Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

[gorski]

He [Alty] was way below Marx, a simple-minded [Stalinist] positivist, who never reached Marx's speculative position... Not worth the bother!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

No, cybernetics won't tell you anything about Human Nature, sorry. Or Human Society, for that matter. These are delusions of the fields you mentioned. It's just too short a tool to cover any of these issues/problems/subjects...

Perhaps so, but it lets you get interesting results in a lot of areas involving complexity that were previously outside the grasp of science and it certainly makes it clear why e.g. Malthus was talking nonsense. By the same token, science of evolutionary biology has a lot more going on in it than 'Darwinism' in the sense that I think you're talking about.

Now I accept that I'm being deliberately provocative by saying 'all philosophy is vapourware' (which would be an odd position for me to take given that I spent some time studying it) but it rather seems to me that you're saying 'people who haven't read Hegel, especially if their native language is English, are all benighted positivists/social darwinists' or something equally crude ...

 

[Fruitloop]

Surely the best cure for bad ideologically motivated science is good science - look at the way the early Government-sponsored research into MDMA has been utterly discredited - from within the scientific establishment itself, not by Critical Theory.

 

[kyser_soze]

Can I just ask that, since you clearly has so many issues with the UK, both philosophically and morally, why did you come to study here? Why not stay somewhere on continental Europe where you would be among like minded people? Your post #382 reminds me of the comment a conservative Muslim made about living in the UK, saying everywhere he went he saw sodomites and those beraking the Word of Allah, and equated living here with living in Soddom! I mean you must have known what the culture was from reading the philosophical works in the UK.

I also think you've painted a very rosy picture of how wonderfuil continental Europe is - that bourgeoise dream you're talking about, how well shared is it with immigrant communities? Europe has plenty of internal issues it needs to sort out, one of which are the culture differences between Africans and Muslims who do not necessarily subscribe to the continental tradition in their views or even the basic way of looking at the world as CT requires one to. Not only that, but whlie social mobility is greater within the EU, the European m/c still jealously guards it's position in exactly the same way the m/c here does. You also, in your comment on 'public schools' display ignorance of why they are called such - they were the first public schools, it's a historical name for them...and as if the elites of Europe don't send they're children to non-state schools! What a joke.

 

[Fruitloop]

Mmmm, those Europeans, so sophisticated.

 

[kyser_soze]

I'd also make the point that in France, it's almost impossible to reach the highest echelons of the state/corporations without having attended the Grand École D'Administration - the level of snobbery over both Sarkozy and Segolene Royale's education (neither of them attended) in sections of the French press was like reading the society section of Tatler!

 

[Fruitloop]

What's the point of comparing Habermas with Dawkins - it's not comparing like with like at all!

Compare Habermas with David Chalmers maybe, or Dawkins with Alain de Botton.....

 

[gorski]

Perhaps so, but it lets you get interesting results in a lot of areas involving complexity that were previously outside the grasp of science and it certainly makes it clear why e.g. Malthus was talking nonsense. By the same token, science of evolutionary biology has a lot more going on in it than 'Darwinism' in the sense that I think you're talking about.

Now I accept that I'm being deliberately provocative by saying 'all philosophy is vapourware' (which would be an odd position for me to take given that I spent some time studying it) but it rather seems to me that you're saying 'people who haven't read Hegel, especially if their native language is English, are all benighted positivists/social darwinists' or something equally crude ...

I did not say anything of the sort. The qualifications in my posts are obvious, while they were lacking in yours, as you just admitted...

 

[gorski]

Surely the best cure for bad ideologically motivated science is good science - look at the way the early Government-sponsored research into MDMA has been utterly discredited - from within the scientific establishment itself, not by Critical Theory.

So, you have no idea just how critical CT is...

 

[gorski]

Mmmm, those Europeans, so sophisticated.

I think I'd go with that any day, given the kind of "opposition" to bullshit by the UK gov in the UK...

 

[gorski]

Can I just ask that, since you clearly has so many issues with the UK, both philosophically and morally, why did you come to study here? Why not stay somewhere on continental Europe where you would be among like minded people? Your post #382 reminds me of the comment a conservative Muslim made about living in the UK, saying everywhere he went he saw sodomites and those beraking the Word of Allah, and equated living here with living in Soddom! I mean you must have known what the culture was from reading the philosophical works in the UK.

I also think you've painted a very rosy picture of how wonderfuil continental Europe is - that bourgeoise dream you're talking about, how well shared is it with immigrant communities? Europe has plenty of internal issues it needs to sort out, one of which are the culture differences between Africans and Muslims who do not necessarily subscribe to the continental tradition in their views or even the basic way of looking at the world as CT requires one to. Not only that, but whlie social mobility is greater within the EU, the European m/c still jealously guards it's position in exactly the same way the m/c here does. You also, in your comment on 'public schools' display ignorance of why they are called such - they were the first public schools, it's a historical name for them...and as if the elites of Europe don't send they're children to non-state schools! What a joke.

