|
What about the facts? For instance, prenatal screening is already used widely and gives pretty good results. --Aniro (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- yes, absolutely! Historically eugenics is based in the idea that all human traits are basically mendelian and genetically determined. Eugenics fell out of favor not solely on the popularity with fascists, but also due to challenges that resulted from increasing evidence that many traits impacted by genetics were not simply mendelian, that environmental factors were just as if not more impactful then single genes, and that epigenetics played a huge role to how certain genes were expressed, etc. There is also the precedent that even though science works with a set of values and norms in the conduct of developing models and theories science itself ultimately is only supposed to describe the natural world and how it works -- it can not dictate prescriptions to how the world ought to be as guided by human action. This conflicts with the basic premise of eugenics as determining the ideal human specimen through the manipulation of genetics and dictating which genetic traits were "good" or "bad". This gets into the whole problem of the is/ought fallacy. Facts of the matter do not logically necessitate action-guiding principles on their own. This is also why so many moral philosophers take issue with the works of Sam Harris arguing that Science can determine objective moral outcomes. It literally cannot. The norm and values of science are not categorical but hypothetical in the specific desired aims of describing reality and the means to bring them about. On that basis alone science has no justification to determine what "ideals" we must strive for, and for that the entire basis of eugenics is kind of a scientific non-starter. It would be like arguing that natural selection entails a moral commitment to social Darwinism. It absolutely does not. Eugenics was entirely motivated by ideology, not a dispassionate interest in describing the natural world. prenatal screening is more of a technology that reliably predicts certain outcomes that is itself based in natural principles discovered by science, but science does not tell us we must therefore use prenatal screening. That would be like saying science requires us to use wi-fi, or to get abortions simply because science made the technology possible. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC).
- Actually I always wonder about this "Eugenics is pseudoscience" claim as well. Our introduction states that "Eugenics is the purported study of applying the principles of artificial selection and selective breeding through altering human reproduction with the goal of changing the relative frequency of traits in a human population."
- We can breed dogs that have an increased ability to herd sheep. We can breed cows which produce more milk. We can breed sheep which produce more wool. It seems evident that (if we had no ethical codes) that we could breed humans with traits which we wished to encourage.
- Obviously, such an activity would be completely unethical and no reasonable society would do such a thing. But "unethical" is not the same as "pseudoscientific".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the "pseudoscience" part largely revolves around the part which is seen as a "desirable" trait. There are arguably some items that could be called "eugenic" that probably are less in this direction, albeit still with ethical questions (the aforementioned prenatal screening, which often is for things like severe chromosomal defects). However, what if a society is racist, as they often are, and they see merely having different skin color as an "impurity" that needs to be "treated" by, say, sterilizing the women who had this skin color? There is no scientific basis for this, but this was a frequent trope of eugenics (famously, of course, by the Nazis, but by a lot of others). Essentially the problem with eugenics is that the difference between "fit" and "unfit" in practice became loaded with cultural stereotypes and paradigms, to the detriment of genetic diversity. And that's before we get to the angle that we hardly know *everything* about genetics etc. As seen by the many problems found even with selective breeding purebreds. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that "desirability" would be a moving target and one that could be subject to racist or sexist manipulation. But out initial definition makes no reference to hypothetical "desirability". Only to the possibility of changing the relative frequency of traits in a human population.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, the other wiki
 is a lot better in explaining this angle IMHO. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- "As I understand it, the "pseudoscience" part largely revolves around the part which is seen as a "desirable" trait." - the mere fact that something can be misused or backfire doesn't make it pseudoscience. Because pretty much everything can be misused or backfire. --Aniro (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Historically eugenics is based in the idea that all human traits are basically mendelian and genetically determined." - is it? The definition quoted in the article doesn't imply this "all or nothing" approach. --Aniro (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am not basing my understanding based on the article because I think it frames what eugenics was poorly. The book “She has her mother’s laugh...” by Carl Zimmer about the history of genetics goes into the eugenics movement and talks at length about how eugenists saw things like “criminality” and “feeblemindedness” as simple biologically inherited traits that could be bred out of the population provided we just prevented the “feebleminded” and “criminals” from passing on their genes. The Eugenists genuinely thought that nearly every aspect of your personality, talents, and physical appearance barring serious traumatic injury was the result of genetic inheritance. That turned out to be very false for many “complex” traits, which is why it’s not simply a ethical issue but a manner of pseudoscience as well as it contradicts our modern understanding of cultural inheritance, socialization, genetics, epigenetics, etc. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I checked a number of definitions in different dictionaries and encyclopedias, and none of then mentions that "all the traits are 100% inherited" must be implied. --Aniro (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Holy shit, everybody, this guy checked the dictionary!
 Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- apparently, many people didn't. Also, if we read some stories from the history of medicine, we'll find quite a few examples of unbelievably wrong and catastrophically harmful practices that were widely used. But that doesn't make medicine a pseudoscience, does it? --Aniro (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- False analogy. Freudian psychology is considered pseudoscientific, but that doesn't make psychology as a field itself pseudoscientific. The difference between psychology and eugenics is that psychology has always been the simple study of the mind, whereas eugenics is and was a deliberate attempt to implement a specific vision of how society should be onto the world. Vee (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that that specific vision is not a strawman. --Aniro (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just asking questions, I see. At any rate, Freudian psychology is actually a great parallel to eugenics. At one point, eugenics was actually a widely held idea in scientific academia, just as Freudian psychology was at one point a highly regarded field too. Both are now considered pseudoscience because in part our understanding of psychology and genes have advanced considerably. It's not like genetics and heritability issues still isn't a thing in medicine. But we know now that the sweeping racialism arguments (among others) that the eugenics promoters often made is, well, wrong. (And while the RW article on eugenics is meh, I think the RW article on racialism is pretty good.) 72.184.99.135 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- no, it's "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." So far, I haven't seen a single bit of evidence why we should use your definition of eugenics instead of the widely accepted one. For instance, that definition that's quoted in this very article. --Aniro (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing any of us has said contradicts the definition in the top of the article, which I guess is your straw man of choice. Again, assuming you are not being an obstinate troll, I point to the Wikipedia article on eugenics because it is better on the full perspective IMHO. The pseudoscience is not in the exact definition per se, it's in the application thereof.
