Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[littlebabyjesus]

I would suggest that your own log?c here precludes an evolut?onary-b?olog?cal answer to that quest?on.

Yes, I agree.

But I think my logic precludes any answer to that question. This is where we differ.

 

[Fruitloop]

Minimal Epistemology

 

[gorski]

Socratic dialogue, you understand.

Cut the insults and the rhetoric and ask away.

You see, I think little babyjesus may be right that you haven't properly absorbed the ideas you think you are espousing. If you try to show me where you think I am wrong you may learn something; or you may succeed in showing me the error of my ways.

It's a win-win offer

Not openning up in these matters one little bit, as per usual, I see... Never give an inch, eh? Oh, well, I did open up fully when you tried teaching me stuff from your profession and I did accept that quite easily. Ever thought why you're not able to do the same when we come to mine?

Moreover, why you continually neglect almost whole articles in favour of a proviso or two or my praise of Darwin thereby completely changing the meaning of my objections to his and Wallace's little theory and go into a black-white kinda model as a rule? I think you should really dig into that - for a critically minded intellectual it's a must have and hence win-win situation, for sure...

 

[Jonti]

That's more of a lecture than a careful questioning to pin down the bug ...

But to answer; no, I don't find that the case -- I find the texts irritatingly wordy, for all they manage to say, but there is a lot I don't know, of course.

As for the second question, why should a proviso or two be so crucial? I would say because they are critical nuances that, as you observe, put your objections in a very different light.

And yes, rational evidenced discourse before peers is remarkably effective -- a true win-win situation.

 

[gorski]

If that is so, why do you only emphasise the provisos and completely renege on anything else, which, btw, is overwhelmingly stating the impossibility of value-free science, thereby completely missing the point/meaning of the article?!? I find it essentially and most seriously self-limiting.

As for “wordy” stuff – find me a scientific or philosophical or sociological work which isn’t “wordy” and is of any value and consequence to us, please? Sticking labels is not exactly a worthy, productive tool, imo...

I tried to make an effort and deal with the issues, only to be received with complete distortions and utter avoidance of the issues, not to mention the almost complete lack of good will towards even the elementary consideration of the positions I tried putting forward...

No, not productive at all... sadly...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As for “wordy” stuff – find me a scientific or philosophical or sociological work which isn’t “wordy” and is of any value and consequence to us, please?

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

In another field of philosophy, Aristotle's Poetics.

 

[gorski]

I see. Written in - what? Movement of our eyes? It directly reacts with our brain pathways and we experience it "immediately"?!?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I see. Written in - what? Movement of our eyes? It directly reacts with our brain pathways and we experience it "immediately"?!?

Ok, is English your first language?

If not, you may have misunderstood the word 'wordy'. It means long-winded, using long words and complicated sentence structures and giving unnecessarily complicated and over-long explanations.

Hope that helps.

 

[gorski]

I know what it means and I am using that meaning to ask a question: which of the really worthy additions to civilisation and culture were "simple, nice and easy"?!?

If you think Wittgenstein's Tractatus is simple and easy - see the dispute arising re. the interpretation of his conclusions...

 

[gorski]

Btw, how less of an effort towards explaining one's stance re. complex issues is helpful - I'll never know...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you think Wittgenstein's Tractatus is simple and easy - see the dispute arising re. the interpretation of his conclusions...

Where did I say I thought it was easy?

What I said was that it isn't wordy.

And it isn't.

If you know what wordy means, why did you respond as you did?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Btw, how less of an effort towards explaining one's stance re. complex issues is helpful - I'll never know...

I believe what may have been requested was for you to make more of an effort to make your posts less wordy.

There is an important distinction between simple and easy.

 

[gorski]

You just wouldn't budge in any direction, like we keep seeing on this thread... I know what it means and I used it to make a point - of my own! MY point! Get it? [Yeah, right...]

It has to be "wordy" as the subject is complex and complicated, as it is all meshed up, so disentangling it is difficult and sometimes requires wordy formulations.

But your assertion that it was all "wordy" and that it's all, therefore, not to be considered as it's, then, naturally, unworthy of an effort - is equally loaded!

And it only speaks of you!

Night...

 

[Jonti]

If that is so, why do you only emphasise the provisos and completely renege on anything else, which, btw, is overwhelmingly stating the impossibility of value-free science, thereby completely missing the point/meaning of the article?!? I find it essentially and most seriously self-limiting.