That's a really poor showing. Never talk about the issues, shove them under the carpet, like a good nationalist/conformist, defend "yours" in a tribal manner first and foremost, don't allow the jolly Johnny foreigner to say anything against the Motherland, they can't possibly know what they are talking about and even if they do - they can fuck off where they came from... Bravo! What a self-grounding... WOW!

As for the rest: who said that Continental EU is:

1) homogeneous

2) perfect

3) it equals France

??!!??

Besides, you do miss the point, as per usually... Just don't talk about issues [sex], we're British... Sidestep, evade, duck and dive... Yeah, right, as if one can't see it from a mile.... The self-delusional nonsense won't get anyone very far...

 

[gorski]

Perhaps so, but it lets you get interesting results in a lot of areas involving complexity that were previously outside the grasp of science and it certainly makes it clear why e.g. Malthus was talking nonsense.

One more thing: cybernetics will NOT tell you anything about Humanity, i.e. Human Nature, Imagination, Creativity, Innovation, Invention, Discovery, Freedom, Social Justice, Empathy, Solidarity etc. I.e. the real reasons why Malthus was a gangster...

 

[kyser_soze]

I love the way that when you kick off about something specific - in this case your diatribe against the UK - and someone comes back you just dismiss it! It was the same earlier with Habermas - you write something close to a eulogy to him, then when I take that up it's all suddenly 'Don't personalise it'.

And your own words betray you - you sing this song to the wonders of 'continental Europe' (homogenising it by using that very phrase) and then crticise me for doing the same - indeed, I actually mentioned a country where the bourgeoise ideal you're banging on about is deeply ossified and as stone like as you claim the UK to be!

You're SO dishonest it's painful -

'I'm all about emancipation, but only using the methods and thinking that I say everyone should'
'Those working classes - they need the help and guidance of public intellectuals to put them on the right path'
'It's OK to say continental Europe when I'm praising it, but if someone else mentions that, they're incorrect to homogenise it into one entity'

You're and élitist and a snob, and one thing about coming from a class-ridden, idiot society of shopkeepers the way I do, I'm better qualified to recognise those things than anyone.

The funny thing was, until you hit your shopkeeper rant, I was generally in agreement with you...

 

[gorski]

I love the way that when you kick off about something specific - in this case your diatribe against the UK - and someone comes back you just dismiss it!

YOU just dismissed it all! Besides, what's to agree with?

It was the same earlier with Habermas - you write something close to a eulogy to him, then when I take that up it's all suddenly 'Don't personalise it'.

Again, wrong! Nothing to do with it whatsoever. The OP is nothing like what you describe and I certainly am not in 100% agreement with him on many things! YOUR interpretation based on tribal spirit! Very silly, I must say!

And your own words betray you - you sing this song to the wonders of 'continental Europe' (homogenising it by using that very phrase) and then crticise me for doing the same...

I mentioned specific cases for specific issues. If only you have the mind and self-control to kick that tribal bullshit out of your head and heart you might be able to learn the best stuff from other places and not mix it all up in an unrecognisable mish-mesh...

indeed, I actually mentioned a country where the bourgeoise ideal you're banging on about is deeply ossified and as stone like as you claim the UK to be!

How come they elected that ossifed arsehole in France, then?

You're SO dishonest it's painful...

Only in your completely messed up head and heart - kick that tribal shit out and start thinking with your own head, not your UK head, FFS, it's so unbecoming for an alleged intellectual!!!

If you only remembered just how critical I am re. "my own neck of the woods" you just might start seeing how DISHONEST AND SERIOUSLY UNFAIR YOU ARE RIGHT NOW!! It just doesn't stack up at all, thanx to your fan-like attitude and tribal behaviour, as I have shown above!!

'I'm all about emancipation, but only using the methods and thinking that I say everyone should'

WTF?!?

'Those working classes - they need the help and guidance of public intellectuals to put them on the right path'

If you think that a greater part of the middle classes is much better you need to have your head examined!

'It's OK to say continental Europe when I'm praising it, but if someone else mentions that, they're incorrect to homogenise it into one entity'

Look above and don't be so disingenuous! I mentioned specific places for specific issues, perfectly consistent with the idea - for instance, CT, Systems Theory etc. - that Humans, even whole groups and even states, can learn. Yes, imagine this, the UK has a lot to learn from other places... IMAGINE THAT!!!!

You're and élitist and a snob, and one thing about coming from a class-ridden, idiot society of shopkeepers the way I do, I'm better qualified to recognise those things than anyone.

Nope, I am a frustrated utopian, i.e. a realist who tells it like it is. Take it or leave it. If you're so hurt by truth as I see it - DISCUSS THE FUCKING ISSUES,DON'T KILL THE MESSANGER, FFS!!!

The funny thing was, until you hit your shopkeeper rant, I was generally in agreement with you...

Of course you would be, if anyone has any brains... These are English people's descriptive words, not mine. I barely put them together with some elementary CT thinking... Jeez!

 

[Aldebaran]

I still have to see gorski come up with one single original idea of his own. He sincerely believes that reading philosophers, quoting them, use their ideas and referring to them, equals practicing philosophy.

It's in some way interesting to follow at first because you always expect that finally such a person would come up with an idea of his own. But no. Does not happen. It's like watching a parrot.