- I mean, even the prenatal screening thing you mentioned at the very beginning generates considerable debates on the ethics in modern times. Especially when it involves certain things driven more by cultural bullshit than anything else, like sex-selective abortion. (Most people do not call sex-selective abortion a "pretty good result".) 72.184.99.135 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- and now you went straight to insults and blatant lies, what would be perfectly normal somewhere on Reddit or 2ch but I didn't expect to see it here. I have to repeat: 1) the implication that eugenics only means those people who believe that all the traits are 100% inherited is wrong and contradicts the widely accepted definition of eugenics, and it's a strawman. You can see that implication right here, in this discussion. 2) the fact that something can be abused or backfire doesn't make it pseudoscience. Why don't you consider good results instead of bad only? --Aniro (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- When you read the Wiki article (or many other sources) and recognize what the widely accepted definition of eugenics actually is (with full context), let me know. Thanks. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I did, and it does support my point. If you think otherwise, prove it with facts rather than this "I'm too good to prove my opinion" bs. --Aniro (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It should be said that argumentum ad dictionarium is itself a kind of appeal to authority fallacy. The dictionary does not provide you with the actual arguments used, political propaganda, or policies characterized by the time. You have to actual look at the history of the eugenics movement and those who advocated for it to fully appreciate what they were arguing. The note of "extreme biological determinism" used in our article is synonymous with genetic determinism (which is what I am describing) -- which yes is widely regarded as a pseudoscience. Just read our article on biological determinism to find out why. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC).
- this "fallacy" sounds quite meaningless and questionable to me, and looking at how little usages of this are known to Google I have to conclude that it's just bs that someone made up for the sake of trolling or propaganda. And while you statement about biological determinism is correct, it's simply a strawman. --Aniro (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would say that Eugenics is not even pseudoscience. There are no useful definitions, procedures, general theorems or rules that tell us how to proceed to result in an improvement in the human condition. That would, of course be a completely unethical program of research; something that racists can talk about and at least one fascist government has attempted. Eugenics is a moral theory that assumes science can provide the answers it requires. The science is not pseudoscience. The problem is that moral philosophy is inconsistent with our general western morality. To whit, human beings are not owned by the state, and are entitled to freedoms inconsistent with such deleterious contingencies. Consider that if we learned that genes could be manipulated so that a form of cancer would disappear with no negative results, I think most of us would approve the concept. But such a project would, it seems, belong to the field of eugenics. A eugenics not aimed at affecting human racial diversity might some day be welcomed.UncleKrampus (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that what makes something pseudoscience is any model/theory/practice that purports itself to be science (which eugenics did) and either cannot be tested against a null hypothesis; or, taken in conjunction with other accepted theories and disciplines accepted as science the overall system of models and theories that are used to describe the world becomes more incoherent by it's inclusion, all the while it is unable to produce fruitful predictions or tests to further refine the theory/model. Given what folks like Lewontin wrote about the faulty understanding of genetics that a lot of eugenics was based upon, and the fact that eugenicists purported their ideas as science -- I think it stands in it's inclusion as pseudoscience. It also just so happens to be a political and ethical movement as well. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Firstly: this talk page is about our article on "eugenics". If some editors feel that some other article somewhere else is better is better than ours that is cool - but that does not help ours.
Secondly: the definition our article has for eugenics is: Eugenics is the purported study of applying the principles of artificial selection and selective breeding through altering human reproduction with the goal of changing the relative frequency of traits in a human population. If our definition is wrong then we need to change it.
Thirdly: Being unethical silly or wrong is not necessarily the same as being "pseudoscientific". (I incidentally agree that proponents of eugenics can be guilty of all these things)
Fourthly: I seem to see an argument - eugenics itself isn't pseudoscientific , but its use is. Nevertheless I do not see specific examples presented on this talk page.
Finally, a doctor who actually used crisper to perform germline editing (which is really eugenics) ended up being barred for his actions. If a doctor can actually carry out germ-line editing then it's clearly actually possible. It's morally abhorrent - but not pseudoscience.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- But is that eugenics sensu stricto though? (Also, as an aside, notice that the results of said germline editing were less than satisfactory. Possible? Yes. Is it currently practical? No.) Also, the assumptions that the historical eugenics movement made were certainly pseudoscientific. I feel the comparison to Freudian psychology is more than appropriate. Psychology itself isn't pseudoscientific, but as a field it is laden with pseudoscientific baggage. Vee (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would certainly say that human germ-line editing is "strictly speaking" eugenics. In fact, it's the very objective of eugenics.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- "I feel the comparison to Freudian psychology is more than appropriate." - if you go a century back in the history, you'd find that Freudian psychology is pretty much the only psychology that exists. Does that mean that psychology in general is pseudoscientific? Apparently, no. And then, if you think that this analogy is appropriate - that means that eugenics in general isn't pseudoscientific too. --Aniro (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- [EC] This overall discussion suffers from equivocation. There's talk about two "eugenics" which are plainly not exactly the same thing.
- Eugenics, the whole big package which includes and mainly has the overall image of historical pseudoscience, raci(ali)st visions, infamous practices, questionable ethics and philosophy, etc. Also extends to modern-day attempts to revive or re-popularize this.
