 'where', or be said to 'lend support' or confirm. 'How' requires reasoning. 'How' may be derived from evidence but is not bound by any particular volume of evidence. I have heard of situations where the evidence "speaks for itself" - but those are circumstances where the evidence, as you noted, is mountainous.

'Other reasons' hopefully translates into competing hypotheses. I view this as another reason to continue an inquiry.


And there is no way we could confirm the ancient interactions between spiders and snakes you alluded to earlier. Such events do not show up in soft tissue.
They do show up in fossilized footprints, as bite marks on bones, as bones found in proximity to predator's 'killing fields' and they show up today, in contemporary living organisms. Please don't accept this list as being exhaustive in scope.

Support for this hypothesis would come from uncovering the frequency and circumstances of predation. If the fear of snakes and spiders is not physiologically distinct from other fears, then the search is extended to other species.

Why would that affect the method I have already outlined?
Is a comma missing from the above sentence?
No, its just that the single and double quoting of words may signify different things.

[Lynx]

Please note that according to Stephen Gould's theory of 'contingent development', a replay of evolution would have unpredictable results. Earth's evolutionary past is but one tale in an infinite number of tales.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I'm working from the assumption that the path to confirming these hypotheses is unclear. In any case, archaeological evidence does not indicate 'how'. It may indicate 'when' and 'where', or be said to 'lend support' or confirm. 'How' requires reasoning. 'How' may be derived from evidence but is not bound by any particular volume of evidence. I have heard of situations where the evidence "speaks for itself" - but those are circumstances where the evidence, as you noted, is mountainous.

Well, I am not sure about all this, but even if you are right, this can't confirm the original just-so stories.

But then, maybe this will:


They do show up in fossilized footprints, as bite marks on bones, as bones found in proximity to predator's 'killing fields' and they show up today, in contemporary living organisms. Please don't accept this list as being exhaustive in scope.

Support for this hypothesis would come from uncovering the frequency and circumstances of predation. If the fear of snakes and spiders is not physiologically distinct from other fears, then the search is extended to other species.

Are you suggesting that spider and snake bites will show up on such remains? But even if they do, how are incidental occurences like these imprinted on the genome? Surely that would be a Lamarckian explanation.

But, even if you are right, that will do nothing to show the presence of the relavant emotions, least of all their origin.


Is a comma missing from the above sentence?

No.


No, its just that the single and double quoting of words may signify different things.

Eh?


Please note that according to Stephen Gould's theory of 'contingent development', a replay of evolution would have unpredictable results. Earth's evolutionary past is but one tale in an infinite number of tales.

Maybe so, but we have yet to see an explanation of a single human psychological trait -- other than those 'just-so' stories, of course.

[butterfly]

Peter Singers How are we to live; ethics in an age of self interest is an excellect read for those interested in the subject from an evolutionary and cultural perspective.

[Lynx]

Are you suggesting that spider and snake bites will show up on such remains?
I'm suggesting that bites in general would show up. Any paleo-herpetologists in the house?

But even if they do, how are incidental occurences like these imprinted on the genome? Surely that would be a Lamarckian explanation.
I would agree, frequency over a long period of time is said to be a requirement. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleogryllus_oceanicus
After reading this article I'm tempted to ask:
Can stress on a population induce a mutation?
Is the mutation random, a novel strategy or was it previously natural-selected as a response? Depending on the answers, a Lamarckian flavoured mechanism may be on the menu.

But, even if you are right, that will do nothing to show the presence of the relavant emotions, least of all their origin.
The hypothesis says this instinct is an adaptation, therefore evidence is needed to show that conditions were favourable for selection of this behavior. These findings however are premised upon the fear of snakes and spiders being distinguishable from say, the fear of ambush from a predator. In order to confirm that premise, the physiology of these instincts must be studied.

The origin of fear is far more ancient. Many species exhibit fear behaviors, including reptiles and even the ancestors of both reptiles and mammals.

Eh?
Examples:
What the revolutionary left needs is more "comrades" like Robert Mugabe.
There were new developments in the 'War on Terror'.
Feeding fascists cookies without milk is one way to 'persuade' them.

In short, it's a method of casting aspersions onto people, events or terminology. 'Physiology of emotion' is more descriptive than 'emotion'.

Maybe so, but we have yet to see an explanation of a single human psychological trait -- other than those 'just-so' stories, of course.
As long as the mechanisms for emotion and behavior remain hidden, progress will be limited, or stymied. 'Black box' as stumbling block. Yet the information is there! Evolution research has been a process of increasing the number of characteristics that can be measured, comparing them to find commonalities and differences, and using the presence or absence of these characteristics within organisms as a means of classification. Ditto for characteristics that define the external environment, with special regard for time and place. When the two (internal and external characteristics) are combined, additional relationships are sometimes revealed.

[Lynx]

Peter Singers How are we to live; ethics in an age of self interest is an excellect read for those interested in the subject from an evolutionary and cultural perspective.
Did this book help shape your views?

[butterfly]

Did this book help shape your views?
Not really, I disagree with many of his opinions, however it served to reinforce my views, through many evolutionary and cultural examples, on mutual cooperation as a fundamental aspect, or necessity of human behaviour.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I'm suggesting that bites in general would show up.

Is there any evidence that bites do or will show up?


Can stress on a population induce a mutation?
Is the mutation random, a novel strategy or was it previously natural-selected as a response? Depending on the answers, a Lamarckian flavoured mechanism may be on the menu.

Well, to accommodate this, we are already making massive adjustments to Darwinian theory. What next? Miracles?

But, this is a neo-Lamarckian accommodation. The needs of an organism in response to stress cause a change in the genome. This is how far you have drifted away from Darwinism.

Recall, the whole popint of this was to show that Darwinism cannot account for morality. We seem to be agreeing now that it can't, since the more stress we are putting on the theory, the more you are mutating it.


The hypothesis says this instinct is an adaptation, therefore evidence is needed to show that conditions were favourable for selection of this behavior. These findings however are premised upon the fear of snakes and spiders being distinguishable from say, the fear of ambush from a predator. In order to confirm that premise, the physiology of these instincts must be studied.

I am not sure that this answers my point.


