Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Steven Pinker / Evolutionary Psychology

Always an 'ism' with you people isn't it?

Scientists fo not study Darwinism, Dawkinsism, Einsteinism, Gouldism, Watson and Crickism, Hawkingsism or any other ism.

There just isn't the need to label a method of investigation in that way.

Not so many alpha males in the discipline I suppose.

And Nosos, care to read back and observe who has been doing the 'attacking?'

Sorry no, rhetorical question.

You are all right about one thing, this is the philosophyism forum, and I shouldn't be on it.

With a bit of luck you'll all become quantum locked, and cease to exist the minute you stop looking at your own navels.
 
kyser_soze said:
That was less against Locke and more against the hordes of academicians, esp in the US, who have turned it into a absolute; a lot of the book is clearly aimed at settling some scores within the US academic community.
Click to expand...

Well that's the excuse. Still it seems to me that Pinker is just trying to create more heat than light. Does Pinker agree or disagree with Locke? Or for that matter Descarte or Rouseau? Do Pinker's opponents site Locke, Descarte or Rouseau? Its a really weird polemic. Pretty much everyone is influenced by empiricism, rationalism and romanticism in one way or another. Its like the whole world is out to get him. The result being that (for me at least) he just comes across as a crank.

The other thing that bugs me is how he breezily discusses the conclusions of evolutionary psychology. He doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between well supported theory, weekly supported theory, plausible hypotheses and curious talking points. Its all reported in much the same borish manner. That is until he rejects some of the more illiberal theories like the Bell Curve on (wait for it) cultural grounds! Again he comes across as a crank, not a scientist - incautiously trumpeting results he likes and dismissing results he doesn't like.

I've been glancing through the book again and it reminds me of why I put it down in the first place (in case you couldn't tell). He get's stuck on basic logic. For example Pinker accurately points out that Skinner had a utopian political vision derivigin from his radical behaviourism and so Pinker then concludes that Skinner is infected with the idea of the noble savage. What?? Its probably true that people who believe in the noble savage have utopian leanings but the reverse need not be true. I'd expect a tabloid columnist to misuse modus ponens not a professor who leads research into cognitive psychology and linguistics. Logical thinking is something you have to learn prof. it doesn't just come 'naturally' you know.

To be fair he does present some of the theory. There are some good appetite wetters. But there is no discussion. These tasters do not assuage my hunger. Tell me more about modularity. Are there controversies here? Is it completely sound? How does it work?

Somebody write a proper book on evolutionary psychology! At the minute the handful of wikipedia pages are more informative than Pinker's 500 odd pages.
 
ai it makes me laugh those rortyites are just the second stage of sartreans; "postmodern" eh well i can't think of many founders that woud agree with him. he'll be a laughing stock in 40 years lol.

and its not philosophy versus science cos subjectivist pragmatism is it has nothing to do with philosophy. surely it can only be defended by claiming that discourse on truth is orthogonal to it ;)
 
8ball, I'm hoping that was a joke that went over my Sunday morning head.

If not- get your hands off my garlic and step away from the crucifix:D
 
agentred said:
and its not philosophy versus science cos subjectivist pragmatism is it has nothing to do with philosophy
Click to expand...

Of course that's true: its *anti*-philosophy. Unfortunately it does perfectly capture the common-sense, everyday understanding of most people in the English-speaking world, as we see from these threads, and therefore this sad, anemic parody of philosophy actually makes up the majority of philosophy currently practiced in the UK and USA. And they wonder why we're in Iraq.
 
You may well be in Iraq, pall, because fashionable notions in the US academic community deem it 'impolite' to go full on against the numbnuts Christian Fundies who appear to run the good ole US and it's military industrial complex.

Probably some misplaced view of 'relativism', but where Yanks are concerned, my default view is always 'money'.
 
agentred said:
ai it makes me laugh those rortyites are just the second stage of sartreans; "postmodern" eh well i can't think of many founders that woud agree with him. he'll be a laughing stock in 40 years lol.

and its not philosophy versus science cos subjectivist pragmatism is it has nothing to do with philosophy. surely it can only be defended by claiming that discourse on truth is orthogonal to it ;)
Click to expand...

You are Sokal.

Where's my fiver?

Is the last paragraph Welsh?

"Subjectivist pragmatism is it boyo look you see?"

Off to took up 'orthogonal'. That is a sweety.
 
Calva dosser said:
You may well be in Iraq, pall, because fashionable notions in the US academic community deem it 'impolite' to go full on against the numbnuts Christian Fundies who appear to run the good ole US and it's military industrial complex.