- Eugenics, individual practices and ideas -- e.g. gene editing, the medical practice of prenatal screening -- which are associated with and labeled after that big package because of a shared history with it. But they do not in themselves include the philosophy, nor the old pseudoscience. They remain ethically controversial to varying extents.
- It brings pointless confusion and hot air to be unclear and mix things like that up in discussion. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are obviously correct. Though I would phrase it slightly differently There is a the narrow scientific definition which refers simply to the possibility of changing gene frequency and transmission in human populations.
- And there is the historic usage of this idea by societies in multiple nefarious ways.
- But neither of these usages make the concept pseudoscientific. The first is simply science. The second is socially abhorrent. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- (EC) Yeah, uh, no. Eugenics as a field is laden with pseudoscientific baggage; racialism and the notion of the inherent superiority of certain social classes are obvious bullshit no matter how one looks at it. Vee (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Playing futurist for a moment, I think there could potentially develop more things which are extensions of scientific medicine, and which fit into that narrow definition of eugenics, without there being anything bigoted about them. If over decades, know-how of gene editing develops to the point where people could potentially be spared various genetic diseases and risk factors for illness, at some point the ethics could tip over, in simple humanistic terms, so that it would be more unethical to deny future generations that medical advantage. A hypothetical intervention could take place without attempting to reduce diversity in any area other than the specific gene variants targeted for roles in health problems. I think it's likely there may be such a development within about a century, possibly even beginning to appear within half a century. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure that's true. At some point some scientist somewhere will attempt to eliminate some heritable disease. It may not work out, it may be difficult, some unexpected problems may arise there may be some social backlash. But none of this would make it pseudoscience. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Again, eugenics as a movement has plenty of pseudoscientific assumptions regarding "genetic superiority" of certain races, ethnic groups, and social classes and how society should undergo an active breeding program to cultivate the supposed "superior" traits of these arbitrary groupings. How is that not pseudoscientific? Vee (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, the old movement (and any new ones with similar problems) is so. That's one topic. Then there's topics like the gene editing one above, which do not imply any of that. The big old "eugenics" package (my #1 above) is pseudoscientific because it contains pseudoscientific ingredients. Any other package whatever called, including one containing some of the non-pseudoscientific eugenics ingredients (and there's more than pseudoscience in the big package), is only pseudoscientific if it contains some pseudoscientific ingredients.
- If you keep only the non-pseudoscience from the whole of eugenics, then there's still ethical questions and much to debate, and the ideas of both what may be desirable, and what is feasible to do with present-day means, also looks more limited and uncertain, while the range of potential sci-fi dreams (both better and worse), i.e. things in the future which may be to the eugenics of old what modern medicine is to medieval "medicine", remains large. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- any ethical debates are simply out of context of the question "is it scientific"? --Aniro (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Are they really, though? Part of the reason why we at RationalWiki take such severe umbrage to pseudoscience is that it has a noted tendency to be used to snatch money away from and/or inflict harm upon the gullible. Luigifan18 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- yes, they totally are. You can easily find a number of perfectly scientific things that were used for scam or to inflict harm. To me it looks like quite a few guys here are trying to use belief in belief - "we need to believe that it's pseudoscience, because it's ethically good to believe so." --Aniro (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well no, that is sort of a strawman. The argument for pseudoscience comes with the theoretical assumptions the movement came with (i.e. Genetic determinism, racialism, superior races/classes, etc.). The problem is that this historical associations are not captured in the simple definition at the start of the article (that is what Bob is alluding to). I would probably argue that the definition is too broad. I wouldn't consider the application of CRSPR for germline editing to be eugenics per se. That broad of a definition would include many aspects of transhumanism, post-genderism, etc. Which I think is a bit problematic. Our article does bring into the second sentence...
- > "As Francis Galton put it in a 1909 essay, 'the aim of Eugenics is to bring as many influences as can be reasonably employed, to cause the useful classes in the community to contribute more than their proportion to the next generation.' It was the most dangerous form of biological determinism in modern history."
- Which I would argue is the more accurate representation of what eugenics was as defined by it's founder. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC).