Examples:
What the revolutionary left needs is more "comrades" like Robert Mugabe.
There were new developments in the 'War on Terror'.
Feeding fascists cookies without milk is one way to 'persuade' them.

In short, it's a method of casting aspersions onto people, events or terminology. 'Physiology of emotion' is more descriptive than 'emotion'.

Once more : Eh?

In fact, Eh? squared...


As long as the mechanisms for emotion and behavior remain hidden, progress will be limited, or stymied. 'Black box' as stumbling block. Yet the information is there! Evolution research has been a process of increasing the number of characteristics that can be measured, comparing them to find commonalities and differences, and using the presence or absence of these characteristics within organisms as a means of classification. Ditto for characteristics that define the external environment, with special regard for time and place. When the two (internal and external characteristics) are combined, additional relationships are sometimes revealed.

Well, this all looks like wishful thinking to me, which nicely complements the just-so stories on offer.

Sort of poetic justice really.

[Lynx]

Is there any evidence that bites do or will show up?
Yes, from bones. Archaeologists appear to be particularly good at analyzing bone evidence.

Well, to accommodate this, we are already making massive adjustments to Darwinian theory. What next? Miracles?
A miracle is one possible characterization of an otherwise arbitrary event. If Darwinism says there is no mechanism for a particular mutation to occur in a particular situation, then these crickets are the beneficiaries of a serendipitous (if not miraculous) event.

But, this is a neo-Lamarckian accommodation. The needs of an organism in response to stress cause a change in the genome. This is how far you have drifted away from Darwinism.

Recall, the whole popint of this was to show that Darwinism cannot account for morality. We seem to be agreeing now that it can't, since the more stress we are putting on the theory, the more you are mutating it.
The oft-repeated idea of "random" mutations seems a tad simplistic, so I am posing these questions. I fully expect that a more thorough explanation of the mechanisms involved in mutations would quickly debunk my neo-Lamarckian fancy.

I was under the impression this discussion was about the inability of Darwinism to account for human behavior and emotion. Morality is a concept that stands on the 'ought' side of the river.

I am not sure that this answers my point.
The hypothesis I mentioned is but one piece in a puzzle whose proper order has yet to be determined. Like a jigsaw puzzle, it is not always possible to place a piece within the main puzzle. It is usually placed with other pieces whose final destination remains unknown.

Well, this all looks like wishful thinking to me, which nicely complements the just-so stories on offer.
I believe this is a reasonable approximation of the inquiry methods used in the fields of archaeology and paleontology in support of evolution. I dare say it is reminiscent of detective work one might find in a mystery novel.

Here is a mix of empirical and just-so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapods
Is it not wonderful?

Sort of poetic justice really.
When just-so stories end up in court - more like criminal injustice.

[Lynx]

1. How important are studies of 'deviations from the norm' to science? For example, studies of autism, brain injury, movement disorders, or genetic disorders such as Angelman syndrome?

2. To what extent have serendipitous events or 'eureka' moments contributed to the advancement of science?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Yes, from bones. Archaeologists appear to be particularly good at analyzing bone evidence

Spider bites can show up in bones, can they? Who are you kidding?


A miracle is one possible characterization of an otherwise arbitrary event. If Darwinism says there is no mechanism for a particular mutation to occur in a particular situation, then these crickets are the beneficiaries of a serendipitous (if not miraculous) event.

I think we intend 'miraculous' in different senses.


The oft-repeated idea of "random" mutations seems a tad simplistic, so I am posing these questions. I fully expect that a more thorough explanation of the mechanisms involved in mutations would quickly debunk my neo-Lamarckian fancy.

Well, that's just one more promissary note to add to the many other 'just-so stories'. This is beginning to resmeble science fiction more by the day.


I was under the impression this discussion was about the inability of Darwinism to account for human behavior and emotion. Morality is a concept that stands on the 'ought' side of the river.

Perhaps so, but I have lost count of the number of Darwinians who think they can account for morality in Darwinian terms.


The hypothesis I mentioned is but one piece in a puzzle whose proper order has yet to be determined. Like a jigsaw puzzle, it is not always possible to place a piece within the main puzzle. It is usually placed with other pieces whose final destination remains unknown.

Well, this is all starting to look like the tangled web the Ptolemaics erected in order to defend the heliocentric view of the solar system: if you need an extra epicycle, so be it.

This article deals with this aspect of Darwinism quite well:

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=7


I believe this is a reasonable approximation of the inquiry methods used in the fields of archaeology and paleontology in support of evolution. I dare say it is reminiscent of detective work one might find in a mystery novel.

Or, better still: science fiction, as I said.


Is it not wonderful?

The word 'sad' actually comes to mind here.


1. How important are studies of 'deviations from the norm' to science? For example, studies of autism, brain injury, movement disorders, or genetic disorders such as Angelman syndrome?

2. To what extent have serendipitous events or 'eureka' moments contributed to the advancement of science?

I think you might want to start a thread in Science on this.

[Lynx]

Spider bites can show up in bones, can they? Who are you kidding?
Bites in general can show up, not necessarily from spiders.

I think we intend 'miraculous' in different senses.
These crickets were introduced in 1877. Assuming they were immediately set upon by the fly, it took an r-selected species 126 years to introduce a mutation that addressed the situation.


Well, that's just one more promissary note to add to the many other 'just-so stories'. This is beginning to resmeble science fiction more by the day.
It's hardly promissary, why just the other day I read a Wiki article about epigenetics... mechanisms galore involving the expression of genes.
What do they really mean when they say 'random mutations' ?

Perhaps so, but I have lost count of the number of Darwinians who think they can account for morality in Darwinian terms.
How about One Count of Ulterior motives?

Well, this is all starting to look like the tangled web the Ptolemaics erected in order to defend the heliocentric view of the solar system: if you need an extra epicycle, so be it.
This is ordinary heuristics, until the puzzle is more complete, we just have to wait (while those involved in the field continue their work).

Or, better still: science fiction, as I said.
The word 'sad' actually comes to mind here.
What about the tetrapod article you dislike? It is a work in progress, there are still gaps in the fossil record and blanks to fill in and questions, but it does appear to be a serious attempt to explain what occurred. Its the best story we have as of December 2008 and it will continue to be improved.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx (I am sorry, but were you slightly the worse for wear when you wrote this? Much of it seems ill-focussed and irrelevant):


Bites in general can show up, not necessarily from spiders.

