tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8717406460736757344..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Friendly advice to skepticsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49216276653188713582012-09-03T04:16:49.699-04:002012-09-03T04:16:49.699-04:00I should say girls & boys were raised the same...I should say girls & boys were raised the same in my family, taught the same at school & university, treated the same at work, all in my experience. However, that is not a clear black & white statement, but has shades of grey and might not apply to all families, schools, universities & workplaces. It's called socialism, I think, but it does not impose values on genders, merely gives them equal opportunity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57953079087668499172012-09-01T22:55:50.235-04:002012-09-01T22:55:50.235-04:00"A woman’s lived experience teaches that Reas...<i>"A woman’s lived experience teaches that Reason cannot control the body. Periods come and go on their own, a baby grows on its own, tears flow on their own. Why fight it?"</i><br /><br />As an explanation for the gender disparity in the skeptic movement, this has merit. As a justification, it's a typical example of the naturalistic fallacy.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07890247476626589820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42816234320382991122012-08-31T08:40:33.525-04:002012-08-31T08:40:33.525-04:00How about Dawkins and his "Dear Muslima"...How about Dawkins and his "Dear Muslima" letter?Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41435989166039909672012-08-30T20:21:20.646-04:002012-08-30T20:21:20.646-04:00How about penn jillette calling a female journalis...How about penn jillette calling a female journalist the c-word in his newest book?<br />Sjwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12274169426504714452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36564215135059128462012-08-29T16:53:08.616-04:002012-08-29T16:53:08.616-04:00"My advice is: lay off the “prove there is a ..."My advice is: lay off the “prove there is a god” stuff. It’s irrelevant and counterproductive."<br /><br />My advice (for theists) is: lay off the "there is definitely a God" stuff. It's irrelevant and counterproductive.<br /><br />Don't see why I should be the one eating crow on this point. It cuts both ways.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3976852073928471442012-08-28T19:16:16.717-04:002012-08-28T19:16:16.717-04:00The general problem with EB is that it has not adv...The general problem with EB is that it has not advanced sufficiently since Haldane & Fisher. Statistical analyses of genetic variability within populations in their environments is after the event. EB already has an environment and an evolved organism, and it considers what factors are relevant to its continuation. It is not predictive, except by reliance on statistical analyses of the past with a hope that discovered connections between those specific organisms & that specific environment hold up in future. I am with Lakatos in saying Darwinism is non-scientific because it is non-predictive, or very weakly so.<br /><br />The problem is simple, and its surprising EB has not advanced down the path in the decades since the statistical analyses of Haldane & Fisher. Rather than ask how a phenotype survives in its environment, EB has not sufficiently explored what is, in the first place, constructable. What are genes doing when they build phenotypes? They are using the chemical compounds of the environment to construct the phenotype. Rather than continuing with statistical analyses of genetic variation within poulations of phenotypes in environments, go to the construction of the phenotype as a mechanical event in an environment.<br /><br />Then, we would have a basis for a predictive and scientific theory. We would have mutated genes that have built specific anatomies using proteins to manipulate specific environmental chemicals into an anatomy. From that analysis we can see connections between genes & environment in that usage of environmental chemicals (a complete dependence upon them, as DNA is just a strand and all else comes from environmental chemicals in phenotype construction). The phenotype is an embodiment of the environment chemicals used for its construction. That is pure fitness, and it provides predictability if we can analyze the environment that exists prior to the organism, as it provides the chemicals for its construction in the first place. <br /><br />The answer is obvious, although you will need to read my free book available online, as space here is limited. The environment exists prior, and thus from it we can predict what might in future evolve within it, as that evolution is bound directly to that existing environment in use of its chamicals to construct anatomies. What evolves can only use those proximate chemicals and their capacities for warmth, wetness, dryness, right through to solidity, liquidity, gasseous and so on. Hard work, but a wasted opportunity, and a reason why EB has left an insufficient legacy for EP to build on. A all around weak effort by science in this area.