- yes it is a strawman, because Galton wasn't the founder of eugenics and similar ideas were in use thousands years before him. Even if you want to say that "we call eugenics only this", don't forget to say that explicitly and let's do that in the article. Also, in this case we need to invent another name for this non-eugenics which is not based on ideas of 100% genetic determinism and other bad things. --Aniro (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I was actually alleging that you were strawmannimg Vee and myself. Galton literally coined the term eugenics, he was the one to define it. To state that eugenics was practiced throughout history prior to Galton, is similar to suggesting chemistry was founded in ancient history because metallurgy was practiced. You have to work from a pretty broad conceptualization of these terms — which in the case of eugenics I am specifically objecting to. So you are just begging the question assuming the very premise I am negating. So none of that follows from my logic. I don’t think most people think the artificial selection of cattle when they hear the word “eugenics”. That broad of an application of eugenics misses entirely the reason for the objections that people have. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Galton literally coined the term eugenics, he was the one to define it." - you obviously mistake the map for the territory. Also, it's quite funny that you decided to use the argument that you called fallacious only a day ago. "I don’t think most people think the artificial selection of cattle when they hear the word “eugenics”." - obviously not, because eugenics is about humans rather than other animals. "That broad of an application of eugenics misses entirely the reason for the objections that people have." - i.e. you prefer your own definition rather than the widely accepted one, because it serves your goals better. --Aniro (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- The map/territory dichotomy only really helps my argument here. If Eugenics is supposed to be a model/map of natural phenomena that would mean it’s aims are merely descriptive and such non-normative, it also should be said our discoveries about the territory has informed more accurate maps in genetics that eugenics actively decoheres with. Fitting the definition I applied to pseudoscience earlier. If Eugenics is merely a set of policies and normative practices, then the map/territory analogy doesn’t really apply unless there exists objective norms out there that our moral beliefs are merely model to. As an error theorist I would whole heartedly reject that. Also like if I said that alchemy was a proto-science to chemistry would that mean that alchemy predates the practice of chemistry? Yes or no. If not — what exactly made it proto-science then? Accusing me of the map/territory fallacy assumes there is something concrete and independent (read: non-abstract) to the principles of eugenics that I am missing; or more accurately given the alternative name to the fallacy is the fallacy of misplaced concreteness it is assuming there is anything at all non-abstract to the description of Eugenics. Which is arguably more apt to what you are doing. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also in reference to goals what exactly is my goal here and what exactly is yours? Is mine simply to discredit eugenics? If that is a goal worth deriding as a motivating bias, I would really want to question what your goals are exactly. Did you start this conversation in the hopes of defending Eugenics? Is that why you opened with an example of it “working”? I can just easily accuse you of refusing to accept the legitimacy of Eugenics as Pseudoscience due to servicing your own goals. But the very act isn’t exactly a relevant premise is it? So as applied to me it’s just as much an ad hominem - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- first of all, try to keep it concise and structured. Writing a lot of text often suggests that there is foul play going on, especially when that text is obfuscated. 1) Will you answer anything about your use of "argumentum ad dictionarium" that you called fallacious yourself? 2) Alchemy is pseudoscience because it's based on completely wrong assumptions. Eugenics was based on only partially wrong assumptions. There are some objectively inferior traits that are mostly hereditary, hemophilia for instance. 3) "Is mine simply to discredit eugenics?" - are you seriously asking me about your goals? Really? --Aniro (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- That’s just how I write. It annoyed my profs too but it doesn’t necessarily follow that there is ill intent. I think there is a difference when citing the origin of a concept and how it was defined in reference to an ideology/movement — for example, defining dictatorship of the proletariat by Marx’s definition when discussing Marxism is just required for a honest discussion of Marxism. Argumentum ad dictionarium is taking a contested definition or abstract concept and taking the dictionary’s definition as correct simply on the basis that it is in the dictionary. For example you wouldn’t get any high marks in an epistemology class if you tried to argue what knowledge was on the basis of the dictionary definition. This is simply because the dictionary’s definition can be problematic or even wrong in many instances; and it hardly if ever provides philosophically rigorous analysis. It seems relevant to me that when discussing eugenics you need to accurately express the view of eugenicists. I am asking about my goals because you are implying that you know them, and you seem to think that inferring my goals and attacking my style of writing are relevant arguments to this discussion; I simply find it curious what you are actually inferring from my behavior because from my perspective you have little to actually base any allegation upon. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- "That’s just how I write." - you have a good opportunity for improvement, then. "It seems relevant to me that when discussing eugenics you need to accurately express the view of eugenicists." - so, when you want it to be a fallacy, it's a fallacy. And when you don't, it's not. Very convenient. "I am asking about my goals because you are implying that you know them" - I already wrote about that, why ask again? --Aniro (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Also for the “objectively inferior” comment I am going to have to reject that entirely because that is a normative judgement that implies the existence of objective values that I would argue flat out do not exist. It may be a physical state of being undesirable for many people, but that does not make it “objectively inferior”. Nature does not independently rank physical states as better or worse on a hierarchy, that is entirely a product of human cognition. So no Eugenics is more then just “partially wrong”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- so you don't even bother to make up any answer to my argument about hemophilia, you just say "no it's just wrong because I want it to be wrong". Hemophilia is an objectively negative trait, plain and simple. --Aniro (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- it kind of goes to show you are not really conceptually equipped to even reply to me. I tell you something like "to say x in a objectively inferior trait" in the context of natural phenomena is automatically false because "objective" evaluations of that kind don't exist independently from human convention. You reply not by providing the argument that illustrates that such objective qualities do exist independently from human convention, but instead just reassert the premise again and declare it a "fact". That is just an argument by assertion. I don't have to work from the same axioms that you do. I am allowed to reject them, it is totally possible for what you assume to be true to be wrong. The universe doesn't ascribe the property of "inferiority" to physical phenomena -- if it did, then what exactly would this property even exist as independently from human convention/reason? This is just a category mistake.- 06:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC).
- This is getting pretty stupid, but it comes from someone who said "Galton wasn't the founder of eugenics" when he coined the fuckin' word. The word "eugenics" is, at the moment, strongly associated with scientific racism, which culminated with the use of eugenic principles by the Nazis and has faded for obvious scientific reasons. The term really doesn't apply to anything else in genetic science, honestly. That's because the term carries the weight of history. It is a "negative brand". No one working on genetic experiments such as genetic engineering calls their work eugenics. In fact, it will be the critics of any genetic experiments who will bring up the "eugenics" word. Why? Because history says "eugenics" wasn't associated with curing hemophilia, history says "eugenics" was associated with sterilizing those judged to be "inferior" for whatever stupid reason. It's a cautionary tale from the past for the modern experiments of today.
- If you want to try to "reclaim" the word to reflect all genetic science, go on your crusade. But at the moment, "eugenics" does not mean to the ordinary person what you are pushing it to mean, no matter what you think. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a possibility that the person we are talking to in fact identifies as a eugenicist. There is still a segment of the population to where the association with scientific racism is not a deal breaker, but rather the feature. Others uncritically accept the premise for edge lord purposes with a pretty ahistorical attitude. Helped along by really dumb tweets from the likes of Richard Dawkins - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC).
