Dawkins tends to see an truth, and then overstate it. What he says
isn't usually exactly wrong, so much as one-sided. This may be an
exception.
Some meanings of "group selection" don't appear to map onto reality.
Others map very weakly. Some have reasonable explanatory power. If you
don't define with precision which meaning you are using, then you invite
confusion. As such, it's a term that it's better not to use.
But I wouldn't usually call it a lie. Merely a mistake. The exact
nature of the mistake depend on precisely what you mean, and the context
within which you are using it. Often it's merely a signal that you are
confused and don't KNOW precisely what you are talking about, but merely
the general ball park within which you believe it lies. Only rarely is
it intentionally used to confuse things with malice intended. In that
final case the term "lie" is appropriate. Otherwise it's merely
inadvisable usage.
Eric Burton wrote:
I remember Richard Dawkins saying that group selection is a lie. Maybe
we shoud look past it now? It seems like a problem.
On 8/29/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK. How about this . . . . Ethics is that behavior that,
when shown by you,
makes me believe that I should facilitate your survival.
Obviously, it is
then to your (evolutionary) benefit to behave ethically.
Ethics can't be explained simply by examining interactions between
individuals. It's an emergent dynamic that requires explanation at the
group level. It's a set of culture-wide rules and taboos - how did they
get there?
I wasn't explaining ethics with that statement. I was identifying how
"evolution operates in social groups in such a way that I can derive ethics"
(in direct response to your question).
Ethics is a system. The *definition of ethical behavior* for a given group
is "an emergent dynamic that requires explanation at the group level"
because it includes what the group believes and values -- but ethics (the
system) does not require belief history (except insofar as it affects
current belief). History, circumstances, and understanding what a culture
has the rules and taboos that they have is certainly useful for deriving
more effective rules and taboos -- but it doesn't alter the underlying
system which is quite simple . . . . being perceived as helpful generally
improves your survival chances, being perceived as harmful generally
decreases your survival chances (unless you are able to overpower the
effect).
Really? I must be out of date too then, since I agree with his explanation
of ethics. I haven't read Hauser yet though, so maybe you're right.
The specific phrase you cited was "human collectives with certain taboos
make the group as a whole more likely to persist". The correct term of art
for this is "group selection" and it has pretty much *NOT* been supported by
scientific evidence and has fallen out of favor.
Matt also tends to conflate a number of ideas which should be separate which
you seem to be doing as well. There need to be distinctions between ethical
systems, ethical rules, cultural variables, and evaluations of ethical
behavior within a specific cultural context (i.e. the results of the system
given certain rules -- which at the first-level seem to be reasonably
standard -- with certain cultural variables as input). Hauser's work
identifies some of the common first-level rules and how cultural variables
affect the results of those rules (and the derivation of secondary rules).
It's good detailed, experiment-based stuff rather than the vague hand-waving
that you're getting from armchair philosophers.
I fail to see how your above explanation is anything but an elaboration of
the idea that ethics is due to group selection. The following statements
all support it:
- "memes [rational or otherwise] when adopted by a group can enhance group
survival"
- "Ethics is first and foremost what society wants you to do."
- "ethics turns into a matter of determining what is the behavior that is
best for society"
I think we're stumbling over your use of the term "group selection" and
what you mean by "ethics is due to group selection". Yes, the group
"selects" the cultural variables that affect the results of the common
ethical rules. But "group selection" as a term of art in evolution
generally meaning that the group itself is being selected or co-evolved --
in this case, presumably by ethics -- which is *NOT* correct by current
scientific understanding. The first phrase that you quoted was intended to
point out that both good and bad memes can positively affect survival -- so
co-evolution doesn't work. The second phrase that you quoted deals with the
results of the system applying common ethical rules with cultural variables.
The third phrase that you quoted talks about determining what the best
cultural variables (and maybe secondary rules) are for a given set of
circumstances -- and should have been better phrased as "Improving ethical
evaluations turns into a matter of determining . . . "
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