You keep repeating this, but the article article you quoted says ...

This does not oblige us, however, to abandon science or objectivity, or to embrace an uneasy relativism

Read it slowly ... your own source states very clearly that there is no need to abandon the possibility of value free science. But you argue to the contrary (claiming your source overwhelmingly asserts the impossibility of value-free science).

It doesn't. It says "everything *cannot* be relative; some stuff just has to be value-free and objective (it can be bloody hard to identify it mind)". That's a fact; and that's all I've been saying.

Any questions (no rants, thanx)?

 

[Jonti]

You just wouldn't budge in any direction, like we keep seeing on this thread... I know what it means and I used it to make a point - of my own! MY point! Get it? [Yeah, right...]

You didn't make a point. You made a cheap rhetorical dig based upon a deliberate misunderstanding of the term "wordy".

Unhelpful.

 

[phildwyer]

You just wouldn't budge in any direction, like we keep seeing on this thread... I know what it means and I used it to make a point - of my own! MY point! Get it? [Yeah, right...]

It has to be "wordy" as the subject is complex and complicated, as it is all meshed up, so disentangling it is difficult and sometimes requires wordy formulations.

But your assertion that it was all "wordy" and that it's all, therefore, not to be considered as it's, then, naturally, unworthy of an effort - is equally loaded!

And it only speaks of you!

Night...

Most of us on these boards have learned to just ıgnore or mock Jontı's scıentıstıc fumınatıons by now, I'm sure you'll joın us quıte soon. Reagrdıng 'wordıness,' surely the poınt ıs that phılosophy possesses a technıcal vocabulary lıke any other dıscıplıne, and that ıt ıs necessary to master that vocabulary before engagıng properly wıth the subject. Those who object to 'wordıness' are ın my experıence ınevıtably fools.

 

[Jonti]

tired of his lies? then click here to ignore phildwyer
this has been a public service announcement​

 

[gorski]

You keep repeating this, but the article article you quoted says ...Read it slowly ... your own source states very clearly that there is no need to abandon the possibility of value free science. But you argue to the contrary (claiming your source overwhelmingly asserts the impossibility of value-free science).

It doesn't. It says "everything *cannot* be relative; some stuff just has to be value-free and objective (it can be bloody hard to identify it mind)". That's a fact; and that's all I've been saying.

Any questions (no rants, thanx)?

I'm afraid you just do not understand at all: it is not black or white - and I did attempt [a number of times] to explain, but I now see it has fallen on deaf ears, as you seem not to WANT to hear it, as if you're really scared of hearing it and then having to make certain adjustments in your thinking on the subject.

The point of the article is that we do not have value free science. How you missed that, I'll never know.

Your insistence on a sentence that merely states we have nothing better than that, so we keep trying the best we can in a manner we are doing, i.e. as he is trying in the article: we try to understand where we got our notions from, what sort of context does science require, what values we are adhering to when we do our research in a specific manner etc. etc.

I would call that real "materialism", where you contextualise your "theory", the notions you inherited, you give credit to the people paving the way before you and announce to the readership your "tradition", plus how you differ from the thinkers preceding you - in a dialectical manner, if you wish – what I would call intellectual and moral honesty and competence.

In other words, we need to think about it openly and critically [rather than in a fan-like or believer-like manner] and in that effort we continue learning and researching and not presuming stuff of essential value to us but are aware of the many presumptions, rather than just never think and debate those, as then we may have another dogma on our hands...

Uncritical attitude to science and technology is dangerous!

It is possible, as I explained before, that we have science that is not value free and we do not adhere to relativism in an "absolute sense".

I also mentioned it in the thread regarding Heidegger: it's an old debate between him [conservatism] and Adorno [the progressive left] regarding openness [the democratic left in general] or insecurity and the need for “firm, immovable grounds, absolutes and leadership” [conservatives]... You are inventing the wheel here, instead of listening to some of us who do know a few things about it - and right now you are also embarrassing yourself with this uncritical and fan-like, either/or, black/white attitude “or the world is gonna collapse if we admit to not having any absolutes”... For as long as we're Human it seems impossible to have those!

Drop the God insights stuff for a moment, please and consider it from a perspective which might be uneasy and troubling to you right now but might be an eye opener and liberating in more ways than one. It will definitely help you leave this need to grab onto something ‘absolute’ until there's no blood in your fingers and you forgot why you are trying so hard to begin with...

