Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

Johnny Canuck2 said:
That's a bit simplistic as well; it might have been true in the 19th century, but not so much today. To the extent that pillaging is going on, it's in the form of outsourcing of factory work to third world countries.
Nope. If you're inside, take a cursory glance around you and consider which of the things you are using uses raw materials produced in the poor world by people working in poor conditions for poor wages.

It is the logic of capitalism that, for the sake of making a chocolate bar one penny cheaper, and thus gaining a market advantage, the coco producer should be screwed and paid so little that he cannot afford to send even one of his children to secondary school. This is happening right here and now.
 
Jonti said:
I'm afraid you're confidently wrong here. The thing to understand is that the *method* of selection is irrelevant, could be a new predator; a new disease; change in the environment; planetary catastrophe, whatever, doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't have a direction or a goal; there's no higher or lower. It's just a random walk through possibility space (with the false turnings dying out).

Variation (of heritable genetic information) with selection (reproductive success) gives evolution. You may not like it, it may offend your values. But that's the trouble with science ... you get the same answers to how stuff works whatever your political or religious take on things.

No, it isn't if the presumption is that we are

1) after that which is "natural"

2) you're forgetting my qualifications [a living species etc.]

Very wrong and unfair, I'm sorry to say...

Equally, you're conveniently forgetting everything that suits your unqualified and rather badly thought through statements about the allegedly "value free" science and everything in the article keeps telling you that [attitude/presumption of strictly “objective” and “value free” science] is indefensible... How you can do that with a straight face - I'll never know...

Not a shred of an effort on your part to deal with any of the many examples of values being at the very basis of science and principles science presumes but "conveniently forgets" when she's trying to sell itself as "objective, value free”, almost an absolute arbiter of everything on Earth - in the article mentioned.

Any student of philosophy at more or less first or second year knows much more about it than great majority of posters here, I must say. And the reaction seems to be proportional to the sore point it is digging into...

I warn caution in your uncritical stance, trying to defend the indefensible, people... Trust yourselves a bit more; leave the crutch and uncritical attitude behind. It's so unbecoming of rational, intelligent, potentially critically minded, free thinking, creative people...
 
Any student of philosophy at more or less first or second year knows much more about it than great majority of posters here, I must say. And the reaction seems to be proportional to the sore point it is digging into...

Ha! Sometimes less is indeed more.
 
Here are some...

The popular conceptions--both that science is value-free and that objectivity is best exemplified by scientific fact--are overstated and misleading.

2. Values in Science and Research Ethics
...
The pursuit of science as an activity is itself an implicit endorsement of the value of developing knowledge of the material world.

While the pursuit of scientific knowledge implies a certain set of characteristically "scientific" values, the relevance of other values in the practice of science are not thereby eclipsed. Honesty is as important in science as elsewhere, and researchers are expected to report authentic results and not withhold relevant information. Ethics also demands proper treatment of animals and humans, regardless of whether they are subjects of research or not (Orlans 1993). Science is not exempt from ethics or other social values. Knowledge obtained by Nazi researchers on hypothermia and the physiological effects of phosgene, for example, may pass tests of reliability, but the suffering inflicted on the human subjects was unwarranted (Caplan 1992; Proctor 1991). Hence, we may still debate whether it is appropriate to use such knowledge (Sheldon et al. 1989). Similar questions might be asked about U.S. military studies on the effects of radiation on humans. Again, social values or research ethics are not always followed in science (see, e.g., Broad and Wade 1982), but they remain important values. The disparity between the ideal and the actual merely poses challenges for creating a way to achieve these valued ends--say, through a system of checks and balances. Protocols for reviewing research proposals on human subjects, for monitoring the use and care of laboratory animals, or for investigating and punishing fraud each represent efforts to protect wider social values in science.

And so on and on and on...

And what do you conclude? It has nothing to do with values?!?

Well, I never...
 
gorski said:
Not a shred of an effort on your part to deal with any of the many examples of values being at the very basis of science and principles science presumes but "conveniently forgets" when she's trying to sell itself as "objective, value free”, almost an absolute arbiter of everything on Earth - in the article mentioned.

Could you please try and tidy up your grammar? It's so unbecoming of a rational, intelligent, potentially critically minded, free thinking, creative person.

Seriously, when the clause switches over without warning, and sentances go on for entire paragraphs, it's very hard to follow your menaing. That's not an insult - just want to help you express yourself clearly.
 
Jonti said:
I'm afraid you're confidently wrong here. The thing to understand is that the *method* of selection is irrelevant, could be a new predator; a new disease; change in the environment; planetary catastrophe, whatever, doesn't matter.