But, when I said this:


Is there any evidence that bites do or will show up?

You said this:


Yes, from bones. Archaeologists appear to be particularly good at analyzing bone evidence.

Once more: how can spider bites show up on bones? And where is the evidence that this has ever happened?


These crickets were introduced in 1877. Assuming they were immediately set upon by the fly, it took an r-selected species 126 years to introduce a mutation that addressed the situation.

What crickets are these? This is the first mention of them!

And why have you brought this up? Where have I denied r-selection?


It's hardly promissary, why just the other day I read a Wiki article about epigenetics... mechanisms galore involving the expression of genes.

Again, what has this got to do with real evidence from the past? This looks like yet more back-projection to me.


How about One Count of Ulterior motives?

Eh?


This is ordinary heuristics, until the puzzle is more complete, we just have to wait (while those involved in the field continue their work).

In fact, it is just yet more epicycles. I can just imagine 14th century astronomers arguing like you have done here, as they added in yet another epicycle.


What about the tetrapod article you dislike? It is a work in progress, there are still gaps in the fossil record and blanks to fill in and questions, but it does appear to be a serious attempt to explain what occurred. Its the best story we have as of December 2008 and it will continue to be improved.

It was your reaction that was sad, not the article.

[Lynx]

Once more: how can spider bites show up on bones? And where is the evidence that this has ever happened?
I said that bite marks in general show up in bones. If spider bites per se have shown up on bones I'm not aware of it. If someone wishes to do experiments involving large tarantulas to see if their fangs can ever puncture bone, be my guest.

What crickets are these? This is the first mention of them!
The Oceanic field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) mentioned in the Wiki article.

And why have you brought this up? Where have I denied r-selection?
Are the events described in the Teleogryllus oceanicus article consistent with Darwinist theory?

Again, what has this got to do with real evidence from the past? This looks like yet more back-projection to me.
The mechanisms involving mutation are more varied and complex than the 'random mutation' explanation. If I accept the literal meaning of 'random mutation' in the example involving the crickets, I might expect to see any mutation. It might be a mutation that has no bearing on the situation at hand, or one that decreases the cricket's fitness.

Eh?
If countless Darwinists keep making moralistic claims, I'm suggesting they have ulterior motives - as is the case with humans in general.

In fact, it is just yet more epicycles. I can just imagine 14th century astronomers arguing like you have done here, as they added in yet another epicycle.
What do methods of problem solving have to do with the adding of elaborate mechanisms to explain away inconsistencies?

It was your reaction that was sad, not the article.
Very well, what is your opinion of the tetrapod article?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I said that bite marks in general show up in bones. If spider bites per se have shown up on bones I'm not aware of it. If someone wishes to do experiments involving large tarantulas to see if their fangs can ever puncture bone, be my guest.

So, this is one just-so story that will never be confirmed.


The Oceanic field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) mentioned in the Wiki article.

Which Wiki article? You mentioned several.


If countless Darwinists keep making moralistic claims, I'm suggesting they have ulterior motives - as is the case with humans in general.

Their motives seem quite plain: they want to explain every feature of human behaviour along Darwinian or neo-Darwinian lines.


What do methods of problem solving have to do with the adding of elaborate mechanisms to explain away inconsistencies?

Isn't that obvious? Check out that article I linked to, to see the answer to that one.

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=7


Very well, what is your opinion of the tetrapod article?

Long and rather tedious.

[Comrade Corwin]

Unfortunately, I cannot spare the time to take in all the information that has been discussed in the last eleven pages. I am however interested in discussing the initial topic of this post. Can anyone who has been following this thread please update me? What I have read as some of the more recent posts are not making much sense.
I don't mean to be an inconvenience, but I would thoroughly appreciate someone's assistance in this matter and thank you in advance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CC, I suspect that few other than myself and Lynx here have bothered to read the last three or four pages -- which have been largely taken up with discussing whether or not Darwinism can account for any specific human psychological traits.

The actual topic was only discussed on the opening two pages, I think. You should be able to catch up, therefore, quite easily.

[Lynx]

So, this is one just-so story that will never be confirmed.
The confirmation of this hypothesis does not depend upon the presence or absence of spider bites from our distant past.

Which Wiki article? You mentioned several.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleogryllus_oceanicus

Their motives seem quite plain: they want to explain every feature of human behaviour along Darwinian or neo-Darwinian lines.
And they do this by.... making sweeping generalizations?
Are the Modern Evolutionary Synthesists as reckless?

Isn't that obvious? Check out that article I linked to, to see the answer to that one.
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=7
Evolution is a logically complex theory that doesn't depend on epicycles. The closest analogy that comes to mind is taxonomy. Do you consider taxonomy to be a kind of epicycle?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


The confirmation of this hypothesis does not depend upon the presence or absence of spider bites from our distant past.

Well, then why did you bring this up?


And they do this by.... making sweeping generalizations?
Are the Modern Evolutionary Synthesists as reckless?

Apparently so.


Evolution is a logically complex theory that doesn't depend on epicycles. The closest analogy that comes to mind is taxonomy. Do you consider taxonomy to be a kind of epicycle?

I think you miss the point of this analogy, which is often referred to when theories are protected from refuation by the continual addition of ah hoc hypotheses, so that they end up as complicated as neo-Darwinism has become.

[Lynx]

Well, then why did you bring this up?
It would be part of an inquiry. Encounters with predators in general would have to be included.

Apparently so.
No worries then?

I think you miss the point of this analogy, which is often referred to when theories are protected from refutation by the continual addition of ah hoc hypotheses, so that they end up as complicated as neo-Darwinism has become.
What do you mean by refutation?
Theories are supposed to be criticized and challenged in order to refine them. It's mainly the low hanging fruit that gets refuted. In most cases, theories tend to increase in complexity until they are falsified or replaced (superceded).
This analogy says nothing about the validity of logically complex theories - just that they're difficult to refute.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


It would be part of an inquiry. Encounters with predators in general would have to be included.

But how can it be if you have now admitted that spider bites cannot show up on bones?