- and here it comes, good ol' ad hominem. Even if it was true (and it's not) you should know better than to use such blatantly fallacious arguments. --Aniro (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- "But at the moment, "eugenics" does not mean to the ordinary person what you are pushing it to mean, no matter what you think." - since when appeal to the majority became a valid argument? The mere fact that you're trying to use fallacious arguments like this is an evidence that you're wrong and are grasping at straws. --Aniro (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- LOL, nah, you are attempting a redefinition. Sort of. Actually most of your replies are "Variations On No U!" without barely anything to express why you are engaging in this shenanigans. Which I guess started something like "prenatal screening is eugenics and that makes it okay!" but ended up being 99% weaksauce assertions of various debate fallacies you are Googling. So I guess your real purpose is a Gish Gallop.
- (Trivia: There's a neat thing with the origin of the term "eugenics". Galton pulled the term from the Greek word εὐγενής. What's that mean in Greek? "Noble" / "well-born". Neat, eh? Kind of shows where he was going.)
- If your point is to argue endlessly, congratulations, you are accomplishing quite a bit. My thought of you being an obstinate troll was quite correct, so no need to reply further to what I'm sure will be another "NO U!" type of argument.
- "it kind of goes to show you are not really conceptually equipped to even reply to me" - ah ok, I see that you're simply too good to be argued with. /s "is automatically false because "objective" evaluations of that kind don't exist independently from human convention." - well if they were automatically false, then you've just proven that optimization theory (as well as numerous applied sciences that stem from it) are in fact pseudoscience. Bravo, just bravo. How far further you will go down this road? --Aniro (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's not that I am too good to be argued with, it's just very obvious you do not have the conceptual framework to even parse what I am saying. Evidenced again but your comment about optimization theory. It's not even applicable to what I am talking about. Optimization theory does not tell us that hemophilia is "objectively inferior" that doesn't make any mathematical sense as a declarative statement. What is it in nature independent from any human observation that makes hemophilia "inferior" absolutely...and inferior to what exactly? Does it lower fitness? Sure. Life expectancy? Sure. But are those things in of themselves objectively negative independent of any perspective? If so what exactly determines or grounds that? The Universe itself clearly isn't a conscious being applying an all present judgement on the manner. There is no goals to evolution... it is just a thing that happens. Extinction is just as much a natural part of it as adaptation. Diversity and death is necessary for ecological sustainability. So I don't think it is at all obvious that such traits are "objectively inferior" or "negative". That would be like describing predators killing their prey as "objectively negative" because the prey does not want to die. Nature doesn't give a shit.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC).
- try to suppress your feeling of self-importance for a while, because your arguments are primitive and well known to me. "It's not even applicable to what I am talking about." - so, you don't even understand that the supposed goal of eugenics - improving genetic quality - is a typical optimization task. And you have no idea how it works. Great. "But are those things in of themselves objectively negative" - yes, they totally are. Also, don't forget about dramatically increased costs of healthcare and decreased quality of life. Nobody in his proper mind would like to deal with those problems. "Extinction is just as much a natural part of it as adaptation" - so, you resorted to the "Mother Nature knows best" argument. You realize that genetic engineering (in any form) is different from evolution, don't you? As well as any form of engineering is different from "things that just happen"? --Aniro (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Kind of case in point with this response. You literally exemplified you have no idea what I am talking about, and again made another argument from assertion. I never made the argument “mother nature knows best” like not even remotely close to what I am talking about. “Genetic quality” is a kind of a nonsense phrase independent of any defined desired outcome — and that’s my point. To appeal to phrases like “no one in there right mind” again doesn’t indicate objectivity, there is nothing “mind independent” appealing to the content of people’s minds. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Here let me define some ideas for you since you demonstrate a lack of comprehension in this regard.
- Objective facts are those which are true independently of any observer, they are made true by the world external to our perception. As a test something would be objective if it continued to the be the case if no subjects existed to acknowledge it. Think “2 + 2 = 4” or the earth orbiting the sun.
- To state that near everyone acknowledges something does not establish something as objective because you haven’t established that if no one was here to acknowledge it — it would still be true. At best you described intersubjectivity, not objectivity. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing you should probably be made aware of the is the fact/value distinction exemplified in the is/ought fallacy. A fact is a description, it just about how things are, what is the case. Values are things ascribed importance, things to strive for, ideals, goals, things we ought to bring about, they are action-guiding, and they are prescriptive. Any intro science course will tell you that science is about establishing the former and not the latter. The latter is the subject of ethics, and philosophy. That's the problem here. You can not tell me that science can dictate what we objectively ought to avoid. That's not in the domain of science, and I would argue that is not even something in the business of being objective. If it was, then what exactly grounds that independently of human interests and perception? Is it logic? Physical phenomena? I don't see what action guiding principles are determined externally from ourselves regardless if we were to acknowledge it or not. Eugenics is not even covered in most applied sciences in regards to the use of mathematical optimization. A cursory glance at the concept makes zero mention to objective ethics and eugenics. You can't debunk this argument by simply insisting the opposite of my conclusion without any supporting argument, so don't simply re-assert "x is objectively bad, that's just a fact". I already challenged that repeatedly and you have offered zero counter-argument to that regard besides again using the fallacy of assertion. Your response to me has been totally circular in this regard. You can't just state "x is objective"... you have to show it.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- OT but religion falls in that category too. Religion and science are fundamentally not in conflict, they simply cover separate areas of the human sphere. I don't go to a preacher to hear about the latest in quantum physics, just as I don't go to a physicist to hear the WOG. Vee (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- so far, I see implications of your arguments much better than you do yourself. For instance, when you used "argumentum ad dictionarium" that you called fallacious yourself. And even tried to argue that in your case it's not in fact fallacious. And yes, your double standards do matter. Then, when you used "extinction is a natural part" and "ecological sustainability" as an argument against artificial selection, you didn't realize that these are exactly same arguments that Mother Nature wooists use, and you still don't realize it or prefer to pretend that you don't.
