universal values?

[phildwyer]

Yes, Phil, I know. The least controversial part of Darwin's theory - the part that nobody has ever seriously doubted - was based on Malthus. It is the argument that natural selection exists at all ie. some organism fail to reproduce or reproduce less successfully than they could potentially reproduce. This argument needn't be based on Malthus - it's bleedin' obvious.

No that is not the part that's based on Malthus. That's why Darwin's reading of Malthus struck him as a revelation: it wasn't obvious at all. The part that is based on Malthus concerns the causality of evolution. Malthus led Darwin to believe--wrongly--that evolution is caused by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment, as opposed for example to an asteroid crashing into earth and killing loads of things.

I think we're all agreed not to bother with memetics. It's just odd that you and revol and yapping on about it as if it were relevant.

The second post on this thread called it the meaning of life or something. Lots of people take it seriously, you ever read New Scientist or similar pop-evo rags?

 

[gorski]

Yes, Phil, I know. The least controversial part of Darwin's theory - the part that nobody has ever seriously doubted - was based on Malthus.

That is a complete nonsense!!! That is the single most "unfortunate" and seriously embarrassing "moment" in the whole story. The bit I argued in the "Evolutionary this-that-or-the-other" thread. Most haven't had a clue and couldn't believe it when I stated it. Why would they, when even the "scientists" do not know about it, and even if they do, they

1) don't want to talk about it... [well, not even to think about it...]

2) many a time they do not understand it properly, as they might not have either the necessary education [or even the basic info].

The implications are staggering! Imagine the bullshit about the "misappropriated Darwin by Hitler" nonsense, when in effect this was set in motion, in a manner of speaking, when Darwin got his methodology and ideology, his categorical apparatus, from Social Sciences. He took it into the "natural sciences" and now, low and behold - OH, WONDER!!! - somebody took it back where it belongs, in the first place, back to the "social sciences", only this time with an open social programme built into it!!!!

Mind, apart from the obvious improvement in relation to the Church version of "why are we here" Q, already Marx [after giving him the credit Darwin deserves] warns that Mr. Darwin, curiously, recognises his own society wherever he looks...

Not that social darwinists would care....

But we should!!!

 

[gorski]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...and-culture?highlight=evolutionary+psychology

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-and-culture?p=6055060&viewfull=1#post6055060 - post 128

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read, Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work"

As for Marx's critical approach:

Everywhere he looks Mr. Darwin recognises his own society!

 

[Knotted]

No that is not the part that's based on Malthus. That's why Darwin's reading of Malthus struck him as a revelation: it wasn't obvious at all. The part that is based on Malthus concerns the causality of evolution. Malthus led Darwin to believe--wrongly--that evolution is caused by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment, as opposed for example to an asteroid crashing into earth and killing loads of things.

Read up on it phil. Develop a sense of self-doubt. Check out what you are saying. Check out what Darwin said, where he said. Check out what scientists are saying. I know it's difficult but you have to teach yourself how to be an autodidact.

The second post on this thread called it the meaning of life or something. Lots of people take it seriously, you ever read New Scientist or similar pop-evo rags?

I read the New Scientist quite regularly. I can't remember any articles on memetics. They probably exist but I haven't seen them. Nobody really cares for memetics. When it comes down to it, memetics hasn't shown any promise. Memetics? Meh-metics.

 

[Knotted]

Gorski - same reply. You need to teach yourself to be an autodidact. Go away read up.

 

[Fruitloop]

The inspiration for increase in population might have come from Malthus, but it is nevertheless observable within the natural sciences. It's what bacteria do in a petri dish.

 

[Knotted]

That is a complete nonsense!!! That is the single most "unfortunate" and seriously embarrassing "moment" in the whole story. The bit I argued in the "Evolutionary this-that-or-the-other" thread. Most haven't had a clue and couldn't believe it when I stated it. Why would they, when even the "scientists" do not know about it, and even if they do, they

1) don't want to talk about it... [well, not even to think about it...]

2) many a time they do not understand it properly, as they might not have either the necessary education [or even the basic info].

The implications are staggering! Imagine the bullshit about the "misappropriated Darwin by Hitler" nonsense, when in effect this was set in motion, in a manner of speaking, when Darwin got his methodology and ideology, his categorical apparatus, from Social Sciences. He took it into the "natural sciences" and now, low and behold - OH, WONDER!!! - somebody took it back where it belongs, in the first place, back to the "social sciences", only this time with an open social programme built into it!!!!

Mind, apart from the obvious improvement in relation to the Church version of "why are we here" Q, already Marx [after giving him the credit Darwin deserves] warns that Mr. Darwin, curiously, recognises his own society wherever he looks...