What do you mean by refutation?

Proven to be false in whole or in part.


Theories are supposed to be criticized and challenged in order to refine them. It's mainly the low hanging fruit that gets refuted. In most cases, theories tend to increase in complexity until they are falsified or replaced (superceded).
This analogy says nothing about the validity of logically complex theories - just that they're difficult to refute.

Indeed, but at some point they come to resemble Ptolemaic astronomy, with its steadily increasing epicycles, and have to be abandoned.

Hence, my reference to epicylces earlier.

[Lynx]

But how can it be if you have now admitted that spider bites cannot show up on bones?
If the possibility of obtaining this evidence has been ruled out, then it is part of an inquiry in theory, not in practice. Logically, it has to remain part of an inquiry.

Proven to be false in whole or in part.
A partial could indicate that a hypothesis is wrong or incomplete. The most obvious resolution to an incomplete hypothesis is to 'complete it'.

Indeed, but at some point they come to resemble Ptolemaic astronomy, with its steadily increasing epicycles, and have to be abandoned.

Hence, my reference to epicycles earlier.
Well, that's like having to make a choice between designing piston rings or designing a rotary engine. If you are actively working on piston engines, solving the problem with rings and additional features seems the most logical route. If rotary engines do not exist, or you haven't heard of them, then the additional complexity of rings etc will seem like the only route.

If you refute a hypothesis without an alternative in sight, increasing complexity appears to be the most likely outcome, and perhaps the only valid outcome, given circumstances at the time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


If the possibility of obtaining this evidence has been ruled out, then it is part of an inquiry in theory, not in practice. Logically, it has to remain part of an inquiry.

I think we could always have ruled out the possibility of obtaining evidence from bones of spider bites.


A partial could indicate that a hypothesis is wrong or incomplete. The most obvious resolution to an incomplete hypothesis is to 'complete it'

There are in fact several options available, all of which have been taken by scientists at some point in the past (and are still being adopted):

1) Abandon the hypothesis.
2) Modify it.
3) Query the evidence.
4) Ignore the evidence.
5) Abandon an auxilliary hypothesis.
6) Modify an auxilliary hypothesis.
7) Re-examine the evidence.
8) Re-interpret the evidence.
9) Add another hypothetical layer (more 'epicycles').
10) Invent a new substance or force ('dark matter'/'dark energy' being the latest such dodge in astrophysics).


Well, that's like having to make a choice between designing piston rings or designing a rotary engine. If you are actively working on piston engines, solving the problem with rings and additional features seems the most logical route. If rotary engines do not exist, or you haven't heard of them, then the additional complexity of rings etc will seem like the only route.

If you refute a hypothesis without an alternative in sight, increasing complexity appears to be the most likely outcome, and perhaps the only valid outcome, given circumstances at the time.

There have always been alternatives in science, many of which are rejected out of hand for a while and then accepted as 'orthodoxy' later on (Wegener's theory of continental drift being a good recent example of this particular dodge). This is what one philosopher of science had to say about this:


"...[I]n the historical progression from Aristotelian to Cartesian to Newtonian to contemporary mechanical theories, the evidence available at the time each earlier theory was accepted offered equally strong support to each of the (then-unimagined) later alternatives. The same pattern would seem to obtain in the historical progression from elemental to early corpuscularian chemistry to Stahl's phlogiston theory to Lavoisier's oxygen chemistry to Daltonian atomic and contemporary physical chemistry; from various versions of preformationism to epigenetic theories of embryology; from the caloric theory of heat to later and ultimately contemporary thermodynamic theories; from effluvial theories of electricity and magnetism to theories of the electromagnetic ether and contemporary electromagnetism; from humoral imbalance to miasmatic to contagion and ultimately germ theories of disease; from 18th Century corpuscular theories of light to 19th Century wave theories to contemporary quantum mechanical conception; from Hippocrates's pangenesis to Darwin's blending theory of inheritance (and his own 'gemmule' version of pangenesis) to Wiesmann's germ-plasm theory and Mendelian and contemporary molecular genetics; from Cuvier's theory of functionally integrated and necessarily static biological species or Lamarck's autogenesis to Darwinian evolutionary theory; and so on in a seemingly endless array of theories, the evidence for which ultimately turned out to support one or more unimagined competitors just as well. Thus, the history of scientific enquiry offers a straightforward inductive rationale for thinking that there are alternatives to our best theories equally well-confirmed by the evidence, even when we are unable to conceive of them at the time." [Stanford (2001), p.9.]

Stanford, P. (2001), 'Refusing The Devil's Bargain: What Kind Of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?', in Barrett and Alexander (2001), pp.1-12.

Barrett, J., and Alexander, J. (2001), (eds.), PSA 2000, Part 1, Supplement to Philosophy of Science 68, 3 (University of Chicago Press).

[PSA = Philosophy of Science Association; the PSA volumes comprise papers submitted to its biennial meeting.]

This suggests that there are alternatives to neo-Darwinism out there that are equally good, but which we have yet to find, or which are already known, but are not yet accepted as part of scientific 'orthodoxy'.

In fact, we already know that there are several such. For example, this one:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-2-27/52141.html

http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/publications.html

There are others.

[Comrade Corwin]

I have no idea what this exchange is about, but I think it is bad that you two are the ones who have put your hold on this topic. I would have suggested that you should have switched your current posts to private messaging a long while ago. At least then others could have possibly discussed the initial topic of this thread. It is a shame because this is a topic I've really wanted to discuss, as there was much I could have possibly learned.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Corwin, the fact that Lynx and I have locked on to this does not prevent anyone else discussing this topic.

[Lynx]

I think we could always have ruled out the possibility of obtaining evidence from bones of spider bites.
I don't think we can rule out the possibility of acquiring such evidence in the future.


There are in fact several options available, all of which have been taken by scientists at some point in the past (and are still being adopted):

1) Abandon the hypothesis.
2) Modify it.
3) Query the evidence.
4) Ignore the evidence.
5) Abandon an auxilliary hypothesis.
6) Modify an auxilliary hypothesis.
7) Re-examine the evidence.
8) Re-interpret the evidence.
9) Add another hypothetical layer (more 'epicycles').
10) Invent a new substance or force ('dark matter'/'dark energy' being the latest such dodge in astrophysics).
Only #4 is an objectionable methodology.