- "To appeal to phrases like “no one in there right mind” again doesn’t indicate objectivity" - and that's simply bs. If you spend some time, you can find some people who would say that 2+2=5. Or that Sun is orbiting around Earth. Etc. And that obviously means that 2+2=4 is not an objective fact, right? /s
- "Eugenics is not even covered in most applied sciences in regards to the use of mathematical optimization" - ah, argumentum ad dictionarium again?
- "I already challenged that repeatedly and you have offered zero counter-argument to that regard besides again using the fallacy of assertion" - accusation in a mirror. You say that I used the fallacy of assertion, while you used it yourself in that very sentence. It's not simply a fallacy, it's one of psycho-warfare dark arts.
- "“Genetic quality” is a kind of a nonsense phrase independent of any defined desired outcome — and that’s my point" - I see your point, and I see that it's based on sheer lack of knowledge. Any optimization task is solved by measuring some factors that scientists consider important for this task, weighting them and combining into the goal function, and then trying to find the changes to the system that maximize the goal function. There is no the only way to define the goal function, as often there is no the only way to maximize it, and even the results can vary when the global maximum can't be achieved. There are no universal one-size-fits-all goals, and they aren't supposed to be. But that doesn't mean that they aren't objective, they simply aren't Universal And The Only - and it looks like you mix up one with another. In other words, it's the Nirvana fallacy on your side. You understand what I wrote? --Aniro (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing against artificial selection? Psycho-warefare of dark arts? What the fuck are you on about? You also just described perfectly why these sort of assigned values aren't objective. "Consider important" is not an objective measure. You are literally talking out of your ass if you think mathematical optimization somehow enforces an objective value on eugenics. You have zero evidence in support of that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- First of all, don't be such a jerk and learn how to admit your mistakes with dignity. Your ignorance is not an excuse.
- "Psycho-warefare of dark arts? What the fuck are you on about?" - I'm talking about your use of accusation in a mirror, a thing considered "a hate-speech incitement technique".
- ""Consider important" is not an objective measure" - in this case, all the applications of mathematical optimization (i.e. pretty much all applied sciences and engineering disciplines) aren't objective and thus are pseudoscience. /s
- "objective value on eugenics" - in fact, I've just checked what Galton actually wrote, and all your lengthy arguments are based on strawmen and blatant lies. He didn't mention any "Universally Superior People" or anything like that, and he gave just one very specific and objective goal - to prevail over "less suitable" groups of people. --Aniro (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- "in this case, all the applications of mathematical optimization (i.e. pretty much all applied sciences and engineering disciplines) aren't objective and thus are pseudoscience. ".....uh yeah no. This isn't an argument that any serious philosopher of science nor I would provide. I never ever came across a demarcation criteria that insists that objectivity be the deciding factor to what is and is not science. Because anyone who knows even the most basic shit about the history of science would know that would classify most sciences as pseudoscience. No scientist is acting objectively. This is a pretty cold take. The goal is to determine objective facts about the world ideally by minimizing unwarranted biases, and implementing means most conductive to discovering truth in our methodology -- but that doesn't mean that scientists are acting objectively, or even that they have to be objective in order to obtain such results. In fact the whole idea that science has to be completely objective is a strawman usually provided by creationists - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- "In fact the whole idea that science has to be completely objective is a strawman usually provided by creationists" - but in this case, you're the one who used it. And now you feel an urge to say that you never did.
- so, looks like you're going to just go on and ignore any arguments that worked against you and move the goalposts? --Aniro (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah because I haven't. Show me exactly the premise I used that stated that science needs to be completely objective in order to be classed as science. Also how exactly is pointing out that mathematical optimization isn't used to evaluate eugenics an argumentum ad dictionarium? You stopped making sense. I don't even know how you are making these types of inferences. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also to the Galton thing, who do you think is supposed to "prevail" over less suitable people honey? That's supposed to denote some group of people. Who? The presumed superior people perhaps? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- if they actually do that, obviously they're are superior in this particular aspect. Now pay attention - not in every possible way that you can imagine, but only in this particular aspect. Not too difficult for you? --Aniro (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Whoa hold up. I think you just let the mask slip there honey. But also like what are you talking about in in terms of every possible way? Is that the criteria to make something objective? It's not the argument I made. I think you are getting caught up in what Richard Lewontin would call "biology as ideology". Dominance isn't per se something that makes one population "superior" to another especially considering how environmentally contextual such a dominance can be. So how could we class entire populations as objectively inferior or superior when it is entirely dependent on environmental context? Traits can be a adaptation in one environment, but interferes with fitness in another environment (think for example camouflage). This makes such factors temporary and contingent. We see that within populations. You could physically overpower me at one point in time, maybe even drive me out of a community. But that trait that may make you physically larger and stronger than me can also be a trait that makes you slower and easier to target by predators. We can't really class one another as one of us being essentially superior to the other because for all we know one of us can come back with a new advantage, or a trait that was disadvantageous in one context suddenly becomes advantageous in changing environments. We are just as much subject to the changes in our environment creating differences in environmental pressures as we are actual genetic inheritance. That just illustrates more problems with eugenics overall. One that sees superiority and inferiority solely as the result of inheritance. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- you digress again, and your returned verbosity isn't a good sign either. Your point was that Galton didn't give an objective definition of his understanding of superiority, but in fact he did, and all your arguments are based on a strawman. Nuff said.