Jonti is wrong (as usual). Changes in the environment are not 'methods of selection,' they are changes in the environment. The fact that selection is affected by such changes shows that evolution is not unidirectional, as Darwin wrongly thought it was, but a dialectical interaction between environment and responses to environment. This opens up a space for theism, which Darwinists thought had been closed forever.

This is an interesting question: what is the *ultimate* cause of evolution?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Daniel Quinn points out that humans are the only animals to systematically eradicate their rivals and deny their rivals their food supply, doing so as a pre-emptive strategy that forms part of an attempt to take over the whole of the planet - the idea that we own the world is very deeply ingrained in modern humans.

But to understand the potential folly of this attempt by humans to place themselves above their environment, you must consider them as part of their environment.

From anthropocentric to ecocentric attitudes and values, that is....

As I wrote earlier, from the aggressive Modern Subject [just a strand in Modernity] to the Intersubjectivity [a much more interesting, more complex and demanding, therefore infinitely more valuable strand in Modenity]...

But for that to work Science [and technology] as such must change its values!! It must acknowledge and deal with VALUES lying at its very basis... We must grow up, as I mentioned, and take into consideration that what we are doing is way beyond Nature and with immense potential to do harm to both Nature and ourselves...
 
phildwyer said:
Jonti is wrong (as usual). Changes in the environment are not 'methods of selection,' they are changes in the environment. The fact that selection is affected by such changes shows that evolution is not unidirectional, as Darwin wrongly thought it was, but a dialectical interaction between environment and responses to environment. This opens up a space for theism, which Darwinists thought had been closed forever.

This is an interesting question: what is the *ultimate* cause of evolution?
There is none. It's a dynamic system with a constant input of energy. The Sun is the cause then, if you like.
 
phildwyer said:
...but a dialectical interaction between environment and responses to environment. This opens up a space for theism, which Darwinists thought had been closed forever.

That's an interesting assertion: could you expand a bit further, please?
 
gorski said:
That's an interesting assertion: could you expand a bit further, please?
Oh believe me, he has :)

You link it, phil.

Should provide a good couple of week's reading.
 
Crispy said:
There is none. It's a dynamic system with a constant input of energy. The Sun is the cause then, if you like.

Wouldn't you say that there have to be a series of conditions present, rather than straight forward and unidirectional/simple cause and effect?

[And even if it's energy alone - who knows what other possibilities in the Universe there are, from all sorts of different forms of life onwards...??]

Many "Suns" out there but without the other celestial objects and their interaction, having a certain composition, a series of "natural" developments [mineral, geographical to organic], an atmosphere of sorts and many other factors, some of them pure chance... It sounds to me excruciatingly complex...

Again, it sounds Earth/Sun-centric,as it were [presuming only our setup is possible, in a way... at least it sounds like that, the way you formulated it...

I'd be much more agnostic, at this stage of our "knowledge in the area", just as I am not a/theist on Earth...;) :cool:
 
Well, for our particular brand of life, yes, there need to be certain conditions. Liquid water, planetary magnetic field etc.

And yes, just as you say, anywhere there is energy, chemicals and a relatively stable environment, life is possible. Finding or not finding evidence of life on other planets will be one of the great journeys of science in this century.
 
gorski said:
As I wrote earlier, from the aggressive Modern Subject [just a strand in Modernity] to the Intersubjectivity [a much more interesting, more complex and demanding, therefore infinitely more valuable strand in Modenity]...

.
This is MEANINGLESS.

Before you respond to any more of my posts, please furnish me with your defiintion of evolution.

If you refuse to then please tell me why.
 
Crispy said:
There is none. It's a dynamic system with a constant input of energy. The Sun is the cause then, if you like.

In other words, the answer to the question 'what causes evolution' is the same as the answer to the question 'what causes the universe?' And no-one knows, or can know, that answer.
 
gorski said:
That's an interesting assertion: could you expand a bit further, please?

As Crispy says, I have. PM if you want and I'll refer you to my published work on the subject (although I'll ask that you tell me your rl id too).
 
phildwyer said:
In other words, the answer to the question 'what causes evolution' is the same as the answer to the question 'what causes the universe?' And no-one knows, or can know, that answer.
Nope. You might as well ask what the edge of a sphere looks like.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
This is MEANINGLESS.

Before you respond to any more of my posts, please furnish me with your defiintion of evolution.

If you refuse to then please tell me why.


I believe you. For YOU it may well be meaningless... However, there are some of us who studied it and are having a bit of an inquiring mind, with some capacity to keep our concentration and can stick with it, as it were, for long enough to "get it", unlike you, it seems...

You give me any answer to my Q's, then maybe... Otherwise, I really object to your tone, in general...
 