There have always been alternatives in science, many of which are rejected out of hand for a while and then accepted as 'orthodoxy' later on (Wegener's theory of continental drift being a good recent example of this particular dodge). This is what one philosopher of science had to say about this:
This is a warning against orthodoxy, which is already a dirty word for many people. Perhaps a formal place for unorthodox theories is needed, with funding.


This suggests that there are alternatives to neo-Darwinism out there that are equally good, but which we have yet to find, or which are already known, but are not yet accepted as part of scientific 'orthodoxy'.

In fact, we already know that there are several such. For example, this one:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-2-27/52141.html

http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/publications.html

There are others.
I welcome any alternative that offers hypotheses. They may contradict Darwinism but would complement the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I don't think we can rule out the possibility of acquiring such evidence in the future.

This is what you said about 20 posts ago, which is what led us off on this wild goose chase, resulting in the conclusion that spider bites cannot show up on bones.


Only #4 is an objectionable methodology.

Unfortunately, it is among the most common reactions we have witnessed in the history of science.


This is a warning against orthodoxy, which is already a dirty word for many people. Perhaps a formal place for unorthodox theories is needed, with funding.

Well, science is one of the most conservative, orthodox-bound activities (outside of theology) that human beings have ever invented.


I welcome any alternative that offers hypotheses. They may contradict Darwinism but would complement the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

I am glad to hear it, but you are in a very tiny minority.

[Lynx]

This is what you said about 20 posts ago, which is what led us off on this wild goose chase, resulting in the conclusion that spider bites cannot show up on bones.
I said I'm unaware if they can show up in bones, hardly a definitive statement. The future holds the promise of new techniques.


Unfortunately, it is among the most common reactions we have witnessed in the history of science.
Do you have an objection to #9, #10 or any of the other options?


I am glad to hear it, but you are in a very tiny minority.
I should be in the majority, a non-scientific casual observer.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I said I'm unaware if they can show up in bones, hardly a definitive statement. The future holds the promise of new techniques.

You'll be saying next that mosquito bites can show up in bones.


Do you have an objection to #9, #10 or any of the other options?

All of them have their drawbacks, and have been used in the past to hold science up.

[Lynx]

You'll be saying next that mosquito bites can show up in bones.
I would never say such a thing. I would ask if there is archaeological evidence for malaria.

All of them have their drawbacks, and have been used in the past to hold science up.
Then you are objecting to how they have been used, not that they shouldn't be used.

Assuming a theory is 'complete' also has drawbacks:


In 1986 the discovery of a family of cuprate-perovskite ceramic materials known as high-temperature superconductors, with critical temperatures in excess of 90 kelvins, spurred renewed interest and research in superconductivity for several reasons. As a topic of pure research, these materials represented a new phenomenon not explained by the current theory.

[Comrade Corwin]

Well, I suppose I will start this topic again so you two may continue your own conversation. The fact is that no one else has been able to interact because they are swamped by your own off-topic discussion. I say nothing to be taken personally, of course, comrades. I'm just a little disappointed.
Have a good day.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I would never say such a thing. I would ask if there is archaeological evidence for malaria.

And yet, spider bites are not much worse than mosquito bites.


Then you are objecting to how they have been used, not that they shouldn't be used.

They were my suggestions, remember!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Once more, Corwin, how have we stopped others having a go?

[Lynx]

And yet, spider bites are not much worse than mosquito bites.
Can you point to a study that confirms this?
Perhaps giant centipede bites are 'worse' than spider bites.

They were my suggestions, remember!
Okay, 'adding epicycles' is one of your suggestions.

[Lynx]

Well, I suppose I will start this topic again so you two may continue your own conversation. The fact is that no one else has been able to interact because they are swamped by your own off-topic discussion. I say nothing to be taken personally, of course, comrades. I'm just a little disappointed.
Have a good day.
We haven't been posting every day (this is my fault) and the thread has gotten stale (my fault). Please start a fresh thread, it should attract more attention and response.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Can you point to a study that confirms this?
Perhaps giant centipede bites are 'worse' than spider bites.

As you would say: I am sure the evidence will turn up one day...


Okay, 'adding epicycles' is one of your suggestions.

It's one of the suggestions I gave about how scientists protect their theories.

[Lynx]

I am glad to hear it, but you are in a very tiny minority.
How can this be? Why would only a tiny minority be amenable to alternative hypotheses? I can understand scientists holding hostile views or being dismissive, but not the general public. We have no emotional investment in one line of research over another.

[Lynx]

As you would say: I am sure the evidence will turn up one day...
There's nothing stopping a comparative study from being done tomorrow is there? Perhaps a study has already been done. There's lots of scientific stuff that never makes the news.

It's one of the suggestions I gave about how scientists protect their theories.
Is it possible to tell if they are just protecting their theory or are making a sincere effort to respond to criticism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


How can this be? Why would only a tiny minority be amenable to alternative hypotheses? I can understand scientists holding hostile views or being dismissive, but not the general public. We have no emotional investment in one line of research over another.

Just try questioning any accepted theory (as I often do) and you will soon see what anger you attract. [Check out many of my posts in the science section. 'Defenders of orthodoxy' get quite irate with me.]

This happens to me here, and elsewhere, all the time.

But, don't take my word for it, there are plenty of studies in the sociology of science that confirm it.

Why does this happen? The reasons are quite complex, but they revolve around social hierarchy, career and ego -- all facets of class society

In addition, it's a good job that science is conservative, otherwise all manner of whacko ideas would gain a grip.


There's nothing stopping a comparative study from being done tomorrow is there? Perhaps a study has already been done. There's lots of scientific stuff that never makes the news.

Maybe so; who can say?


Is it possible to tell if they are just protecting their theory or are making a sincere effort to respond to criticism?

You only have to look at what happens to the careers and reputation of those who question orthodoxy to see what is going on here. The profession polices itself, so these suggestions often work to suppress advances in science (and researchers soon learn not to ask awkward questions, or persue 'controversial' lines of enquiry, or listen to 'cranks' and 'quacks' -- or their careers come to a grinding halt).