 

[gorski]

tired of his lies? then click here to ignore phildwyer
this has been a public service announcement​

That is a sign of weakness and closemindedness. You can ignore what one is saying if it's a personal attack with nothing to add to the debate, of course - but I think you really should leave the dogmatic stuff behind you. It is really unbecoming to an intellectual.

 

[gorski]

You didn't make a point. You made a cheap rhetorical dig based upon a deliberate misunderstanding of the term "wordy".

Unhelpful.

I certainly did make a point. Many times, as a matter of fact, on a number of threads. It is very misleading to say I didn't. Especially as I am quite consistent in that regard. It is in fact very close to the point Phil made yet again: one needs to make an effort, even though it's sometimes uneasy. But that's philosophy and critical thinking for you, I'm afraid.

Am I, in your opinion, allowed to make a point of my own? In my own words. The way I see fit. Not in your words. Not the only way you want people to talk to you. As I am not requiring from you to express yourself in the way I express myself? And I am not kicking up a fuss about the fact we speak in different languages, so to speak, am I? Unlike you, the uncritical scientific lot, that is...

And can you see it now?

Btw, a type of thinking is easy to see from afar: mine is of the critical, questioning type. Yours, in many regards, isn't. Make of it what you will. But to me it sounds like medieval monks clutching on to the dogma of their time for dear life, as it is providing for their needs, material or spiritual. I suggest there are other possibilities in this world. Ignore them at your peril, on a personal level. But it's more than that, as the world is deprived of one of its talents, if one behaves in a dogmatic manner and shouts and screams at everyone who questions it and the nice and easy tranquillity of the idyll...

 

[gorski]

To be blunt, if one is lazy to read [and there's a lot of it about!!]:

this is not about language/words - it is about a type of thinking/concepts, different "traditions" we come from, not because we belong to different languages but different "theories".

 

[Jonti]

That is a sign of weakness and closemindedness. You can ignore what one is saying if it's a personal attack with nothing to add to the debate, of course - but I think you really should leave the dogmatic stuff behind you. It is really unbecoming to an intellectual.

"Please, do not tell me what to do in this manner, as I find it materially disrespectful. I will express myself the way I see fit."

 

[Jonti]

Of course your allowed to make your points in your own words (and without being abused for it). But I'm genuinely at a loss to understand what your point is. You decry "scientism" and think phildwyer is a like-minded soul. That's about as much as I can get.

Giving me reading lists isn't going to help in that regard. I decry "scientism" too -- but you haven't yet said anything to persuade me this is an error I am making.

There may be some cultural misunderstandings here (in part perhaps caused by your flawless English leading me to make assumptions, for which I apologise, if that is the case). I really don't mind the Socratic, "adversarial" approach of having to respond to your questioning, and thereby having my errors made clear.

On the contrary, I would welcome the chance to defend myself against your charge, or, if it is accurate, to be be shown the error of my ways.

 

[gorski]

I didn't start with personal stuff. You did. This came after it. So hard to figure that one out, non? More Marse stuff, vicar?

 

[gorski]

I decry uncritical "scientism", the dogmatic approach to it.

I decry not allowing for an overhelming evidence of impossibility of value freee science - at all. Not "suspect it" in some way but just ignore it all, as it's at odds with what you so far were led to believe [obvioulsy]. It's not good enough saying "it is" ad nauseam, just because you were never exposed to the idea and didn't think critically about it...

I decry for completely ignoring my praise of Darwin but picking some stuff completely out of context and dismissing it out of hand - an old trick, too cheap for words...

I decry you attacking me personally after I made it clear I do not intend to do that at all but talk about the issues. Moreover, after I praised you!

I decry making a big effort and going very frequently in detail and point by point [just like you helped me with BLAG!] but then all I get is "Who, me?" or "You never did..." or "I don't get it..." without ever saying which part, even though it's written in very simple terms - all that seems rather unconvincing...

Completely passing over any of the stuff that you might have no argument against is way to obvious, J. That wreaks of weakness... [Sorry but...]

Surely you can see that...

 

[gorski]

But I'm genuinely at a loss to understand what your point is.

There are many. And not black/white. They require a different kind of thinking, too. Even - and especially! - if one doesn’t come from that background, one still must make an effort, sorry.

...think phildwyer is a like-minded soul. That's about as much as I can get.