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75933261027945643282012-08-27T22:27:28.329-04:002012-08-27T22:27:28.329-04:00Might be better to accept Dawkins is unable to ext...Might be better to accept Dawkins is unable to extend the concept of selfish genes to selfish people, even if he went half way by making extreme quotes like 'the world of the selfish is one of deceit'. Let's say such quotes might have a fuller context, to save face for Dawkins, but that's just a red herring issue because Dawkins is a Biologist. He can only equate selfishness to survival; by whatever means are available (including altruism). Extreme links to human psychology are just simply beyond his purview. Wait until EB and EP merge, upon EB obeying the mantra of "Extractum Digitum" and redoubling creative efforts to lay a proper bio-chemical foundation for human psych-rationality. Great work by Watson & Crick, but not enough progress since Haldane & Fisher.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33234469533214958822012-08-27T22:10:04.962-04:002012-08-27T22:10:04.962-04:00I understand your point quite fully, and I realize...I understand your point quite fully, and I realize there are obvious differences between men & women in behavior, but your observations and those of the writer are shallow in my view, that's all. They may or may not correctly identify the differences, and they may or may not carry bias in their choices of what to analyse and conclusions or assumptions drawn about them beyond "boys play football, girls play house". <br /><br />What is interesting to me (although I accept that statistics can reveal socially constructed discrimination, to avoid it) is to get away from social construction. That's a rationalized narrative that can have no secure biological basis until the nexus between biology & psychology is resolved. We observe football & house, why? As social expectations that are changeable, or as carriers of deeper biological drives to gender psychology (the subject of EP & Freud). Go with discovery of the nexus, back that horse, redouble your efforts, be extra creative, and we might get beyond narratives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37556209741221514592012-08-27T20:20:42.650-04:002012-08-27T20:20:42.650-04:00You haven't understood the point. This is not ...You haven't understood the point. This is not about constructs, narratives, or theorizing, but about <em>testable facts</em>. They're about our world today. There's no contention that this is so of necessity. Just that it is, i.e. that there is today a statistically significant difference between men's and women's behaviour and attitudes. <br /><br />Ask 10 male and 10 female friends when they last cried in public / when they last boasted of being able to beat someone in a fight / how much they'd like to be nicknamed "Shagger". q.e.d. You're afraid this may be biased? Go ahead and ask all U.S. citizens. (Yes, could be different in other countries,but there'll still be a gender difference.) <br /><br />All studies report that men listen to men. Try <a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html" rel="nofollow">this test.</a>. Or google it.<br /><br />How often have you heard these? "Girls don't cry!" "Boys shouldn't play football!" "It's more important for a boy to be pretty than clever." "Boys are so much more sensitive and better at communicating with people than girls are." "Leave that to your sister. Girls are so much more technically minded than boys" <br />In saying men and women are raised the same, you're either being disingenuous or we're clearly not from the same planet.<br /><br />I've already pointed out that 4 is not necessary to the argument.<br /><br />Nobody is arguing that of necessity women must be less prominent in the CoR, but that the above are some (not all) reasons why this may be so today. And thus offer some possible approaches to changing this - should one so desire. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30886793187141148012012-08-27T20:20:29.124-04:002012-08-27T20:20:29.124-04:00Dr. Roughgarden, my remark about unscrupulous fool...Dr. Roughgarden, my remark about unscrupulous fools was in jest. I don't believe they actually exist in any significant number in the CoR.<br /><br />Deriving philosophy from the Selfish Gene requires the reader to make two unbelievably egregious mistakes. The first is to <em>completely misunderstand the entire book</em>, that is, to not understand that the word "selfish" in "selfish gene" is a metaphor, and it does not mean that humans are selfish. We've already covered the second mistake, which is to disregard the is/ought distinction that is very clearly explained at the beginning of the book. Therefore it just isn't true that the Selfish Gene "provides a seamless transition from evolutionary biology to normative human conduct".<br /><br />But you are also claiming that some significant number of skeptics are committing both of the aforementioned unbelievably egregious mistakes (note that skeptics are usually well-educated), and furthermore that, having made those mistakes, they are using the Selfish Gene to support the abhorrent philosophy of Objectivism.<br /><br />This claim is just implausible for reasons I outlined earlier.[1] In any case, Objectivism is not at all prevalent among skeptics. I don't know of any Objectivist skeptics, nor have I seen it discussed in a positive light in the online skeptic community.<br /><br />Your friendly advice therefore contains a rather large-sized brickbat. Most people regard Objectivism as immoral (I certainly do), and speciously linking it to skepticism is a bit scandalous. The link also represents a kind of wish fulfillment for religious believers, as they commonly regard nonbelievers as selfish or immoral.