The whole thing with this one-dimensional Darwinism is totally messed up, as I explained above, going from one domain into the other and then going back to the first one to "bask in the glory" of the bloody easy and half-cheatin' "explanation" [which subsequent effort on such a trail also aims at justifying the new society...]...

So, I'm trying to show how all of those spheres are inter-meshed, baselessly entwined beyond recognition and not at all done by sound methodological principles, so no wonder it's "garbled" - such were the minds behind it!

But most people need a simple, straight forward, silver bullet solution:confused: and anything more just "does their 'eads in, innit"...:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, Darwin is dead, sorry to have to break it to you, so we have to make our minds up for ourselves...:D

In the effort I'll always try to do it myself, thanx - not by the [Neo]Cons...:cool:
 
The way I read things, you're deploying strawman arguments as cover for chucking the baby out with the bath water.

I don't think anyone here has argued the way you are suggesting. When I read this thread I read you ranting against strawmen of your own imaginings; and using rhetoric that espouses exactly the uneasy relativism your sources condemn.

So, just to put me right, like, could you quote (and I mean *quote*) anything in particular from this thread that espouses "one dimensionsal Darwinism", please?

And, having done that, could you also please show (explaining your workings and using diagrams where necessary) that the poster concerned needs a simple, straight forward, silver bullet solution 'cos anything more just "does their 'eads in".

Thanks!
 
I'm baffled...

Jonti said:
The way I read things, you're deploying strawman arguments as cover for chucking the baby out with the bath water.

And how did you get to that one? How many times do I have to say:

Darwin's paradigm is the least crappy one we have, m8. Doesn't mean we should take it uncritically or mythologise it or make it into another religion. He tried and succeeded, with our thanx, to depose religious dogmas by his and Wallace's effort. Not to be forgotten. However, as it frequently happens, not so great an effort comes after a great pioneer and then the "establishing" of those "authorities" comes first and never mind the pushing of the boundaries and actually trying to think for ourselves, so we frequently end up with another dogma instead of the previous dogma it deposed. Much easier that way...
?!?

How many times do I have to write it's about a simple-minded, silver-bullet kind of "nasty" Darwinism that is mercilessly pushed forward versus a much more interesting and highly "evaded" version of the model [as it is much more demanding and complex] that seems to me [and the rest of the hard thinking Humanity] a much more productive version of the model?!? See the Wiki link to a co-operative paradigm I posted earlier...

But oh, no: give us "either - or" or we're lost... For crying out loud, guys! What this "argument" is doing is exactly what I have been charged with: making a strawman to easily dispose of, without ever making an effort to see the other possibility within the model itself. And I did see the "simple" model and then tried the other one, too... Unlike you who haven't ever/even considered the co-operative "version" for a second, it seems to me + you're not getting it at all...

Btw, it [the "softer", more complex version of Darwinism] is corresponding with the other strand in Modernity, the Intersubjective one, starting at least from Kant and early Hegel and continuing all the way to Habermas' intercommunicative theory... As opposed to the hard-line [at least] Hobbs -> Schmitt nonsense I vehemently and most profoundly disagree with, where Darwin was "educated", via Malthus and co.!

Jonti said:
I don't think anyone here has argued the way you are suggesting. When I read this thread I read you ranting against strawmen of your own imaginings; and using rhetoric that espouses exactly the uneasy relativism your sources condemn.

How many times do we have to go through this? I said quite openly "No relativism" for me?!? But it seems to me that you lot are lost without absolutes, "firm, immovable grounds" of so called "facts" - never asking yourselves where does the need for it come from?

Me "ranting"? Nope, but it seems to me that some of you are way too easily satisfied with regurgitating the same old same old that the established "authorities" have pushed forward pushing themselves forward [not to ask too much from the "mob", as that doesn't bring them money or fame, not to mention "influence"] and most people are scared shitless of asking or dealing with awkward questions or trying to push forward...

Imagine trying to stop Darwin from pushing forward...:rolleyes: What kind of "great man" would he have been had he NOT pushed forward against the received wisdom/prevailing values?!?:confused: But this is exactly what his right wing does today, conservatively to the bone, scared shitless of anything New and questioning... Makes you cringe...:(

Jonti said:
So, just to put me right, like, could you quote (and I mean *quote*) anything in particular from this thread that espouses "one dimensionsal Darwinism", please?

Have a read back, m8. I have shown way too many times, in a variety of ways, that both originators of the theory were primed to see in Nature what they saw around them at the time, in their own country, an emerging picture of a new society, and the story continued in an uncritical manner, on and on and on...

That's the most boring thing in all this. How come you don't get tired of this shit and never search for anything new? To me, that is the job of an intellectual, searching for Historical Novelty that is an emancipating improvement on the "old stories"...