- "when it is entirely dependent on environmental context" - no, not entirely. Some animals are very adaptive, some aren't adaptive at all. --Aniro (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn't really my point about Galton but like I wouldn't deny it either because the idea that anyone can provide an "objective definition" to superiority is basically absurd based on everything I stated previously. Also that second premise makes no sense in the context of evolution. Traits are adaptive if it increases fitness in a given environment, increasing the probability of the reproduction of offspring that can reproduce themselves. That constantly changes due to changing selection pressures brought about the environment which is never static. It is a category error to talk of animals as being generally more or less adaptive themselves across this board regardless of environmental context. Also mad sus that you are now shifting to defending Galton and not just genetic engineering as eugenics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- "absurd based on everything I stated previously" - ah, the fallacy of assertion again. Try something new. A new fallacy, probably, looking at your modus operandi.
- "It is a category error to talk of animals as being generally more or less adaptive themselves across this board regardless of environmental context" - and that's simply bs. Ever heard about invasive species? Apparently, some animals are much more likely to infiltrate and take over other habitats than other animals.
- "shifting to defending Galton" - from wrong accusations, yes. Why not? --Aniro (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Eugenics isn't just the use of genetic engineering or gene therapy for personally desirable outcomes per se, imo. I would argue it's built in the assumption that there exists objectively superior populations of human beings that if encouraged to breed freely while inferior populations were prevented from breeding it would result in a overall healthier, stronger, and more fit species of human being. This whole premise is based in a faulty understanding of genetics and evolution. As public policy proposals it called for the sterilization of the feebleminded, people of a certain race, the sterilization of criminals, etc. I don't think you can frame the "science" that informed the idea that black people produced objectively inferior children that hurt the overall well being of society due to faulty genes as being anything other then illegitimate as science. Hence pseudosceince. And if we divorce the definition of eugenics from these historical practices then our article is flawed. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC).
- maybe you would even say that Australopithecus isn't objectively inferior to modern type humans? --Aniro (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, because that's nonsense to me. There is no "objective" standard dictated by the biological world that necessitates that I would need to do so. There is no hierarchy here. It's just another extinct animal species. You are making a cultural evaluation and just pretending it's scientific because it makes sense to you. We can just as easily develop into an environment we are not adapted for and die out. Does that make us objectively inferior to what survives after us in the environments we couldn't live in? I wouldn't say so. If that was the case then there are a lot of species of bacteria that are "superior" to us because they can survive in environments we can't. This is the sort of shit they debunk in a first year biology course. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- "There is no hierarchy here" - that's why some species of animals completely drive competing species out of their natural habitat, huh? They didn't tell you about that in your first year biology course?
- "If that was the case then there are a lot of species of bacteria that are "superior" to us because they can survive in environments we can't." - people can (and do) survive in environments where no bacteria can. Not taken for granted, but we can do that when when we don't act too stupid. --Aniro (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- But there is probably a lot more bacterial organisms surviving on this planet in environments that no human organism possibly can. What does that imply exactly about how humans rank against bacteria? This isn't helping your argument. Also for the first example they call that natural selection and genetic drift. They do not call that an objective moral "hierarchy". You seem to be implying heavily a "might makes right" sort of worldview which is not a product of biology, that's a product of fascist ideology. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- I'd prefer not to compare apples to oranges. Comparing people to other animals of medium size makes sense, comparing people to cockroaches much less, and comparing people to bacteria doesn't make much sense at all.
- "moral hierarchy"? Who talk about that? I definitely don't.
- "that's a product of fascist ideology" - ah, Godwin's law in action. How many fallacies you haven't used yet? Looks like you're working hard to cover them all. --Aniro (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you talk about certain traits being objectively inferior that ought to be avoided you are talking about a moral ranking. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Also the first statement is kind of nonsensical. Why would size even be a factor to discounting comparisons between organisms in terms of what makes them presumably superior for whatever reason? Also not technically Godwin's law because I did not say that you yourself are a nazi. I am saying that the source of your seeming worldview seems more so reflective of fascist ideology then it does a genuine understanding of biology. Hence why I referenced Lewontin "Biology as Ideology" earlier. You are imposing cultural conceptions into biological systems to where there isn't any. Nature is completely neutral on such matters. But INB4 "appeal to nature" fallacy that isn't to say we must therefore be neutral about it to. I don't think you actually comprehend what these fallacies actually mean or when exactly they apply. Also you know it is itself a fallacy to assume that because someone made a fallacy they are therefore incorrect right? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- "you are talking about a moral ranking" - dude, you're batshit crazy. I'm talking about the ability to survive, you're talking about "moral ranking".
- "Why would size even be a factor to discounting comparisons between organisms in terms of what makes them presumably superior for whatever reason?" - obviously, because of completely different biological niches. They didn't teach you that in your first year biology course?
- "You are imposing cultural conceptions into biological systems" - wat? You either survive or you don't. There is nothing cultural about it.
- "Also not technically Godwin's law because I did not say that you yourself are a nazi" - not really. It's about comparison to Nazis.
- "Also you know it is itself a fallacy to assume that because someone made a fallacy they are therefore incorrect right?" - not in the case when someone makes fallacies as often as you do. --Aniro (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- "dude, you're batshit crazy. I'm talking about the ability to survive, you're talking about 'moral ranking'" - I think you need a reminder that this topic is about eugenics which was an entirely normative paradigm. When you are talking about normativity, ethics, or social policy (and objective determinants there of); you are talking about morality.
- "obviously, because of completely different biological niches. They didn't teach you that in your first year biology course?" - This isn't any less arbitrary. This is relevant to my point about changing selection pressures due to changes in the environment however, which would also apply to niches. That makes a lot of these things causally related in some capacity. That's a basic premise to like ... ecology. Populations within different environmental niches can still impact your fitness and vice versa. Our agricultural system is highly dependent on the microbiomes that exist in the soil we grow our crops from. So these are not all completely unrelated to each other. Regardless though I don't see why "niche occupied" is any more or less relevant then "size". A bad fungal growth can drive entire human populations out of a environment.