<br /><br />[1] http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/08/friendly-advice-to-skeptics.html?showComment=1346046011410#c2433372641761020615Craig Uriashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03390058922234703660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78633500421552336542012-08-27T19:13:48.514-04:002012-08-27T19:13:48.514-04:00I understand ablogdog, I'm mainly interested i...I understand ablogdog, I'm mainly interested in strict debate, or their practical philosophies if they can be extricated (when I say move on fast in the quote, it means move on from spirituality and hopefully into something more practical). There are many people between spitiualists and me to help smooth some understandings of the connections between spirituality & practicalities, which don't greatly interest me. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23544512957133559552012-08-27T18:55:40.311-04:002012-08-27T18:55:40.311-04:00I have identified the issue as analyzing biology f...I have identified the issue as analyzing biology for certainty, and analyzing psychology by whatever supposedly staistical means you can find, but be sure to be accurate and eliminate bias. I would have to see the reports on the statistics, who they questioned, what they analyzed, and so on. My point is it's better to use the biological. but I accept that we can try to interpret and debate the more apparent cultural construct.<br /><br />On the specifics of 1 - 3, my experience is that men listen to men and women; men and women are raised the same; and men are as interested in the body as women. On issue 4, I am not even sure what that means, but I would say men & women are both resonable in their assessments of the limitations of their bodies. In 4, in particular, no one knows the line between men & women in their psychology and so you cannot even say whether it is biological or a social construct.<br /><br />My point is that you can speculate about changable social constructs using descriptive narratives about genders (perhaps with some statistical support). It might be a useful exercise to level the playing fields for men & women by adjusting the social constructs through education, if it is adjustable. Perhaps some differences (those mentioned above, or others - its speculative) are fixed by biology creating psychology. So, more fundamental than engaging in the usual narratives, we need to make the connection to biology. Much hard work required, rather than just adding willy nilly to the narrative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85155054165763110562012-08-27T18:46:19.704-04:002012-08-27T18:46:19.704-04:00ablogdog, Thanks for your followup that clarifies ...ablogdog, Thanks for your followup that clarifies matters considerably. I completely agree with your points. And in the same vein, I deplore the efforts of the RC church to muzzle theologians (and clergy and nuns etc). I know that theology faculty at RC universities here in the US can be muzzled, but don't think they can be if they work in a secular private or public university other than by the usual threats of excommunication. A lot of the evangelical churches also police their membership quite ruthlessly here. For the evangelical churches however, the source of the policing here may be bottom up rather than top down as it is in the RC. I was collaborating once with an evangelical minister from Michigan on an op ed about the need to teach evolution (an op ed that unfortunately wasn't published). He told me that evangelical ministers often serve at the pleasure of their congregation and can be immediately dismissed by them if they deviate from what they are expected to say. I learned that an evangelical minister who supports teaching evolution can be dismissed by his congregation just for that alone. I hadn't realized how precarious the job security is for people in evangelical ministries. This politicizes the message from the pulpit and implies that sermons aren't actually religious but are political positions dictated from their congregations. That of course is why the separation of church and state is so important--in both directions. Anyway, I totally agree with you and also am sure that we could indeed, if given the opportunity, set of a theology/CR department we would both be happy with.Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15179891820675214376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68127488229113225642012-08-27T17:26:19.521-04:002012-08-27T17:26:19.521-04:00@Joan
Maybe I wasn't too clear. In order to pr...@Joan<br />Maybe I wasn't too clear. In order to profit directly or indirectly by public funds I think you need to uphold the constitution of your country, human rights etc. This includes both individuals and organisations. So e.g. I think churches should not be publicly funded or subsidized. This also includes social organizations. If a hospital or kindergarden wants the right to fire a doctor, nurse, or caregiver because they are "living in sin", it should not in my view receive public funds or tax breaks.<br /> <br />I have no objections to a university department that studies the history of the bible etc. like a CR faculty does. I have no objections to at least some of the people studying and teaching such subjects being theologians from various denominations. I do object to the following.