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Again, wrong! Nothing to do with it whatsoever. The OP is nothing like what you describe and I certainly am not in 100% agreement with him on many things! YOUR interpretation based on tribal spirit! Very silly, I must say!

I wasn't talking about the OP...maybe you should remember what you've written...

 

[gorski]

So, you agree with the rest? OK, apology accepted...

 

[Knotted]

That includes the controversies around Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Critical theory and adjoining ones are the best placed ones to understand the phenomenon properly and in any serious depth.

Let's cut to the chase. What does critical theory have to say about Darwinism and Social Darwinism? Any references?

Also have you read what people like Anton Pannekoek or JBS Haldane have to say? Haldane was a Marxist brought up as a Hegelian. He also played a pivotal role in developing the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

 

[8ball]

Let's cut to the chase. What does critical theory have to say about Darwinism and Social Darwinism? Any references?

Also have you read what people like Anton Pannekoek or JBS Haldane have to say? Haldane was a Marxist brought up as a Hegelian. He also played a pivotal role in developing the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Nice links - cheers - the Haldane essay is an old fave - will take a look at the other.

 

[Knotted]

Nice links - cheers - the Haldane essay is an old fave - will take a look at the other.

The Pannekoek is a bit dated and a bit wooden, but it answers all the objections that Gorski, Phil Dwyer and Dilute Micro are putting up.

The estimation of science has also undergone a change. Formerly the educated bourgeoisie founded upon science a materialistic conception of the universe, wherein they saw the solution of the universal riddle. Now mysticism has gained the upper hand; all that was solved appeared as very trivial, while all things that remained unsolved, appeared as very great indeed, embracing the most important life question. A sceptical, critical and doubting frame of mind has taken the place of the former jubilant spirit in favor of science.

This could also be seen in the stand taken against Darwin. “What does his theory show? It leaves unsolved the universal riddle! Whence comes this wonderful nature of transmission, whence the ability of animate beings to change so fitly?” Here lies the mysterious life riddle that could not be overcome with mechanical principles. Then, what was left of Darwinism in the light of later criticism?

Of course, the advance of science began to make rapid progress. The solution of one problem always brings a few more problems to the surface to be solved, which were hidden underneath the theory of transmission. This theory, that Darwin had to accept as a basis of inquiry, was ever more investigated, and a hot discussion arose about the individual factors of development and the struggle for existence. While a few scientists directed their attention to variation, which they considered due to exercise and adaptation to life (following the principle laid down by Lamarck) this idea was expressly denied by scientists like Weissman and others. While Darwin only assumed gradual and slow changes, De Vries found sudden and leaping cases of variation resulting in the sudden appearance of new species. All this, while it went to strengthen and develop the theory of descent, in some cases made the impression that the new discoveries rent asunder the Darwinian theory, and therefore every new discovery that made it appear so was hailed by the reactionists as a bankruptcy of Darwinism. This social conception had its influence on science. Reactionary scientists claimed that a spiritual element is necessary. The supernatural and insolvable has taken the place of Darwinism and that class which in the beginning was the banner bearer of Darwinism became ever more reactionary.

 

[butchersapron]

(As an aside, i was reading something about Haldane recently that claimed he was one of the few people to admit that he joined up in WW1 in order to kill people and that he unashamdly said he enjoyed doing so)

 

[gorski]

Stalin claimed he was a Communist! It would have been if it wasn't

 

[Knotted]

Let's cut to the chase. What does critical theory have to say about Darwinism and Social Darwinism? Any references?

They've had a century to comment on Darwinism and social Darwinism, why can you not find anything? Is it that they were/are not particularly well placed after all?

I'm genuinely curious where you get your ideas from. You might even have thought them up yourself without any reference to philosophical authority like the rest of us! The horror.

 

[gorski]

Troll, troll, troll yer boat gently by the stream...

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a joke...

 

[Knotted]

Troll, troll, troll yer boat gently by the stream...

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a joke...

That's a bit early for last resorts.

 

[Aldebaran]

I really wonder how gorski escapes being banned while poor Max is so frequently a victim of this drastic measure.

By the way gorski, only 1 smiley makes you a very poor debater!


salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Because, despite it all, max really does talk complete shite, Gorski doesn't. So while we might disagree, and G dismiss those disagreements, it's still better and more progressive than debating with Mr Freakout. In fact I think you're doing G a disservice in that comparison Alde.

 

[Knotted]

I really wonder how gorski escapes being banned while poor Max is so frequently a victim of this drastic measure.

By the way gorski, only 1 smiley makes you a very poor debater!


salaam.

Max hits urban's funny bone, gorski doesn't. For me gorski is actually more frustrating. That's just my peculiarities though.

Edit: Actually scratch that. Its not my peculiarities. Gorski is now pretending that scientists don't understand the danger of nuclear weapons if they have not had a philosophical/humanist education. Sorry, gorski talks more shit than max. End of.

 

[gorski]

Yep, me not English... And me not sorry, either... well, seeing most of yous...

 

[gorski]

Btw, Alde is worst! So, you can have something to look down upon...