----- Original Message -----
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
> on 4/9/01 6:36 PM, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: Brin-L
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 7:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
> >
> >
> >
> > So I just got done reading Matt Ridley's "The Origin of Virtue". Quite
good
> > until the very end where he (like many authors) slips over from well
argued
> > science to politics. Ridley (the author of Genome and The Red Queen -two
of
> > the best books around about modern state of genomes and evolution)
argues
> > that human morality arose as an adaptation. He starts by talking about
game
> > theory covering much of the same ground as Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene"
.
> > Lots of neat things about Prisoner's Dilemma and Tit for Tat. He moves
on to
> > discuss how primates cooperate and about the importance of hunting. He
tries
> > to establish the narrow circumstances in which individuals would
sacrifice
> > for the group (only if it benefits one's own genes). He goes from there
to
> > discussing human societies. At the end he takes an unfortunate right
turn (I
> > worry that so many of the science writers I like best are or are accused
of
> > being very conservative) into a defense of private or group property
> > ownership. Maybe more libertarian than conservative. Anyway worth the
read.
> >
> > Dan's reply
> >
> > I think that much of the problem has to do with the tendency of people
who
> > look to biology and evolution as the foundation of their understanding
of what
> > it means to be human are social Darwinists. From that Rand like
viewpoint,
> > altruism and community responsibilities are unnatural aberrations.
>
> I have trouble interpreting your intent here. Since you normally present
> facts and arguments carefully to support your views, the first order
> assumption is that you take this to be a reasonable statement. But
comparing
> evolutionary biology to 'Social Darwinism' is like conflating astronomy
with
> astrology.
Did you read Zimmy's post at all the way I did? I understood that , he was
talking about the end of decent to good books on evolutionary biology where
the author stops talking about science and starts talking politics. (Zimmy
if I am wrong, please tell me...maybe I misunderstood your post.) I
understood that he noticed that several of the authors started to argue for
libertarian ideas.
Well, I've heard this stuff dressed up a zillion different ways, often by
very educated people. Mayhaps Social Darwinism was a bit over the top, but
it all boiled down to selfishness being natural and right. I admit that I
didn't read that particular book, and I was speculating from
generalizations. But, as Zimmy pointed out so well, lots of stuff we
consider unethical are evolutionarily favored.
What bugs me about many of these books is that the authors stop talking
about science and start talking metaphysics or politics without properly
noting the transition. My guess is that you might argue that its all
science. If that is true, we have profoundly different understandings of
what science is. I posted my view a number of times. I'd be interested to
see your. I do feel obliged to note that even my colleagues who hold Rand
in high extreme agree with me on where the line between science an
metaphysics is. I'm guessing we differ on that.
>Anyone with a modest layman's knowledge of the subject would know
> that both Ridley and Dawkins have as little patience with 'Social
Darwinism'
> as they have with Lysenkoism. Perhaps evolutionary biology is as
distasteful
> to your world-view as artificial intelligence (another topic on which your
> posts fail to meet your usual standards).
Nah, its dressing up metaphysics as science that's distasteful. As far as
AI goes, my suspicions have a very practical basis. Since its been about 5
years now and I left the company involved, I guess I can name the school.
Several professors from MIT came and sold AI as a solution to my former
company. Those of us responsible for working with them kept on trying to
pin them down, but they wouldn't talk specifics. They kept on talking in
general buzz words. Anyone who's a practical scientist/engineer would have
said "smoke and mirrors" within 15 minutes. Luckily, we got out of working
with them. Another division, after spending 5 million got a nifty report.
These guys are name AI folks at a major university. Their failure to do
more than smoke and mirrors. This has not been the first time the oil
industry has been sold down the river by AI proponents. If you think that
having a dim view of the present state of AI as a result of this is just
lowering my standards, so be it. For my part, I think it is just part of
being an experimentalist. :-)
>Making ignorant statements about subjects you don't care to understand or
address properly >doesn't impress.
Well, the fact that I differ with you doesn't necessarily mean I am
ignorant. While I can certainly be wrong about almost any subject, I
honestly believe I have demonstrated a half way decent understanding of how
science works. If you disagree, maybe you can start by pointing out what is
wrong what I've posted on the nature of science.
Dan M.