This held up Plate Tectonics, for example, for 50 or so years. Germ theory too was delayed for several generations, as was anaesthesia, aseptic medicine, finding the cause of stomach ulcers...

The list is depressingly long.

And, when the new theory comes along, and is accepted (how this happens you can read in Thomas Kuhn's work), the textbooks are all re-written, and collective amnesia falls on the scientific community once again, and the new theory is defended as the latest orthodoxy, and in the same manner, and with the same vehemence. This has been going on now for over 2000 years.

[Lynx]

Just try questioning any accepted theory (as I often do) and you will soon see what anger you attract. [Check out many of my posts in the science section. 'Defenders of orthodoxy' get quite irate with me.]

This happens to me here, and elsewhere, all the time.

But, don't take my word for it, there are plenty of studies in the sociology of science that confirm it.
Ok, so people tend to get irate when their assumptions are challenged - perhaps this is a reaction that cannot be avoided?
IMO having one's assumptions challenged is a good thing. Even those who are irate should be able to recognize this and avoid going into denial mode.

Why does this happen? The reasons are quite complex, but they revolve around social hierarchy, career and ego -- all facets of class society
The situation is not hopeless then...


In addition, it's a good job that science is conservative, otherwise all manner of whacko ideas would gain a grip.
Velikovsky-like ideas? Can they not be dealt with dispassionately?


You only have to look at what happens to the careers and reputation of those who question orthodoxy to see what is going on here. The profession polices itself, so these suggestions often work to suppress advances in science (and researchers soon learn not to ask awkward questions, or persue 'controversial' lines of enquiry, or listen to 'cranks' and 'quacks' -- or their careers come to a grinding halt).

This held up Plate Tectonics, for example, for 50 or so years. Germ theory too was delayed for several generations, as was anaesthesia, aseptic medicine, finding the cause of stomach ulcers...

The list is depressingly long.

And, when the new theory comes along, and is accepted (how this happens you can read in Thomas Kuhn's work), the textbooks are all re-written, and collective amnesia falls on the scientific community once again, and the new theory is defended as the latest orthodoxy, and in the same manner, and with the same vehemence. This has been going on now for over 2000 years.
Ah yes, this reminds me of a series I once watched: The Day The Universe Changed by James Burke.
This is not a well kept secret, so why can't humans learn from the pattern of these mistakes?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Ok, so people tend to get irate when their assumptions are challenged - perhaps this is a reaction that cannot be avoided?
IMO having one's assumptions challenged is a good thing. Even those who are irate should be able to recognize this and avoid going into denial mode.

If you'll forgive me: that's a bit like someone who says "Socialism can't work because of human nature."

And, there's a difference between having assumptions, and refusing to face the facts for 1000 years, or destroying someone else's career, or lying, or... All of which (and worse) scientists have done before in their bid to protect 'orthodoxy'.


The situation is not hopeless then...

Not at all; I expect things will improve dramatically in a socialist society.


Can they not be dealt with dispassionately?

Indeed, they can, but up to now this has never happpend (as the record shows -- or as far as we know).


so why can't humans learn from the pattern of these mistakes?

At every stage, scientists imagine that the theory they have at that point is the final truth -- or they behave as if this is indeed what they believe.

They do not learn since their reputation as scientists depends on the defence of 'orthodoxy'. And they will never learn until such sociological facts are altered by profound social change. In short, this is a social problem that cannot be repaired by sermonising scientists.

[Lynx]

If you'll forgive me: that's a bit like someone who says "Socialism can't work because of human nature."
In this case, the irateness would come from having to discuss a 'challenge' that has already been thoroughly debunked. Surely this does not apply to the assertions you make.

And, there's a difference between having assumptions, and refusing to face the facts for 1000 years, or destroying someone else's career, or lying, or... All of which (and worse) scientists have done before in their bid to protect 'orthodoxy'.
Yes, like the difference between healthy skepticism and malicious intent.


Indeed, they can, but up to now this has never happpened (as the record shows -- or as far as we know).
Well, Carl Sagan tried...


At every stage, scientists imagine that the theory they have at that point is the final truth -- or they behave as if this is indeed what they believe.

They do not learn since their reputation as scientists depends on the defence of 'orthodoxy'. And they will never learn until such sociological facts are altered by profound social change. In short, this is a social problem that cannot be repaired by sermonising scientists.
I prefer to believe that scientists are aware of these things. Their awareness is 'off the record' while their behavior remains official. If they aren't aware, then they are too caught up in the process to notice :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


In this case, the irateness would come from having to discuss a 'challenge' that has already been thoroughly debunked. Surely this does not apply to the assertions you make.

I was not questioning your use of 'irate', only making the point that it is not possible for scientists to avoid making such challenges given the nature of class society.


Yes, like the difference between healthy skepticism and malicious intent.

And we have seen far too much of the latter in the history of science.


I prefer to believe that scientists are aware of these things. Their awareness is 'off the record' while their behavior remains official. If they aren't aware, then they are too caught up in the process to notice

And some prefer to believe that human nature is an impenetrable barrier to socialism.

[Lynx]

I was not questioning your use of 'irate', only making the point that it is not possible for scientists to avoid making such challenges given the nature of class society.
All challenges should be welcome, the more difficult they are to refute, the better.

And some prefer to believe that human nature is an impenetrable barrier to socialism.
Preferences have been known to change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


All challenges should be welcome, the more difficult they are to refute, the better.

That can't be right; this justifies the holding up of science for the sorts of reasons I outlined, and led to the delay of things like Plate Tectonics, and the other things I mentioned.


Preferences have been known to change

Not in science they haven't; it is perniciously conservative.

[Lynx]

That can't be right; this justifies the holding up of science for the sorts of reasons I outlined, and led to the delay of things like Plate Tectonics, and the other things I mentioned.
What do you mean? Weak challenges are quickly defeated and little is learned.

Not in science they haven't; it is perniciously conservative.
It's as if the status quo carries its own momentum.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


What do you mean? Weak challenges are quickly defeated and little is learned.

The point is that, whatever we decide here, the problems science faces are social, not methodological. And whether or not challenges are weak or strong, it will take a social revolution to put science right.