No it isn't. You can get much more but you choose not to. You choose not to go point by point when you feel cornered. You then emulate a fish. Slippery... "Ooops, sorry, I don't get it..." None of it? Really... Yeah, right...

And leave the "personal/tribal" stuff behind, will you? It's so unbecoming. Let's deal with the issues, please...

Giving me reading lists isn't going to help in that regard.

And how would you know that before you try? And how do you think anyone knows anything but study? Self-fulfilling prophecy comes to mind. That way we are doomed to failure in terms of coming to an understanding. No effort - no progress.

I decry "scientism" too -- but you haven't yet said anything to persuade me this is an error I am making.

I have seen no evidence that is the case. Quite the opposite, actually. As for the errors - I have made many a point you chose to evade/ignore/not deal with at all... Like conceptual distinctions I started with: instincts - drives/urges - reflexes and onwards, with Darwin's theory and various elements in it etc. etc. All ignored and evaded like the plague, as you would have had to make certain changes in the way you see it... Well, it's much easier not to, so...

There may be some cultural misunderstandings here (in part perhaps caused by your flawless English leading me to make assumptions, for which I apologise, if that is the case).

Not sure what to make of this one, sorry... Apology, if sincere, accepted, of course. However, my English is not flawless and earlier, if memory serves, you made that "suspicion" clear, too, so not sure...

But I think there is a flawed [easy and cheesy] assumption that because English is my second language one shouldn't make an effort in the thinking sense, because a sentence might be a bit demanding [longer than your average sentence, a number of parts which demand attention and concentration, on occasion, plus an unusual theoretical background and so on].

I really don't mind the Socratic, "adversarial" approach of having to respond to your questioning, and thereby having my errors made clear.

Sorry, this I haven't seen yet.

7 On the contrary, I would welcome the chance to defend myself against your charge, or, if it is accurate, to be be shown the error of my ways.

I gave you many, having dealt with your Q's or assumptions, charges and so forth, one by one... This is "giving the left turn sign and turning right" syndrome, to my mind...

I repeat: this is not about winning/losing, dominating or subduing, hunting and cornering your prey, as you put it - this is about much more and it has nothing to do with one's vanity, either!!!

 

[Jonti]

I didn't start with personal stuff. You did. This came after it. So hard to figure that one out, non? More Marse stuff, vicar?

I've found your style abrasive and condescending from the get-go, tbh. That may not be your intent, I can accept that. And nor am I going to trawl through old posts to *prove* you became intemperate with me sooner, and I with you later; or vice versa.

It's not about winning, it's about communicating. Please understand then, that I will not, in future, respond to posts of the rolly-eyed sarcasm kind

 

[gorski]

One more thing. I wrote:

If you seem a wee bit too touchy I assure you it has very little to do with my nasty or even disrespectful nature.

Then you wrote:

You have a nasty and disrespectful nature, eh? Heh! Thanks for the heads-up on that one. But .... you are not alone

You missed the point there. It was a bit ironic. So, to clarify: I don't think I have nasty or disrespectful nature at all. One may even say the opposite is the case [if my friends are anything to go by and if I have any self-awareness/consciousness]. Unless one attacks me - then I can be quite "uncomfortable company", shall we say... But the way you took to it literally... makes me think...

The point was: it has very little or nothing to do with me: it was all you, in this case => attacking me personally and dropping it all to the gutter with personal attacks, and even the very fact you felt under heavy attack for a light-hearted remark etc.

 

[Jonti]

Just to be clear ... I can be nasty and disrespectful alright, so watch out!

(Very english of me: I was being self-deprecating, to excuse my naughty teasing.)

 

[Jonti]

I decry uncritical "scientism", the dogmatic approach to it.

I decry not allowing for an overhelming evidence of impossibility of value freee science ...

I'm OK with the first sentence.

I need to parse the second ... you want people to allow that it may well be impossible to have value free science?

I will say to that ... the practice of science, the way it is carried out, the things that are researched, yes, these are all value-laden.

But I think it's going too far to say that the methods of science (even though they place emphasis on intellectual honesty and personal integrity) are laden with "human value judgments". The methods of science work *despite* the fact that scientists have human frailties.

It's a debate that comes up time and again. Ultimately, i suppose, we are asking "Are the scientific theories we come up with about us; or are they about "it", the physical world (whatever that is)".