<br /><br />1. Having a church, any church, in authority over such a department. <br />E.g. in Germany, any member of a theological faculty needs a missio from the church which can be revoked at the churches pleasure. The church can forbid the person in question to teach, to write, or publicize in any way, which also means they lose their university position (though they may be entitled to some compensation from the university). This can be done either if the teachings of that person are not what the church wants to hear, or if e.g. they divorce and remarry, or come out as being homosexual. (Yup, we don't care if you rape choirboys, but live openly with another person of the same sex and you may no longer teach theology... )<br /><br />2. Having any individual teach in a publicly funded institution who does not <em>openly, clearly, unambiguously</em> underwrite values like "all humans are equal". Indeed, perhaps signing such a declaration should be part of any contract of employment with a publicly funded institution?<br />That excludes the entire RC church. Sorry, but it <em>does</em>. Believing that "homosexuality is OK" is still officially a reason for excommunication from the RC church. Privately and secretly a catholic may believe that women or homosexuals are equal, but he or she <em>professes</em> to believe the contrary. <br />Being excommunicated would automatically mean you cannot teach in a theological faculty, again, at least in Germany (which is where I know several theologians): perhaps this is different in the U.S.?<br /><br />Incidentally the same goes for teaching religion in schools - I believe it should not be publicly financed, unless syllabus and personnel are not church controlled, .<br /><br />On the other hand, I have no objection to a CR department in Europe or the U.S. focussing particularly on Christianity, which happens to play and have played the greatest role in our society and history. Sorry for being so long-winded. I suspect we would not have a problem in agreeing a set-up for a theology/CR department we would both be happy with. <br /><br />Again, thanks for your post. I wish there are more voices like yours in this kind of discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68611089552631611802012-08-27T16:45:17.314-04:002012-08-27T16:45:17.314-04:00Nietzsche (great name), thanks for your comments a...Nietzsche (great name), thanks for your comments and by and large I agree. <br />1. I agree it might seem I’m holding EP to a double standard relative to other evolutionists. That is not my intention however. In evolutionary biology if we make an adaptational claim, we are in effect issuing a promissory note to carry out the necessary fitness measurements upon demand. The threat of having someone cash in the note disciplines the urge to offer fanciful adaptational conjectures. As you know, the famous Lewontin-Gould critique of adaptationism restrained the industry of conjuring up adaptational stories in evolutionary biology, although some might argue that its effect was so strong as to be repressive. Anyway, the popularity of Drosophila experiments and chemostat devices represents investigators who are willing to trade a realistic natural setting for an artificial setting that permits rigorous fitness measures. Tests in nature of optimality models also get directly to relative fitness data. So evolutionary biologists accept, I think, that their adaptational explanations might ultimately have to stand up to test, even though such testing would be impractical in many circumstances. I’m calling EP to the same standard.<br />2. I acknowledge not mentioning the adaptation execution vs fitness maximizing distinction you raise. However, this distinction also exists in evolutionary biology too. Field workers always worry whether the habitat where the animals are now found is the same or nearly so as that in which their traits evolved. This underlies the search for “pristine” habitats to work in as well as to know the geologic and climatic history of those habitats. The search for pristine habitat is not so much aesthetic as methodologically useful for adaptational hypotheses. Of course work on human evolution carries an especially high burden in this regard. <br />3. I accept that my referring to a conjecture as “far fetched” sounds like I’m begging the question. Instead, I perhaps should have referred to a “conjectured adaptational advantage that seems unlikely to satisfy the criterion of representing a selection pressure large enough to counteract genetic drift”, which is what I meant. <br />4. As to Thornhill in particular, the last of his work I was aware of pertained to a postulated advantage for human rape, a claim clearly incorrect given that rape is primarily about power not reproduction. Jerry Coyne, which whom I often disagree, did produce a devastating critique of Thornhill’s theory that rape is an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy for males who can’t secure mates through courtship. Is Thornhill’s theory far fetched or simply and stupidly wrong? Your choice.<br />5. Parental investment theory is controversial. Also, I agree a subset of controversial cases in sexual selection does not, by itself, entail that all cases of sexual selection are therefore also controversial, as though guilt by association. But consider the nature of the controversy itself. Do you really think sexual selection can survive the loss of its emblematic examples like the peacock and the Bateman fruit fly experiments, not to mention all its other difficulties? I think it’s pretty clear that sexual selection is transforming into something quite different from what we were taught, and especially as envisioned in the 1970’s. Because finding evidence of classic sex roles in humans is so central to the EP project, from offering conjectures about what men and women find attractive about the other and why, to how they behave to one another, it is particularly vulnerable to how the science of what might be termed “sexual selection studies” is changing.Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15179891820675214376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53716486256908665972012-08-27T15:05:40.777-04:002012-08-27T15:05:40.777-04:00ablogdog, Thanks for your comments. The matter of ...ablogdog, Thanks for your comments. The matter of whether theology belongs in a university seems to turn on what the content of a theology course actually is and specifically, whether it includes evangelism or solely historical and literary analysis. The theologians I have met (which admittedly isn’t a large sample) would not evangelize in class. That would occur in extracurricular contexts like summer “leadership” camps, hikes, dances etc and would often be merged in with a social participatory experience that would tend to background any theological arguments for the denomination’s doctrine. Universities might typically have a department of religion (or theology) as distinct from the resident clergy who staff the student ministries. Moreover, these resident clergy usually share a “no poaching” rule and are competing for the independent voter so to speak, as well as ministering to their own flocks. Theologians often identify as “new testament”, or “old testament”, or scholars of some other speciality. (To digress, as a student at the Museum of Comparative Zoology I recall attending a grad student mixer one weekend and met someone who was introduced as “the new testament secretary” at the Harvard divinity school. I wittily replied that I thought the New Testament had already been written. Oh well, live and learn.) What theologians do I gather, is to consider topics like who wrote the various books of the Bible, decipher the dead sea scrolls, analyze the books left out of the Bible, investigate the history and politics of the major doctrine-setting conventions and so forth, as well as analyze the major writings in each denomination, such as Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and many more both old and new too numerous to name. When I think about all of this, I can’t discern anything different about theology from regular courses in literature, history, social science etc except for how specialized and focussed they are. Hence the analogy with engineering. A physics department would not offer a course in programming the iPhone, but a CS department could. Similarly the divinity school at Harvard could offer a course in the New Testament, and whether say, Paul wrote all the books in the Bible attributed to him that would be too specialized for a classics department that needs to consider all the ancient Greeks, the preSocratics and so forth.<br /><br />I hear you about not wanting to underwrite hate speech, but don’t think that really is what a theology department is about. Moreover, the syllabus in theology departments will likely vary quite a bit along the gamut from the evangelical universities through the Catholic universities to Harvard’s divinity school. Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15179891820675214376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5146116904530038562012-08-27T14:21:04.442-04:002012-08-27T14:21:04.442-04:00The post says four things about women - which one...The post says four things about women - which one are you disputing?<br />1. Men listen to men. <br />2. Men are raised to think so. - i.e. that Reason should offer the sole guide to decision and action.<br />3. Feminist scholarship, novels and art consistently highlight the body.<br />4. A woman’s lived experience teaches that Reason cannot control the body. [...] Male athletes may also come to this realization.<br /><br />The first 3 are observations of fact (statistical facts, need not be true in every instance), none of which refer to evolutionary or basic differences between women and men. <br />The fourth is an attempted explanation that seems fairly reasonable to me (greater average physical suffering makes it harder to ignore the body), and is anyway not necessary to the argument.<br />The argument is that these are reasons for the scarceness of women today in the CoR, given the fact that CoR privileges reason.<br /><br />It also says: the CoR project is inherently masculinist.<br />This is not a statement about men/women, but refers to gender stereotyping: male=reason, female=emotion. You can delete the sentence without changing the argument. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51475128166290693012012-08-27T13:44:09.790-04:002012-08-27T13:44:09.790-04:00@ Marcus Morgan
If you're referring to me, I w...@ Marcus Morgan<br />If you're referring to me, I wasn't pointing at any one in particular. It just seems to me that the general attitude of sceptics towards religious people is somewhat condescending. If you (generic you) expect someone to "justify" their beliefs before you accept them as an equal partner in a discussion about morals or society, you simply exclude large numbers of people from the dialogue. That is a problem if you are trying to move society as whole forward, which is my foremost goal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17280059848499375732012-08-27T11:49:22.446-04:002012-08-27T11:49:22.446-04:00Joan,
