Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

[Fruitloop]

By metaphysics, we mean the philosophical pretension to penetrate appearance and arrive at a knowledge of reality that is ontologically superior to, and epistemelogially more certain than, appearance

 

[littlebabyjesus]

analyses that free consciousness from its dependence on hypostatized power

Could you give an example of one such analysis?

 

[Knotted]

For Gorski:

"Although philosophers — like scholars, artists and other ideologists — may more or less fail to recognize it and some times remain totally unaware of it, this conditioning of their attitude to so-called ‘ultimate questions’ takes effect notwithstanding. What Engels said of the lawyers is valid in an even acuter sense for philosophy: ‘The reflecting of economic conditions in legal principles operates without impinging on the awareness of the agents, and the lawyer imagines that he is operating with a priori theses, whereas they are simply economic reflexes ...’ Hence each ideology is consciously attached to ‘a specific intellectual fabric which has been transmitted by its predecessors’.[1] But this does not alter the fact that the selection of these traditional strands, one’s attitude towards them and method of treating them, the results obtained from a critique of them, etc., are, in the final reckoning, determined by economic conditions and the class struggles to which they give rise. Philosophers know instinctively what is theirs to defend, and where the enemy lurks. Instinctively sensing the ‘dangerous’ tendencies of their age, they try to combat them philosophically....

....The method itself, of course, came into being long before him [Nietzsche]. In all reactionary biologist social theories (it may be no accident that the two make a regular habit of appearing together), the ‘biological law’ — the ‘organic’ in Restauration philosophy, the ‘struggle for survival’ in Social Darwinism — constantly appears as the basis from which the most diverse regressive conclusions are drawn in the fields of society, morals, etc. In reality the situation is the reverse of this. Out of the ‘restoration’ need to create a concept of society which — logically and ontologically — precluded any revolution a priori, there arose that notion of the ‘organic’ which this philosophy thereupon took as its basis without worrying about whether the analogy was possible and arguable in scientific terms." Lukacs - The Destruction of Reason

 

[dilute micro]

Scientific theories don't have methodological or ideological trouble.

Yes they do. It depends on what you believe to begin with. You can let the evidence tell you what's what or you can already believe the theory true and go looking for anything to support it.

“’We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those.’ Why? ‘Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.’ That’s by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.” – Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History, Wall Street Journal, 9 Dec. 86

 

[dilute micro]

I still don't think they are talking about the same thing. Not that I've read Goodwin's book, so I'm not sure. As far as I can tell Goodwin is talking about mechanisms at the level of individual organisms and/or at the level of genes. Gould is talking about how the standard theory does not extrapolate to species selection. These points aren't even similar.

The reason I'm picking up on this is that you are raising technical criticisms of neo-Darwinism but not going into any of the technical details. At the minute its just quote mining. I'd rather get down to the nitty-gritty and see what these technical points actually are and what they amount to.

Knotted you're just going to have to read more. Natural selection is part of the general theory.

 

[gorski]

He's not interested.

 

[Knotted]

Yes they do. It depends on what you believe to begin with. You can let the evidence tell you what's what or you can already believe the theory true and go looking for anything to support it.

“’We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those.’ Why? ‘Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.’ That’s by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.” – Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History, Wall Street Journal, 9 Dec. 86

I appreciate that this is a slightly pedantic point but you are talking about scientific theorising rather than established scientific theories. You can establish the same theory using different methodologies. The theory itself is not dependent on a particular theoretical justification or the methodology of that justification. You can be right for the wrong reasons and establish a sound justification later.

At root, we are talking about the status of modern evolutionary theory, not Darwin's methods. (Not that Darwin's methods were bad!)

 

[Knotted]

Knotted you're just going to have to read more. Natural selection is part of the general theory.

Yes.

To expand:- As I read it, Gould here is questioning the scope of natural selection ie. whether or not it "extrapolates" to what you call the "general theory"

As I read it, Goodwin here is questioning whether the application of natural selection is unproblematic in what you call the "specific theory".

 

[dilute micro]

Of course. But its quotes like that that creationists (and "agnostics") pounce on. Read the quote honestly and you will see that its pretty bland. He talks about oversimplification in textbooks - implying the Darwinian ideas that they are oversimplifying are not wrong.

Who cares what creationists pounce on? Don't play spin-doctor. He obviously mentions other things than just oversimplification....

"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy as crept into textbooks....One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood geology." - David Raup, U of Chicago & Field Museum, Science, vol.213, p289.

 

[Knotted]

Who cares what creationists pounce on? Don't play spin-doctor. He obviously mentions other things than just oversimplification....

Yeah sure, he talks about wishful thinking. So what?

Edit: Also notice Raup talks about "in the years after Darwin". Again exempting Darwin from criticism, but criticising a certain interpretation popular among Darwinian paleontolgists. How you can read this as burying Darwinism is beyond me.

 

[dilute micro]

I appreciate that this is a slightly pedantic point but you are talking about scientific theorising rather than established scientific theories. You can establish the same theory using different methodologies. The theory itself is not dependent on a particular theoretical justification or the methodology of that justification. You can be right for the wrong reasons and establish a sound justification later.