It's as if the status quo carries its own momentum.

Indeed.

[Lynx]

The point is that, whatever we decide here, the problems science faces are social, not methodological. And whether or not challenges are weak or strong, it will take a social revolution to put science right.
The problems described are methodological, the obstacles are social.

Problem: Scientists keep assuming that the latest theories paint a complete picture of the universe, an assumption that has repeatedly been proven wrong.
Solution: Drop the assumption, modify behavior as a consequence.

Inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence is puzzling to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


The problems described are methodological, the obstacles are social.

It's not possible to separate these under present social conditions, except in the abstract.


Problem: Scientists keep assuming that the latest theories paint a complete picture of the universe, an assumption that has repeatedly been proven wrong.
Solution: Drop the assumption, modify behavior as a consequence.

Yes, and if we could work miracles that would be fine.


Inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence is puzzling to me.

No more puzzling than any other feature of class society, surely?

It seems to me that you have perhaps been a little too ready to believe the propaganda that scientists are 'pure seekers after truth'.

They are social beings first; scientists second.

[Lynx]

No more puzzling than any other feature of class society, surely?

It seems to me that you have perhaps been a little too ready to believe the propaganda that scientists are 'pure seekers after truth'.

They are social beings first; scientists second.
Yes, but when confronted with evidence, I expect that science and the institution of science are capable of being honest with themselves and effect change. Or at least be willing to consider change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Yes, but when confronted with evidence, I expect that science and the institution of science are capable of being honest with themselves and effect change. Or at least be willing to consider change.

Alas, the history and sociology of science suggest differently; here is an incomplete list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_misconduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth:_Fraud_and_Deceit_in_the_Ha lls_of_Science

[Lynx]

Lynx:



Alas, the history and sociology of science suggest differently; here is an incomplete list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_misconduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth:_Fraud_and_Deceit_in_the_Ha lls_of_Science
No morality there, huh?
We may be back on topic for this thread.

And short of a social revolution, attempts to reduce fraud in science or otherwise improve its methodology are doomed to failure?

In the last 20 years, have there been modest improvements to the conduct of science or the nature of science?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


No morality there, huh?
We may be back on topic for this thread.

I'm sorry; you lost me there.


And short of a social revolution, attempts to reduce fraud in science or otherwise improve its methodology are doomed to failure?

In the last 20 years, have there been modest improvements to the conduct of science or the nature of science?

If there have been, it has been kept rather quiet.

Indeed, the opposite is probably the case; consider the irrational response there has been to Lee Smolin's crticism of 'String Theory':

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


With regard to these broader issues, Polchinski thinks that Woit and I exaggerated the sociological issues, “such influences are not as strong as these authors posit…” Very sadly, I have to say that my impression is that some of the response to the books show the opposite. In the book I raised the idea of “groupthink” and then explained why I did not think it applied completely to the string community. But I have had to revise my views as the responses of a few string theorists, such as at George Johnson’s seminars at KITP, and certain online critiques and debates, offered textbook examples of groupthink. Rather than regarding criticism as an opportunity for reflection and response, colleagues in these settings were driven to demonize us, calling us cranks and worse, questioning our integrity and motives, while proudly insisting on not reading the books. These unfortunate responses gave a very unflattering portrait of our community, its openness to criticism from experts and its welcoming of a diversity of approaches.

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/Response%20to%20Polchinski.html

Same old same old, then.

[Lynx]

I'm sorry; you lost me there.
Just rearrange the science of morality into the morality of science.


If there have been, it has been kept rather quiet.

Indeed, the opposite is probably the case; consider the irrational response there has been to Lee Smolin's crticism of 'String Theory':
Some of his 'colleagues' engaged in tactics that are unacceptable. Other responses were more reasoned.

Having String Theory or any other theory 'dominate' physics is unproductive - consider anti-trust laws to counter scientific monopolies and their effects.

In a climate of limited funding, it would be desirable to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and to do so as quickly as possible. If funding were no longer scarce, String Theory could be allowed to find its own fate at a more natural pace.

From the little I've read, Lee Smolin sounds less pessimistic than you do!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Just rearrange the science of morality into the morality of science.

I do not see the connection.


From the little I've read, Lee Smolin sounds less pessimistic than you do!

He seems to know far less of the history of science than I do.

[Lynx]

I do not see the connection.
A morality of science would contain ethical guidelines to help promote better conduct.

He seems to know far less of the history of science than I do.
In that case, name someone who knows as much about the history of science as you do and agrees with you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


A morality of science would contain ethical guidelines to help promote better conduct.

But, this will have nothing to do with the 'science of morality'.


In that case, name someone who knows as much about the history of science as you do and agrees with you.

Agrees exactly, or roughly?

[Lynx]

But, this will have nothing to do with the 'science of morality'.
Oh, right. The science of morality hasn't been established yet. I would have liked to believe that ethical guidelines would have something to do with the establishment of a 'science of morality'. Perhaps serve as a prototype.

Agrees exactly, or roughly?
Both.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Both.

No idea who agrees exactly with me, but here's two authors who agree roughly with me:

Broad, W., and Wade, N. (1985), Betrayers Of The Truth. Fraud And Deceit In The Halls Of Science (Oxford University Press).

Kohn, A. (1986), False Prophets. Fraud And Error In Science And Medicine (Blackwell, 2nd ed.).

There are others.

[Lynx]

Two books with different writing styles on a similar subject should be sufficient to derive a comparison and improve my understanding.

[Cumannach]

Surely morality is already widely studied in science? In Psychology, and Evolutionary Theory (group and kin selection)? No?

If we are materialists we have to admit moral behaviour is just as understandable in material terms as an other behaviour of organisms? No?

I think Marxism is perfectly concurrent with the evolutionary study of behaviour especially group behaviour on the level of species.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanach:


Psychology, and Evolutionary Theory (group and kin selection)? No?

We have covered this earlier in this thread, and here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993823&postcount=7

What you mention is in effect right-wing Biology and Psychology. On this check out Steven Jay Gould's work:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/bibliography.html

And Inclusive Fitness is a defective theory. On that, check out chapter 8 of this book I uploaded to here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/163090803/Darwinian_Fairytales_complete.pdf.html

And you are right about Marxism and materialism, but that does not mean we have to make concessions to reactionary ideas in science.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Having String Theory or any other theory 'dominate' physics is unproductive - consider anti-trust laws to counter scientific monopolies and their effects.

