RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

Thread history

Fragment of a discussion from Forum:Genetic evolution vs memetic evolution (LQT!)
Viewing a history listing
Jump to: navigation, search
Time User Activity Comment
No results

Just to be clear I guess you are arguing that "Kids that you are related to are cuter" is a universal trait of humans?

"More significant than the counter-examples are the central examples, the ones which define the prototype of a coherent cluster of ideas."

Have you pretty much shown us the unquestionable evidence that you have discovered a "central example"?

"It is a very good thing that infants are cute, since that provides motivation for the laborious endeavor of"...

When I said "philosophy" I basically meant "speculation" and "hypothesizing"; wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist. Dream on, ReasonDiva.

"There are always counter-examples. Something about them defining the parameters or boundaries of any rule... oh, right; that is what's meant by "proving the rule," putting it to the test."

And you've clearly provided proved the "rule" in this case, Teach.
~ Lumenos (talk)03:24, 12 January 2011

I guess you are arguing that "Kids that you are related to are cuter" is a universal trait of humans?

Guess again.

Looking for unquestionable evidence or any kind of teaching in this corner of the web is liable to be frustrating and fruitless. Using your own made-up definitions of words such as "philosophy" is guaranteed to make discussion useless.

Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)04:51, 12 January 2011

I was replying to Jack who reproduced your quote (thus the ""quadruple"" quotation marks). Here is the fuller quote:

"As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others. This is not wholly determined - adopted children are loved as much as natural offspring - but it is summed up in the old phrase "blood is thicker than water" or, as SJC's son said - "Kids that you are related to are cuter". "

Note the topic of this thread. Perhaps I don't understand either one of you.

"Looking for unquestionable evidence or any kind of teaching in this corner of the web is liable to be frustrating and fruitless."

Not really looking for it, just arguing that any evidence doesn't seem to be there. You agree?

"Using your own made-up definitions of words such as "philosophy" is guaranteed to make discussion useless."

This is a close one, "An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism" [1] but I would say "speculation" rather than "reasoning". Or "doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school"[2] Being that I consider myself a (bad) philosopher, I like to poke fun at people who think they practice "science" because they ramble in "scientificish" jargon, as in erroneously using some observation of the natural world or a "scientific study" to support their philosophy (usually naturalism which isn't such a bad religion, but genetic determinism is off the deep end, IMO).
~ Lumenos (talk)13:17, 12 January 2011

I never understood why you chose the subject that you did. However you start off by disputing that I am a machine built to propagate my genes. As this is pretty much the main thrust of "The Selfish Gene", a book I urge you once again to read as it really is an important one, I, and others, referred to it. No one said that were genetically determined, genetically predisposed certainly, but not genetically determined.

There is no avoiding that the source of this squabble debate is a thread you started on eugenics and the post that you refer to was my attempt to point out that I am genetically predisposed to prefer my genetic offspring to those of others. As such, for all those whose genes are considered "unworthy" eugenics goes against their genetic programming.

Should this matter? Yes, it should. You are depriving those you deem "unworthy" - and who are you to decide anyway - of the most natural of processes, one that everyone is preprogrammed to perform, even those who, for some reason or another, choose not to follow that program.

Jack Hughes (talk)15:11, 12 January 2011

I think that reading (and hopefully understanding) The Selfish Gene should be a prerequisite to taking part in this discussion. Failure to do may give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

BobSpring is sprung!15:23, 12 January 2011

Actually Bob, I get the "impression" that people don't know what they are talking about when they can't debate it in fewer words than a book, particularly a book they haven't written.

Oh look...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

...you had meme-twins! How cute!

Why don't we start here since this is the most important of theses, of the most important of all books, in the most authoritative of all wikis. Let's see, should I start with the section "Wha?!?" or the section "Attempt of explanation"?

Unicow (talk)17:14, 12 January 2011
 

"No one said that we're genetically determined, genetically predisposed certainly, but not genetically determined."

Perhaps I must apologize for misinterpreting you all along. Let me backup. You described yourself as a "machine built to propagate my genes". Are you a multifunction machine or is that your only essential function?
Unicow (talk)17:59, 12 January 2011

In evolutionary terms that is my only function. I'm not sure there's any purpose outside of this either.

Jack Hughes (talk)18:30, 12 January 2011
 
 

Nice save on the philosophy thing. I believe you may find that actual philosophers are pretty good at keeping things coherent, getting their ideas to hang together well. That is why you lost me at "wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist." I like to think that a working philosopher could demolish Hovind's "science," rub the pieces into the dirt and sprinkle salt on them without breaking a sweat.

It seems to me that Jack has a reasonable grasp of how genetics carries on in real life, one mating at a time. There is plenty of evidence around, so much in fact that it takes a lot of sifting to get at the bits relevant to any particular question. Reading Dawkins is probably as good a starting place as any for that.

As far as how central notions and counter-examples work, George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind" is a fantastic overview, if heavy going.

Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)15:28, 12 January 2011

So the only philosophers are good philosophers, in your lexicon? Or is there some regulating body? See I think Hovind had the "science" to begin with, for the same reason he won't know when it's been "demolished". (Unless we are talking about taking away Hovind's book selling business, which I don't think any philosopher has yet achieved.) He doesn't think outside the paradigm/tradition and it always assures him he has the answer. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.

Unicow (talk)17:39, 12 January 2011