Not that social darwinists would care....

But we should!!!

I'm trying to think who gorski is reminding me of. I've just remembered - Glen Beck. A stream of consciousness of surreal associations ending with Hitler serving a paranoid McCarthyite agenda. Darwinists under the bed!! They'll be taking away christmas next.

 

[gorski]

You mean, you don't wanna read up... Poor troll...

What, you're now into ignoring evidence for the benefit of "rejuvenating the debate"?

Oychhhh...

 

[gorski]

Marx to Engels, 18 June 1862 [from "Selected Writings", p. 526]

...Darwin, whom I have looked up again, amuses me when he says he is applying the 'Malthusian' theory also to plants and animals, as if with Mr. Malthus the whole point were not that he does not apply the theory to plants and animals but only to human beings - and with geometrical progression - as opposed to plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin recognizes among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening-up of new markets, `inventions', and the Malthusian `struggle for existence'. It is Hobbes's bellum omnium contra omnes, and one is reminded of Hegel's Phenomenology, where civil society is described as a `spiritual animal kingdom', while in Darwin the animal kingdom figures as civil society...

Eat your hat now, K...

 

[Knotted]

I've done my duty on this one three or four times at least. I've looked at it, I've gone through it with you. I might be wrong, but you don't check. I learn nothing from you. You don't think for yourself. You don't ask yourself any questions. You act like piece of dead wood. You learn nothing, you just regurgitate received wisdom. That goes for phil as well. You're just ignorant, you're ignorant about your ignorance. There's nothing I can do you for you, apart from give you a kick up the bum for being lazy loudmouth who's too scared to read anything that's outside your academic speciality.

 

[gorski]

You really think all this about yourself? Well, my hat down to you, m8!!! It takes balls to do this!!! There is still hope for you, after all...

 

[Knotted]

Quick one for Phil.

If you do a search for the word "meme" at the New Scientist website you get 58 entries. If you do a search for the word "memetics" you get 15 entries.

If you do a search for the word "marx" you get 96 entries. If you do a search for the word "marxism" you get 26 entries.

Given that Marxism is not really in the NS's remit, its interesting that it is more talked about in the NS than memetics. Perhaps you think the NS is puplication poisoning the minds of our youth with evil memetic nonsense. The type of right wing loon who would say that the NS is poisoning the youth with evil Marxist nonsense would have more justification than you.

This is where paranoia leads. Just step outside your cocoon for one minute. For god's sake.

 

[Knotted]

Alright then gorski the floor is yours. Here are the chapters of the Origin of Species:

Chapter 1: Variation Under Domestication
Chapter 2: Variation Under Nature
Chapter 3: Struggle for Existence
Chapter 4: Natural Selection
Chapter 5: Laws of Variation
Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory
Chapter 7: Instinct
Chapter 8: Hybridism
Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
Chapter 10: On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings
Chapter 11: Geographical Distribution
Chapter 12: Geographical Distribution - continued
Chapter 13: Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs
Chapter 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion

If you are struggling to explain how Darwin uses Malthus' population theory, how about an easier question. Where does Darwin use Malthus' population theory. Can you name the chapter(s)?

 

[gorski]

Heheheeee.... Very poor, silly old troll...

You mean, it really is "wondrous" how "it all fits" [in ALL walks of life, as it were - "because it works"], given the fact it was taken from "social sciences" into "natural sciences" to begin with, and then - Oh, joy! What a beautiful 'coincidence'! - it was "brilliantly discovered" that if you take it all from Darwin and "natural sciences" [back] into "social sciences"... well... guess what... "it works"...

 

[Knotted]

Which chapter(s)?

 

[gorski]

You missed a bit...

 

[Knotted]

Which chapter(s), gorski?

 

[Knotted]

You know it's online don't you? Do a search. Come on, you can research for yourself. You are capable.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've done my duty on this one three or four times at least. I've looked at it, I've gone through it with you. I might be wrong, but you don't check. I learn nothing from you. You don't think for yourself. You don't ask yourself any questions. You act like piece of dead wood. You learn nothing, you just regurgitate received wisdom. That goes for phil as well. You're just ignorant, you're ignorant about your ignorance. There's nothing I can do you for you, apart from give you a kick up the bum for being lazy loudmouth who's too scared to read anything that's outside your academic speciality.

I totally and utterly dispute what you're saying.
I suspect it has far more to do with a fear of being seen to step outside of the academic consensus on any given subject that informs their "regurgitations".