just curious: Is it -- in absolutist terms...Joan, <br /><br />just curious: Is it -- in absolutist terms -- epistemically requisite that one demonstrate "a bona fide benefit" for human eyes in vivo in order to accept a given adaptationist hypothesis for its underlying rationale, even in a rather broad sense -- viz., that human eyes are for seeing?<br /><br />I ask because it has always struck me as a double-standard to hold evolutionary psychologists to epistemic criteria that are not demanded in other evolutionists.<br /><br />If we were to employ your criteria to the letter it appears that we would in principle be epistemically debarred from accepting any adaptationist explanation in the absence of such evidence of fitness, and indeed for any species we might wish to proffer an adaptationist explanation for. If so, adaptationist explanations for wings and hearts, inter alia, would simply be speculation until direct, rigorous tests of fitness were conducted. (Think of how much knowledge in biology would need to be thrown out if we actually followed this criteria, to say nothing of how creationists and ID proponents could use it to their advantage.)<br /><br />Your take on evolutionary psychology also seems to entirely gloss over the distinction evolutionary psychologists make between 'fitness maximization' and 'adaptation execution'. Given that most contemporary humans live in environments that are mismatched in various ways vis-a-vis the ancestral environments in which the core of the postulated complex, functionally-specific cognitive adaptations are taken to have been shaped in, there's no reason to assume that such contemporary humans are fitness maximizers. Indeed, there is good reason to think that such humans are not fitness maximizers, given the variously novel environments in which such humans are embedded in.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Far fetched adaptive explanations as found in EP are ruled out by this well known population-genetic criterion."<br /><br />This seems to me to be begging the question. What is a "Far fetched" adaptationist explanation, exactly? And moreover, by which criteria can one ascertain that a given hypothesis is far fetched? For example -- to take one case from evolutionary psychology -- Randy Thornhill, Steven Gangestad, and their colleagues have for some time now been carrying out a research program investigating women's estrus and 'extended sexuality', and have, by my lights, put forth a very powerful adaptationist case for special design therein. Would their overall explanatory framework be 'far fetched' in your opinion?<br /><br />Also, I think it's rather disingenuous to try and portray parental investment as controversial in contemporary evolutionary biology. Also: does a subset of controversial cases of sexual selection in evolutionary biology therefore entail that all cases, across the board, are therefore controversial, as if guilty by association? <br /><br /><br /><br />"They should not seek to “apply” behavioral ecology to humans, but instead to extend and if necessary, revise behavioral ecology with data from humans."<br /><br />Actually -- and as pointed out above -- evolutionary psychologists have been quite critical of straightforward applications of behavioral-ecological modeling with respect to humans.Nietzschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00164452528879575624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18066128851339094792012-08-27T09:59:16.980-04:002012-08-27T09:59:16.980-04:00@ablogdog: You did indeed write about the deeper m...@ablogdog: You did indeed write about the deeper meaning of altruism before I did. Sorry, I should have given you credit. I was not attempting to correct you, only to enlarge upon your thought. Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12990248938187088512012-08-27T07:54:03.574-04:002012-08-27T07:54:03.574-04:00On EP, EP is not solely at fault, rather it is sha...On EP, EP is not solely at fault, rather it is shared equally with EB. The EB regime of "whatever survives" by sexual preferences is so open, it cannot be a basis for specific ideas about gender roles beyond copulation and bearing of offspring as mechanical events for reproduction. No point in fiddling with subjective ideas about gender roles and other psychological states when EB provides no objective bases beyond a most open regime that is hardly a regime at all (except that it usefully links an organism to its "environment").<br /><br />I do blame EB for not providing that essential objective base to be tested by EP in analyses of human psychology as a product of that objective level. Well done to EP for trying, although unscientifically with subjective ideas as their basis. What is required is for EP to pull its head in a little until EB sorts itself out and provides an objective basis beyond "whatever survives".<br /><br />I suspect it exists. We have physics at the most reductive level for objective confirmation (but greatly unknown); then chemistry based on that, also objective and regular, (but greatly unknown); then biology based on that together with the principle of "whatever survives in the environment it occupies" to weed out duds. We need an objective basis for psychology from biology by using chemistry for objective certainty to biology in our knowledge of human anatomical structure. Psychology would be the product of that structure, currently unknown.