At root, we are talking about the status of modern evolutionary theory, not Darwin's methods. (Not that Darwin's methods were bad!)

Don't forget your claim above mentioned ideology as well as methodologies (which is what you're defending).

"ideological trouble"

 

[Knotted]

Don't forget your claim above mentioned ideology as well as methodologies (which is what you're defending).

"ideological trouble"

That's even easier. Science does not depend on what you want it to be. For example, one might not like Darwinism because it was abused by the social Darwinists. Tough.

 

[kyser_soze]

Astonishingly, evolution as a meta-theory has many different strands within it, one of which is based around the ideas of Darwin. Now many scientists who would include themselves and their standpoint as being within the meta-theory don't agree with Darwin's natural selection basis, and point to various evidentiary and philosophical issues that are associated with Darwinism. Others go on to point out the dangers associated with applying such concepts into the social sphere; others still point out that such a theory is innately connected to the mores of the society that the scientist comes from. Of course, all those doing the criticising are equally open to the same and other criticisms - academic ego and ambition for one.

Big fucking deal. Science wouldn't be science without people disagreeing about it, but what's interesting is that the basic meta-theory - that organisms change over time as a response to changes in environment - is still valid and still holds. Quite honestly I think it's a combination of many different technical strands - ultimately, natural selection has it's place since an organism that can't breed can't reproduce, so from that perspective it's correct. HOW those changes happen, their pace of change etc, is what we're discovering now...I reckon it's a combination of things TBH, and that there aren't any universally applicable laws, processes or elements outside of survive until reproduction - it's the changes that take place to enable that reproduction that are the interesting bit.

 

[phildwyer]

Astonishingly, evolution as a meta-theory has many different strands within it, one of which is based around the ideas of Darwin. Now many scientists who would include themselves and their standpoint as being within the meta-theory don't agree with Darwin's natural selection basis, and point to various evidentiary and philosophical issues that are associated with Darwinism. Others go on to point out the dangers associated with applying such concepts into the social sphere; others still point out that such a theory is innately connected to the mores of the society that the scientist comes from. Of course, all those doing the criticising are equally open to the same and other criticisms - academic ego and ambition for one.

Big fucking deal. Science wouldn't be science without people disagreeing about it, but what's interesting is that the basic meta-theory - that organisms change over time as a response to changes in environment - is still valid and still holds.

Why is that 'what's interesting?' It's not really very interesting at all, because theories of evolution are ancient. No-one here is disputing evolution. For me the truly interesting thing is that some of theories of evolution, such as Darwin's, categorically exclude any role for a Creator with intelligence, while others, such as Paley's, claim to have proved the involvement of such a Being. But unfortunately most people identify evolution with Darwinism, and so assume that because evolution is obviously true, the possibility of an intelligent Creator has been excluded from sensible people's minds. But of course that is not the case, and that is why we keep discussing the problems with Darwinism.

 

[gorski]

And especially because such a thought is then normative and at least "informs" people's judgements or even lies at the basis of societal organisation and onwards into the even intimate parts of who we are and how we act towards one another...

So many people feel nothing else is possible but whatever Attenborough "thought them" on TV, using categories from ethics to "explain" the Animal Kingdom and then - mutatis mutandis - allegedly "purely" naturalists terminology to "explain/understand" and justify the societal organisation of Humanity...

FFS!!!!

 

[kyser_soze]

Why is that 'what's interesting?' It's not really very interesting at all, because theories of evolution are ancient. No-one here is disputing evolution. For me the truly interesting thing is that some of theories of evolution, such as Darwin's, categorically exclude any role for a Creator with intelligence, while others, such as Paley's, claim to have proved the involvement of such a Being. But unfortunately most people identify evolution with Darwinism, and so assume that because evolution is obviously true, the possibility of an intelligent Creator has been excluded from sensible people's minds. But of course that is not the case, and that is why we keep discussing the problems with Darwinism.

OK, I'm interested by what kind of standards, if any, such a creaor should be judged by. I only say this, because on pretty much any grounds, the physical nature of the universe argues against an 'intelligent', certainly 'ethical' by human standards, creator. Most of the universe is empty and lethal to lifeforms such as ourselves. Even on the one planet we know for sure has life it's a fight between species and against nature to survive, a fight we often forget we're in until a harvest fails, or a volcano erupts. Hell, we even know that in Earth's history the planet has been hit by bits of rock that have been big enough to nearly denude the planet of life.

So while you may argue for a 'rational' argument of some kind of deity, should such a thing exist it falls far short of any human standards of what would be considered intelligent or kind - far from the idealised creature that exists in Xtian literature at least.

 

[gorski]

That depends entirely on your understanding of "God".

It seems to me you're thinking of a benevolent old uncle, sitting on a cloud, caressing his old, long and grey beard...

I think you should study Hegel a lot more, to understand the idea of God properly.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I dunno. Perhaps my experiences have been unfortunate but I've seen a few quite intelligent philosophy students get into Hegel and end up unable to talk anything but nonsense.