Probably some misplaced view of 'relativism', but where Yanks are concerned, my default view is always 'money'.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself here. First its "Christian Fundies" who run the USA, then its "money." It can't be both. The truth is, of course, that it is *capital,* and neo-pragmatism has always been the philosophical expression of capitalism. Do not be fooled by Bush's protestations of religiousity.
 
Calva dosser said:
You may well be in Iraq, pall, because fashionable notions in the US academic community deem it 'impolite' to go full on against the numbnuts Christian Fundies
Click to expand...

It is also probably worth pointing out that this is bullshit, and that the US academic community does little other than fulminate against Christian fundamentalism. Thus they aim at the wrong target, believing that religion rather than capital is the enemy, and fall neatly into the trap that has been laid for them. As do you.
 
I do not contradict myself.

Christian Fundies and money, IME are inseperable.

I grew up in a town run by the bastards.

If I'd toughed it out a bit longer I may have had the mansion on the hill.

The American religious right are the 'moral' force-shield that the military industrial complex uses to get it's own way.

The recruiting ground for the shock troops of capitalism, just as the poorer parts of the Mahgreb, Gaza, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan are for suicide bombers.
 
phildwyer said:
It is also probably worth pointing out that this is bullshit, and that the US academic community does little other than fulminate against Christian fundamentalism. Thus they aim at the wrong target, believing that religion rather than capital is the enemy, and fall neatly into the trap that has been laid for them. As do you.
Click to expand...


Try saying

"I am an Atheist"

and standing for any form of public post in Seppoe land.

They would rather elect a gay trotskyist paedophile.

In Alabama.
 
Calva dosser said:
Try saying

"I am an Atheist"

and standing for any form of public post in Seppoe land.

They would rather elect a gay trotskyist paedophile.

In Alabama.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That is why Bush

And his fellow spokesmen for capital

Must pretend to be religious even though they quite clearly

Are not. You are making a grave mistake if you think

They are.

You do however have a rather engaging and even addictive

Style.
 
Calva dosser said:
The American religious right are the 'moral' force-shield that the military industrial complex uses to get it's own way.
Click to expand...

that's exactly right as it happens,

But, you totally fail to understand the situation if you think that these christian fundies are genuinely christian fundies.

it's quite possible to find genuine christian fundies who think all manner of bizarre things like hollywood is a satanic ploy to corrupt the youth of america, who will also go on to claim that bush and his lot are devil-worshippers.
 
Ah, is there some kind of 'dipstick' type test for true fundyism? (oops, bit philosophist there, still- right forum).

You know, like a predictor for naughty girlies?

Blue and you're a genuine hellfire fundy,

Red and you've got a small antipersonnel mine factory in the shed?

The fact remains- no one can get into a position of power in The USA unless they declare themselves to be suffering from the mental illness of religion.
 
I'm not aware of any infallible empirical test for whether someone's a genuine christian or not, as it's always possible for people to lie.

What I can't work out is why you think that's relevant?

I mean, so what?
 
I like to know which particular brand of nutter is running the planet, or trying to blow me up at any given time.

Idle little hobby of mine.:)
 
I don't put any stock in the little judgemental word 'evil'.

"Why does treason never prosper?"

"If treason prospered, none dare call it treason"

I have little doubt that Dubya, is, a fundy.

On the other hand, I have little doubt that he works for people who would cheerfuly use the Holy Beeble as bum wad.

A question perhaps for Phildwyer.

'If the US was a totally secular country, where it was assumed that religion was a minority activity indulged in by a few eccentrics, would you be in Iraq?"

Silly question really, because we all know the answer is ; yes OIL.

But would the unquestioning support of the American public have been so unquestioning?

Would someone like Bush have ever come to power in the first place?
 
Calva dosser said:
A question perhaps for Phildwyer.

'If the US was a totally secular country, where it was assumed that religion was a minority activity indulged in by a few eccentrics, would you be in Iraq?"

Silly question really, because we all know the answer is ; yes OIL.

But would the unquestioning support of the American public have been so unquestioning?
Click to expand...

What in the name of God gives you the impression that there is "unquestioning" support for the occupation of Iraq in America? You, like many others on these boards, appear to get your impression of America from the back of a crisp packet.
 
They must have censored the demos, then and now.

Sorry.

I'll take it that the answer was "yes, repeat no, the 95% christian USA would still have invaded Iraq, because without oil how would we get to church? We all knew Dubya was a wrongun, but Jeebus comes first"?