<br /><br />So, in all, the EP part is fine, but spread the blame and make an all out effort to understand the psychology of our biological anatomy with the certainties of chemistry, rather than repeat the mantra that EP is unscientific (which it is). We don't know what the future holds in these areas, and should keep an open mind to some EP subjective theorists bringing some truth to bear. Keep their ideas on ice (Freud too) until further discoveries. My free book attempting to resolve these matters is at http://www.thehumandesing.net <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50654607824110405042012-08-27T07:11:59.978-04:002012-08-27T07:11:59.978-04:00On women, that's a piece heavily loaded with t...On women, that's a piece heavily loaded with the same subjectivities as EP & Freud in ascribing specific qualities to men v women from their evolutionary differences (if that's the aim). Alternatively, if the aim is to describe differences from purported observation of men & women in society as social constructs without clear biological bases (biological flexibility in being psychologically constructive in society), then we can fluff around about whether its true, biased, changeable, or whatever, as pure speculation without solid objective bases in biology (or how psychology is created by biology). Missing pieces again, and probably a swirl of bias and misunderstanding.<br /><br />Personally I try destroy other men's arguments if I can, if they present themselves as targets due to illogical or non-factual analyses. I try to destroy women too on the same basis. I am not any less physical than any woman I have met, but I cannot inhabit her skin so I am only guessing, as is the writer. There might in fact be bio-chemical bases for the psycho-rational level of human constructs, delineating clear differences between genders that are testable, without using a personal variation of EP and the writer does here. As always, I opt for discovery, not dead-end analyses, but keep those analyses in reserve in case the reality from secure reductive analyses matches them (Freud & EP too). Discovery is far better than swirling around "isms" until we fall into contradictions (which is all that happens unless you dig in and discover your way out of vague cicularities, the hard way). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11964227806755169402012-08-27T06:03:27.071-04:002012-08-27T06:03:27.071-04:00I don't see the point. I was quoted in the pie...I don't see the point. I was quoted in the piece, but I hope you don't think I would start a conversation with 'you are an idiot'. I would ask them about their beliefs and whether they are knowable, and deal with them rationally. I have never been satisfied to date, but I take each spiritual arguer one at a time as to my mind (to date) God is a personal matter and must be dealt with individually not collectively, one at a time. Nowadays I don't actually have much interest in people's spritual views, but their practical philosophies tied up in them can be interesting and useful if extricable. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74228444228991459272012-08-27T05:55:07.976-04:002012-08-27T05:55:07.976-04:00I would just put a strike through EP until our psy...I would just put a strike through EP until our psychology is confirmed by bio-chemistry, and its extent includes our species capacity for rationality. That's the missing or unconcluded research program. However, I would continue with the subjective points of view of researchers underlying EP (and Freud) that are applied to society for testing by observation of behavior, even with a strike through them. The strike is reminder that we need the bio-chemical confirmation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45126236886376415842012-08-27T05:35:42.959-04:002012-08-27T05:35:42.959-04:00All anyone can say, using Dawkins' language, i...All anyone can say, using Dawkins' language, is that genes must survive to be successful (by definition) are are therefore selfish in needing to survive. In other words, he adds nothing to Biology except substitution of the word survival with the word selfish, leading to a spiral of confusion (probably in himself as much as others when he starts talking about altruism).<br /><br />To Dawkins, altruism must be selfish because it must further the survival of the alrtuist. If it counted against the altruists' survival, the altruists would die out, so his idea is obvious. There is not much more to it than that. Altruism with the advantage of cooperation for survival would be allowed. In fact, a nice balance of give and take in satisfaction of diverse competing Randian aims of individuals would be the idea, requiring a break from the strict indiviualism of Rand to do so. Doesn't matter what Dawkins says, that's all Dawkins can mean as a biologist.<br /><br />Moving on, humans use rationality to construct a reasonable world on whatever bases we find appropriate at different times (hopefully developing over time). This is a biological issue as it is genes in environment, and our biology provides us with that psychological potential. The biological shadow world of Freud, or the narratives of EP, can be criticized for being untestable, so it is equally untestable to say they do not exist. We need to make connections between bio-chemistry and the species capacity for psycho-rationality to decide either way. I would shelve the idea that rationality is free to construct socities in ignorance of shadow worlds until we know more about them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.com