 

[bhamgeezer]

This thread is funny

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is, isn't it?

 

[revol68]

Marx had his criticisms of Darwin's analogies and metaphors and how they aped the society he lived within but he most certainly held Darwin's overall theory in high regard and even sent him a copy of Capital, which he saw as a kind of political economy companion to The Origin of Species.

As for memes well it might be pretty irrelevant in that very few take it seriously but it's still very symptomatic of a crudely reductionist approach that tends to happen when evolutionary approachs are crowbarred into other areas. I mean the fact that Dawkin's once referred to himself as a Gramscian yet bust out memes as an analogy with genes as a means of explaining things like the persistence of religious thinking should really highlight the poverty of applying evolutionary thinking to human relations and this applies to the far more popular bollox of evolutionary psychology.

 

[Knotted]

Marx had his criticisms of Darwin's analogies and metaphors and how they aped the society he lived within but he most certainly held Darwin's overall theory in high regard and even sent him a copy of Capital, which he saw as a kind of political economy companion to The Origin of Species.

I think Engels summed up this issue nicely in anti-Duhring.

I think most modern biologists do not see competition as being fundamental in the way Darwin did. Whatever causes the selectionary pressure is what matters whether it's competition or not. Scientists are not doctrinaires, they've no problem dropping dodgy bits of the theory. Nobody thinks Darwin got everything right. The discussion we've been having is really a matter of the history of ideas, not modern evolutionary biology. In philosophy you look at a thinker in their historical context with warts and all. In science you just look at the guys theory in it's most updated modern form. I think this little fact is a bit of a culture shock for phil and gorski, but they need to get their heads round it.

As for memes well it might be pretty irrelevant in that very few take it seriously but it's still very symptomatic of a crudely reductionist approach that tends to happen when evolutionary approachs are crowbarred into other areas. I mean the fact that Dawkin's once referred to himself as a Gramscian yet bust out memes as an analogy with genes as a means of explaining things like the persistence of religious thinking should really highlight the poverty of applying evolutionary thinking to human relations and this applies to the far more popular bollox of evolutionary psychology.

I think memetics and evolutionary psychology are problematic but for different reasons. Memetics is basically a generalisation of structuralism - it doesn't say very much. Evolutionary psychology is generally speaking empirically dodgy - it's difficult to disentangle what is a universal biological trait from what is an incidental cultural trait. I don't think it's entirely rubbish. I could probably dig out some reasonable work for you if you give me some time. Unfortunately its the type of thing that's prone to be bollox and also prone to be picked up by the popular media.

 

[revol68]

Well to be fair Phil is just fucking about the fringes trying to find a little niche for his idealist bollox, whilst Gorski is just being Gorski, that is making posts with no particular point or even reference but with a lot of ellipses in a bid to seem profound.

 

[Knotted]

Oh yeah, forgot to ask, where did Dawkins claim to be a Gramscian?

 

[revol68]

Oh yeah, forgot to ask, where did Dawkins claim to be a Gramscian?

he mentioned it in his comment about how absurd it is that children can have a religion based on their parents, something about how he doesn't introduce his kids as Gramscian Marxists.

Of course he might have simply picked it at random but I don't think so cause I remember him going to some pains to highlight his left wing credentials elsewhere.

 

[Knotted]

I think that's just a rhetorical flourish. I don't think he has any background in Marxism. He's a liberal of a no-nonsense variety (no postmodernism, no cultural relativism, just old fashioned liberal values).

 

[gorski]

What, being obtuse, are we?!?

Never mind the evidence, we are simply going to block it out, are we?

Suit yourselves...

[My points, btw, are not exactly mine and plenty of people, in this thread alone, have said more or less the same... So, go on, be arseholes if you wanna - it's all you at that point, nowt to do with me... ]

 

[Knotted]

Evidence that I've discussed with you on previous occassions. I didn't avoid it then, I'm not avoiding it now. It's the repetition that I'm trying avoid.

Since you clearly don't know what you are talking about, I shall tell you.

The one and only place in the Origin of Species that Darwin uses Malthus' population theory is in the third chapter on the struggle for survival. I don't doubt that Darwin's argument is a bit wonky. But read the damn chapter and decide for yourself. Show some sign of independent thought. Personally I don't think it matters - there is real struggle for survival in nature regardless of whether you give it a Malthusian gloss.

 

[gorski]

Why not troll stupidly, eh?

Let's teach Darwin about himself, never mind his [and Wallace's!!!!] own admission, never mind many a thinker who sees it and critically evaluates it...

Here comes Knotted, to put them ALL straight...

Riiiigghhhtttt....