Or something.
 
Calva dosser said:
I don't put any stock in the little judgemental word 'evil'.

"Why does treason never prosper?"

"If treason prospered, none dare call it treason"

I have little doubt that Dubya, is, a fundy.

On the other hand, I have little doubt that he works for people who would cheerfuly use the Holy Beeble as bum wad.

A question perhaps for Phildwyer.

'If the US was a totally secular country, where it was assumed that religion was a minority activity indulged in by a few eccentrics, would you be in Iraq?"

Silly question really, because we all know the answer is ; yes OIL.

But would the unquestioning support of the American public have been so unquestioning?

Would someone like Bush have ever come to power in the first place?
Click to expand...

a well thought out answer.

but you could have just answered the question, no?

So leaving aside deep questions about whether people are evil, or whether their actions are evil, or whether the word evil is meaningful in any way.

Do you generally think that people who are up to something that would generally be thought to be evil, - are truthful about what they're up to?

Or is that pressing the point too hard?

From what you wrote a few posts back, you do seem to have something against George Bush, - but apparently, it's not that you think he's evil. Do you think instead that he's well-meaning, but his policies are evil? Or do you reject the concept evil altogether?
 
I was not aware that this thread, or any other on Urban was about the heinous activity of 'answering questions'.

Mostly a bunch of alpha males scent marking.

Sorry, just rubbing some velvet off my keyboard, it's the rut you know.

Where were we?
Oh Yes. No I do not think anyone is evil. Not even call- centre managers, although some of my posts may give the lie to that assertion:)

Evil is a human construct. Forged by jumped up monkeymen who wouldn't recognise it if it got mediaeval on their botties.

Some people, however can be demonstrably proved to be shits, by their actions.

Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher, Bush, John Prescott, Mika, James Blunt, George Lucas.

A very long list.

Oh and Michael Winner.
 
Well, as you've avoided the question again, I'll just note that presumably it's not a question you want to answer.

I suppose it's fairly obvious why you don't want to answer it, - you can obviously script the ensuing conversation as well as i can, and you don't want to look stupid, or like you're talking rubbish.

I don't really see what the difference is between you calling your list of people, -shits- and me calling them "evil"

Obviously there is a difference in the word, but, I can't see any difference in the conceptual content. Anyway, I'm not sure you're being entirely honest when you say you don't believe in the concept, - because saying that "so and so wouldn't recognise evil..." etc. does seem to imply that there's something to be recognised, - (this line bears a curious resemblance to the most insightful comment pbman ever made to me by the way)

But, the way I see it, if you don't think Bush or his policies, or the policies of the people he works for are "evil" or, alternatively, that they're shit, (still failing to see the difference) I wonder what you have against him. On balance, I reckon you probably think he's quite sound.
 
A good thread would be for the future, - why is treason a bad idea?

it really is, I fear, - humanity may doom themselves to self-inflicted suffering for as long as they survive, if they don't take up the opportunity to restore the magic to life. And that's the way things seem to be going.

And for what good reason. ?

(goin offline)
 
"Do you think it's generally a characteristic of evil people to be truthful about what they're really up to?"

Was that 'the question'?

Sorry I glossed over it. Must have quoted the amendment or something.

I can't believe you thought that was a question.

When I see a shit, I know it is a shit. I can test it for shittiness, measure it's viscosity, sniff it (if stupid enough) test it for occult blood, excess bilirubin, and all stations to Jerusalem South.

When someone says someone or thing is 'evil', a nasty suspicious part of me suggests there may be a shag grudge going on.

You are off line, I assume.

So the thought that there is more than enough magic in this cosmos to occupy a Bodmin Moor full of witchy bitchies, will go unremarked.
 
Calva dosser said:
They must have censored the demos, then and now.
Click to expand...

You wot? There were loads of massive demos against the war in the US, and they were shown on TV all over the world. Where were you hiding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

revol68
Belief in Evolutionary Psychology May Be Hardwired
Replies
10
Views
772
zion
Z
Wolveryeti
What are the psychological dynamics at work behind scandals in the Catholic church?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
Ibn Khaldoun
Ibn Khaldoun
frogwoman
Wilhelm Reich's - the Mass Psychology of Fascism
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
gorski
gorski
S
Jung visionary or psychologically damaged?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
Shevek
S
Nikolai
Can Evolutionary Theory Explain Human Consciousness?
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
599
Views
20K
dirtyfruit
dirtyfruit
Back
Top Bottom