So to me that sounds a bit like 'You should try heroin'

 

[gorski]

I think you need to move from this country or indeed the Anglo-American world, in order to become a Human Being. It's not a prerequisite but is sure as hell can help!

Start with his Philosophy of History. Not hard at all. To start with.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I think it's a matter of opinion.

It's just that hegelians have always struck me as a bit cult-like, with this special language of their own in which they can prove anything they want to, no matter how obviously nonsensical it might be.

 

[gorski]

No, although you have to able to understand it you don't have to speak it. English logics. Crap as usual! Lazy!

 

[d.a.s.h]

I think you need to move from this country or indeed the Anglo-American world, in order to become a Human Being.

Writes gorski (Location: London).

 

[d.a.s.h]

Anyway, what profoundly humanising part of the world are you from?

One of those places where they were chucking Jews down wells in the 19th century, rounding up Gypsies for the extermination camps in the 1940s, or slitting the throats of Bosnian Muslims at the end of the 20th century?

Surely not.

 

[kyser_soze]

That depends entirely on your understanding of "God".

It seems to me you're thinking of a benevolent old uncle, sitting on a cloud, caressing his old, long and grey beard...

I think you should study Hegel a lot more, to understand the idea of God properly.

I should study one person's interpretation of what 'God' might be in order to understand it properly. Isn't that rather limiting? And benevolent? Did you actually read my post?

There are as many variants on god, and concepts thereof, as there are human beings G. Rather predicatably you're assuming that I'm thinking of the totally anthropromorphised God that the Judeo-Xtians worship - indeed, one version of God itself.

I remember having a similar conversation with phil about this - basically came down to the same answer, unless you are talking about what I define as god there's no point. However, in this case it's quite clear which form of God we're discussing - God The Creator of The Universe; the actual physical universe that we inhabit, not the God of the mind that exists in you, me and everyone. So that's my term - it's the God of creation I'm talking about. Now quite obviously we're talking about some form of entity capable of cerating organised, and self-organising, matter. We're talking about a being whose awareness spans infinity. We're talking, as I said, about a being that doesn't give a flying fuck about the biological bits of it's creation, and that fails every measure of human concepts of intelligence or ethics.

So rather than give your standard response of 'go and read Hegel', try actually answering a direct question...

 

[kyser_soze]

I think you need to move from this country or indeed the Anglo-American world, in order to become a Human Being. It's not a prerequisite but is sure as hell can help!

Start with his Philosophy of History. Not hard at all. To start with.

Another point - I've travelled extensively and for long periods of time around the world, probably more than you have, and outside Europe and seen and spoken to a great many people about their concepts of self, being, God etc so don't start on this 'OH, the Anglo-saxon world with it's obsession with actual answers' bullshit...

 

[gorski]

Ayayyyyaaaaayyy...

To get at the idea of God from different angles - do I really have to study it from different angles? Ahem... Never mind... You do realise that Hegel's idea of God is.... not your anti-Darwinian, creationist, common-sense "idea" of God? Hence, I suggested that there are other understandings/interpretations of the idea worth considering... Since there are childish ones and then there are more sophisticated one, too... [Btw, how do you know how much I have travelled and even lived abroad etc.?]

Dash, not seeing the wood for the trees, are we? The worse offenders in the history of the world are the Anglo-Saxons, "conquering"... ermmm, pardon me, "civilising the world", genocide, the 2 WWs, the atom bomb and all!!! Then, add the Germans, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Belgians and the Dutch and voila! Maybe the Turks, too - after their alleged "modernisation". All else is child's play by comparison, as gruesome and as horrible as it is.

But it was said in different [spiritual] manner: to move out of this silly and rather lazy spiritual position, the limitations of which are quite obvious, if one is stuck with its "traditions" - and you do know it, btw. It really stinks to high heavens, the attitude in many a "spiritual place" [University], openly preaching the superiority of the Anglo-American "tradition" [analytical, positivist, utilitarian and what not]...

Not that my yearned for physical move away from London and the UK, not to mention this adversarial politico-economic and societal model in general, would come too soon... Alas, reality of it all is not that simple to overcome for me, right now...

 

[d.a.s.h]

Dash, not seeing the wood for the trees, are we?

I think you need to move from this country or indeed the Anglo-American world, in order to become a Human Being.

Go and fuck yourself.

 

[gorski]

What, it hurts to point out the obvious, doesn't it?

You wanted to stick it to me, so now go and sulk, yeah. And fuck you, too, eye!!

 

[d.a.s.h]

I think you need to move from this country or indeed the Anglo-American world, in order to become a Human Being.

Go and fuck yourself.

 

[gorski]

Oooo, I hit a raw nerve... How dare I question the unquestionable...???

I think you need to move from this country or indeed the Anglo-American world, in order to become a Human Being. It's not a prerequisite but is sure as hell can help!

Just to see the whole thing so one can get the meaning of it. If one has ears and good will to hear...

Besides, these places are no longer amongst the best places in the world to live in, in case you wondered... It's the Scandinavians, the Benelux countries etc. The UK is piss poor by most [UN and otherwise] standards.

And they didn't even try measuring the attitudes in Academia...

So, you know what you can do with that misquote!!!