Jonti said:
And, having done that, could you also please show (explaining your workings and using diagrams where necessary) that the poster concerned needs a simple, straight forward, silver bullet solution 'cos anything more just "does their 'eads in".

You mean, like you couldn't get your head around the fact that in the article about values in science there is an overwhelming chunk of evidence as to the impossibility of having Science free of values and which ones exactly there are?!? I mean, the whole point of the article was totally missed by you... You missed ALL that was essential in there. And I know you're not stupid or mean. You demonstrated that quite a few times to me.

However, in THIS case you are stuck to the simple stuff [of dogmatic sort, here discussed, the stuff you think you know inside-out but haven't considered it from this perspective and the trouble in getting you to even consider it is immense!]. It is very unbecoming, I'm seriously sorry to say...:( It's baffling is some way and in another it shows just how difficult it is for people to hear, really hear one another, if somebody comes with a different [if not a completely novel] idea [since I didn't invent any of this.... as yet!:D].

In conclusion:

It is possible to be NEITHER black NOR white, you know. As I said, it is more demanding but that's where the truth lies, most of the time, when it comes to all things Human. Not in extremes, not in clear-cut situations, as almost all things we do are somewhere along the rest of the rich palette of colours in between black and white [and there's not just a variety of greys, either!!] and not in "either/or" type of thinking and/or doing things.

In the Balkans, where I’m from, there is this dangerous “logic”:

If you’re not with me you’re against me!

Tertium non datur.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And so on. Black or white. Pushing you into narrow confines of what merely exists, not allowing for any creativity, for anything new, different, daring, questioning. It’s all just a power game.

I, for one, disagree most profoundly!
 
Philosophy + Science => potential Enlightenment and Emancipation or uncritical Slavery to the "machine"...:D
 
gorski said:
It is very unbecoming, I'm seriously sorry to say...:( It's baffling is some way and in another it shows just how difficult it is for people to hear, really hear one another, if somebody comes with a different [if not a completely novel] idea [since I didn't invent any of this.... as yet!:D].
You won't like me for saying this. In fact, you'll probably start calling me a simpleton. But this is the heart of your problem. I would guess that you haven't properly absorbed the ideas you think you are espousing. Once you do, then those ideas will become 'yours' and you will be able to argue from a position that is truly yours - for instance, I do not need to refer to Darwin, or Dawkins, or Gould or anybody else when I talk about evolution, because I have understood the basic underlying principles.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Nonsense.

Elephants are losing their tusks due to poaching. Very soon, the African elephant may have completely lost its tusks as all those with tusks are killed by humans. The environment changed so that the advantages of tusks - using them to help you push over trees etc - are outweighed by the disadvantage - being shot at - so the trait dies out because those with tusks no longer live long enough to successfully reproduce.

THIS IS EVOLUTION. NO MORE, NO LESS.

I know kyser and others have already pulled you up on this, but you really are talkng ill-informed nonsense. And, dangerously, you think you know what you're talking about.

*tries to bias the evolutionary process so that elephants keep their tusks*

*fails*

As you can see, you are not only utterly unfair but are also a damn liar!!!

This is where it started: a chip on your shoulder did it. Lowering the tone and starting with "who da boss" immature idiocy! "Nonsense" you directed at me, arrogantly to the bone, without any real thinking allowed. Then who "pulled" whom up"... To me it's about sharing. Knowledge is not there so someone wins but to exchange views and see various arguments/types of thinking and then either change your own, as necessary, if presented with a better option or helping others see another option they haven't yet considered. Knowledge is about unifying, not dividing, not "conquering" and "winning"! It emancipates from that shite, doesn't bog you down in it, ffs...

You really are quite something, you know...

It culminated in your utterly offensive post [no. 90 or 99 or something like that?] where you LIED about me attacking Darwin the man [personally] after I praised the man for his bold ride against the dogma of his time! Moreover, you pondered that it is idiotic to attack his beliefs.

I did attack those merely regurgitating his words but only from a certain, conservative perspective [having neglected other possibilities in the Theory of Evolution!] - but that is a different matter altogether! Unless you're Mr Ch. Darwin I don't think I did attack him at all!!

But no - it's me and only me.:( Well, I never...:rolleyes:

[You go now and have a nice life...:rolleyes:]
 
gorski said:
Philosophy + Science => potential Enlightenment and Emancipation or uncritical Slavery to the "machine"...:D
I repeat: What machine?

Do you mean all machines, the concept of machine?

Define your terms please.
 
Go study at least the development from Kant to Hegel and then Marx to Critical Theory and leave me be...:D Pretty please...:p
 
Back
Top Bottom