- " wat? You either survive or you don't. There is nothing cultural about it." - that is not what eugenics was about though. Plenty of "feebleminded" people are capable of survival.
- "not really. It's about 'comparison' to Nazis." - which is sometimes appropriate and not strictly speaking always fallacious.
- "not in the case when someone makes fallacies as often as you do." - that is not a real exception to the fallacy fallacy lol. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- you're trying to substitute one thing for another, again and again. The question wasn't "is eugenics moral". The question was "can eugenics possibly do what the proponents say it can do". Try to focus on this.
- "Populations within different environmental niches can still impact" - they possibly can, but they don't compete directly. So, you insist on comparing apples to oranges?
- "which is sometimes appropriate and not strictly speaking always fallacious" - let me guess. It's fallacious when and only when you want it to be fallacious, right?
- "that is not a real exception to the fallacy fallacy" - it's not a 100% reliable, but quite strong evidence that you're wrong. --Aniro (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- it's quite funny, but you've just refuted your own main argument. I kinda lagged understanding that, but it looks like you still don't understand it. --Aniro (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Except you haven't at all demonstrated I made these fallacies, reading my previous comments I think I make a pretty clear case why for example "argumentum ad dictionarium" didn't apply to my characterization of eugenics. You provide this allegation that when I accuse you of the fallacy of assertion I am simply accusing you of what I am doing. Except I don't just present a conclusion and insist upon it as is. I provide premises in support of the conclusion, I give reasons, and explain why I think this conclusion is correct. That is demonstrably not what the argument via assertion is. In my rejection of "objective superiority and inferiority" I make my case in the lack mind-independent grounding, the is/ought distinction, Hume's law, etc. Your refutation of my conclusion? "it just is factually objective", "that is simply bs" , etc. Those aren't real premises in support of a conclusion. Also no our initial question was "is Eugenics pseudoscience?" that is the topic of this section. My point is that it makes many a unwarranted assumption about the superiority/inferiority of living populations, adopts pseudoscientific positions like racialism, genetic determinism, etc. all of which make it "decohere" with contemporary genetics. The properties I assign to eugenics comes from the actual arguments that eugenicists forwarded throughout history -- that's evidence for my claims. There is a sub-argument here about the existence of "objective" superiority and inferiority (which again applies value and so that is/ought distinction rears it's ugly head again and gets back into the subject of ethics/morality) - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- Except I already refuted all your arguments that made at least some sense, and the only thing you could do now is to reassert again what awesome job you have done and scream "I win I win I win!!!111"
- "I make a pretty clear case why for example "argumentum ad dictionarium" didn't apply to my characterization of eugenics" - of course you did. It's not a fallacy when you use it. /s
- "Hume's law" is not in fact a law in the same sense as Newton's laws are. It's only a thesis that Hume made and other philosophers disputed. But it does sound cool and adds some weight to your words in the eyes of someone who doesn't do fact checking, right?
- "rejection of "objective superiority and inferiority" I make" - as I already said, if you reject it, then you have to reject the optimization theory and thus pretty much all the applied sciences. Because they all are based on this concept. If you can't measure and rank things, you can't do any optimization. End of the story.
- and yes, when you say something utterly and completely wrong (for instance, when you said that all the animals are equally adaptable), to call bullshit is the only thing that I can do.
- genetic determinism (as in "everything is determined by the genes only") is a pseudoscientific concept, but in fact Galton didn't use it and your statement that he did is a strawman, and your own blank-slatism is pseudoscientific as well. Or should I say Lysenkoism? In any case, it's pseudoscience with a long history. --Aniro (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are so confident in thinking my argument is self-refuting and that you understand it better then I do. Then please summarize my argument back to me including all major premises and conclusions. Please show me the logical proofs that demonstrate these self-refuting implications in first-order predicate logic. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC).
- no, it's not self-refuting. It's only you saying one thing in one place and the opposite in another. --Aniro (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- That would be an argument that implies a logical contradiction and therefore would be a self-refuting argument by definition via reductio ad absurdum. Lucky for you! That should be a very easy logical proof to provide. Please provide. I only want to learn from these apparent logical errors that I don't seem to be consciously aware of despite my post-secondary education on the subject. Clearly you know this topic better then me so providing a proof in FOL should not be a problem for you. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC).
- nope, those simply are two arguments that you used but that didn't connect in your brains (yet). --Aniro (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- That should still be able to be logically proven. All you need to do is derive the statement form the one argument and derive the next statement from the other argument and show that they take the form P ^ ~ P. Which is a logical contradiction, and therefore my entire position in this conversation has been self-refuting. You do know what P ^ ~ P means don't you? You know how to do a logical proof don't you? You are trained in logic are you not? Just take a quote from me, and take another that implies it's negation and put them together. From where I stand I don't see where I have negated myself so please, enlighten me.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC).
- given that you won't try to abandon your own arguments as soon as you see where it's going, and I'm pretty sure that you will. But let's try, maybe you do have some intellectual honesty left in your soul. So you said that no species can be called generally more or less adaptive than other, didn't you? More specifically, generally more or less able to survive than other species? --Aniro (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't a logical proof. But also oversimplifying my premise as to change the meaning. You cannot say that one species is essentially more adaptive then another independent of the environment that is what I said. I never denied the possibility of an organism possessing an adaptive trait that increases their fitness in a particular environment more so then another organism within the same and/or similar environment. Now in order to have argued the opposite I would have had to say that one species is essentially more adaptive then another independent from the environment. The point being you cannot assign a property of "adaptiveness" to an organism inherently and absolutely regardless of environment. Whether or not a trait is adaptive is determined by the environment, because it is the environment that provides the selection pressure. At one point have I ever contradicted that? Please provide quotes. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
|