You want anti-trust laws to apply to gravity and and evolution now?

[Cumannach]

Well Rosa, is moral behaviour understandable as a material phenomena, the only determinating factors of which are material events and conditions, or is it not? Yes or no?

A materialist has to admit that any material phenomena is solely the result of matter and the material laws of Nature.

Everyone knows reactionaries, racists, anti-communists, fascists and others have erroneously claimed such and such as being a part of human nature and used that claim to justify their crimes. That doesn't make the methods which they can't even use properly, but claim to use, 'bad' or 'tarnished' or 'discredited'. Even if they do get the Science right and then make stupid, obscene moral conclusions from the results, it can't make the Science wrong.

Adam Smith, and David Ricardo, two free market fundamentalist capitalist economists came up with the labour theory of value. Was Marx wrong to use this idea as one of the cornerstones of Scientific Socialism, while rejecting everything else they said and the way they had distorted it's true meaning? No of course not, because the LTV is correct.

Maybe we're talking about different things here, but my understanding was that the results of studies into altruism and group and kin selection are almost impossible to interpret as anything but progressive, since they affirm that things like co-operation, justice, hatred of exploitation and unfairness and inequality, and working for the common good rather than selfishly for yourself, are not only natural, but deeply embedded in human nature as a result of Natural Selection.

What's reactionary about that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummenach:


Well Rosa, is moral behaviour understandable as a material phenomena, the only determinating factors of which are material events and conditions, or is it not? Yes or no?

Mores are of course Historical Materialist phenomena.


That doesn't make the methods which they can't even use properly, but claim to use, 'bad' or 'tarnished' or 'discredited'. Even if they do get the Science right and then make stupid, obscene moral conclusions from the results, it can't make the Science wrong.

If you read this thread, you will perhaps see that in this area it is difficult to separate the science from the ideology -- which is why great care has to be taken.


Maybe we're talking about different things here, but my understanding was that the results of studies into altruism and group and kin selection are almost impossible to interpret as anything but progressive, since they affirm that things like co-operation, justice, hatred of exploitation and unfairness and inequality, and working for the common good rather than selfishly for yourself, are not only natural, but deeply embedded in human nature as a result of Natural Selection.

Unfortunately, once more, inclusive fitness is not just ideologically tainted, it is bad science -- as the book I uploaded shows.

And, we do not need flawed and reductive theories in biology to inform us that human beings are cooperative.

The reactionary nature of this theory lies in the fact that inclusive fitness tells us that we are only altruistic to our close relatives, not human beings in general -- and that altruism is just a form of 'selfishness'.

In other words, given this theory, altruism dows not exist!

[Cumannach]

...in this area it is difficult to separate the science from the ideology -- which is why great care has to be taken.

But of course.


And, we do not need flawed and reductive theories in biology to inform us that human beings are cooperative.

Well we don't need theories to inform us of the existence of any phenomena, but we need theories to understand them, by definition.


The reactionary nature of this theory lies in the fact that inclusive fitness tells us that we are only altruistic to our close relatives, not human beings in general -- and that altruism is just a form of 'selfishness'.

In other words, given this theory, altruism dows not exist!

You raise a valid point here. Looking at it in one way, altruism towards kin is not truly altruistic because an organism's kin share a large part of that organism's genes.

However, kin selective altruism (if it can so be called) is not the only form of altruism in nature.

Altruism occurs between organisms that are not closely related, and can become a behavioural trait of a whole species.

Maybe you've heard of Robert Trivers? In the 1970's he published a famous paper called "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". This paper can be read in full for free here;

http://anthro.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=136 (It's in pdf-the very last of his papers at the bottom)

I'll just quote a couple of extracts;

"Altruistic behaviour can be defined as behaviour that benefits another organism not closely related while apparently detrimental to the organism performing the behaviour... One human leaping into water, at some danger to himself, to save another distantly related human being from drowning may be said to display altruistic behaviour. If he were to leap in to save his own child the behaviour would not neccesarily be an instance of altruism; he may merely be contributing to the survival of his own genes invested in the child."

"One human being saving another who is not closely related and is about to drown is an instance of altruism. Assume that the chance of the drowning man dying is one half if no one leaps in to save him, but that the chance that his potential rescuer will drown is much smaller, say one in twenty. Assume that the drowning man always drowns when his rescuer does and that he is always saved when his rescuer survives the rescue attempt. Also assume that the energy costs involved in rescuing are trivial compared to the survival probabilities. Were this an isolated event it is clear that the rescuer should not bother to save the drowning man, but if the drowning man reciprocates at some future time and if the survival chances are then exactly reversed it will have been to the benefit of each participant to have risked his life for the other. Each participant will have traded a one half chance of dying for about a one tenth chance. If we assume that the entire population is sooner or later exposed to the same risk of drowning, the two individuals who risk their lives to save each other will be selected over those who face drowning on their own...

"Why should the rescued individual bother to reciprocate?...Why not cheat? Selection will discriminate against the cheater if cheating has later adverse affects on his life which outweigh the benefit of not reciprocating.
This may happen if the altruist responds to the cheating by curtailing all future possible altruistic gestures to this individual. Assuming that the benefits of the altruistic acts outweigh the cost of reciprocating, the cheater will be selected against relative to individuals who, because neither cheats, exchange many altruistic acts."

("The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism") Trivers

And so true altruism evolves.

The paper goes into much greater detail and formulates the model precisely.

Now Trivers is not a reactionary guy. Here's a video of him in a discussion with Chomsky.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7520102537648426467

He also co-authored a paper with Huey P.Newton!

This theory lays a fairly solid scientific basis for a large part of human morality and emotion and is pretty hard to draw reactionary conclusions from.

[Lynx]

You want anti-trust laws to apply to gravity and and evolution now?
Theories are usually incomplete, so I believe it is important to find new ways of testing/confirming established theories. Uncovering inconsistencies is a good thing. Secondly, there is evidence of statistical errors and fraud, and these need to be uncovered with repeated testing.