David S: >>>To be pithy, the religious right is troubled by the Origin of Species (what man evolved from), and the Left is troubled by the Descent of Man (what man evolved to).<<<
me:>>pithy, but opaque. What did people evolve to? a long, long, time ago Darwin's evolution took back seat to socio-cultural and technological evolution, so that the latter becomes much more important to understanding what people are. << David S:> Well, I understand that is your view. And it may even be right. But is it right to the point of finality? It cannot be challenged? I thought, philosophically, "science" does not permit such finality.< I totally agree on the issue of finality. Every conclusion I come to is just a working hypothesis that can be challenged on the empirical, logical, and/or methodological level. I used to preface every question with "I think that" or the like, but that's extremely boring. A little bit of certainty doesn't hurt as long as it's combined with humility. (And I excell at humility! ;-) ) By the way, you seem to have asserted that you know the final and utter truth (though you don't say what it is) when you say that there's something that "man evolved to." It sounds like you may have left out the "I think that" clause... >Therefore, I stand by my assertion that as for the Left's view of "science," there are limits to inquiry. As far as I can tell, "don't ask, don't tell" is the Left's view of certain aspects of Darwinian evolution when it comes to human beings. < I still don't understand. Most leftoids are very much in favor of science (e.g., physics), though opposed to many of its applications (in this case, neutron bombs). There are no limits to inquiry, except that some lines (e.g., racial differences in IQ) seem to be dead-ends that are also highly infused with ideology (in this case, racism). We also oppose silly reductionism, as represented by Gandolfi, Gandolfi, and Barash's _Economics as Evolutionary Science: From Utility to Fitness_ which combines Chicago-school (Beckerian) economics with "selfish gene" biology. But that's not a rejection of any of their original research. Rather, it's a rejection of the theoretical framework (paradigm) that they try to force empirical data into. What "certain aspects of Darwinian evolution when it comes to human beings" are you referring to? Please be specific. What is meant by some (all?) leftists' alleged don't ask/don't tell attitude toward these? I think that it's important to separate _a priori_ rejection from one based on empirical, logical, and methodological points. Some people (left, right, and center) reject the idea of racial differences in innate intelligence basically without studying the issue (i.e., on an _a priori_ level). But there are also a lot of people (left, right, and center) who reject the alleged correlation based on empirical, logical, and/or methodological reasons. -- Jim Devine / Bust Big Brother Bush! "To be positive: To be mistaken at the top of one's voice." -- Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
