Re: Darwinism
William T Goodall wrote: > > With the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of > _The Origin of Species_ this year there's been a lot of news > coverage lately on 'Darwinism', and with the politicisation of the > subject by religionists and the misdirection favoured by those > trying to confound the matter the agenda of some of these stories > is hard to parse. > Here in Brazil, creationism is _only_ mentioned in support to USA bashing. We will miss Bush and his endless source of jokes. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Darwinism
On 11/02/2009, at 12:14 PM, Max Battcher wrote: > William T Goodall wrote: >> in _The New York Times_ 'Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May >> Live' is an example. >> >> Scientists don't talk about "Darwinism", creationists do. > > I can't think of a recent example by just about anyone of the term > "darwinism" that was outside of the phrase "social darwinism" or in > reference to the "darwin awards". Then you don't deal with creationists much - "Darwinist" is how they frame evolutionary scientists. But I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of spending less emphasis on the scientists and more on the science. But still, Happy 200th Birthday Charles Darwin (tomorrow in Americaland). I'm sorry you didn't get to see genetics, you'd have been delighted. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Darwinism
William T Goodall wrote: > in _The New York Times_ 'Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May > Live' is an example. > > Scientists don't talk about "Darwinism", creationists do. I can't think of a recent example by just about anyone of the term "darwinism" that was outside of the phrase "social darwinism" or in reference to the "darwin awards". If there is a word that "must die" because it has too much emotional baggage among creationists the word is "evolution" and unfortunately we have no better replacement and would probably lose more in changing words than we would gain... > This seems to be an attempt at 'framing' the science by altering the > terms of the debate. I can understand how frustrated rational people > get at the rhetorical antics of the superstitious religionists but > fighting truth-mangling with more truth-mangling seems wrong to me. Well, 'framing' uses the connotation of a word against its denotation, and so those most susceptible to issues of framing are those that don't bother to seek the actual definitions of a word and actual contexts of its usage. Science using framing is akin to fighting ignorance with a slightly different aerosol form of ignorance. It won't solve any real issues. But who knows how to solve the real issues here? -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net We haven't evolved past the need for words Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Darwinism
With the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of _The Origin of Species_ this year there's been a lot of news coverage lately on 'Darwinism', and with the politicisation of the subject by religionists and the misdirection favoured by those trying to confound the matter the agenda of some of these stories is hard to parse. This essay http://tinyurl.com/ctpuqq in _The New York Times_ 'Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live' is an example. Scientists don't talk about "Darwinism", creationists do. This seems to be an attempt at 'framing' the science by altering the terms of the debate. I can understand how frustrated rational people get at the rhetorical antics of the superstitious religionists but fighting truth-mangling with more truth-mangling seems wrong to me. Necessary lies Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Libertarianism, Social Darwinism, Syndico-Anarchism, and Utilitarianism.
> From: Trent Shipley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I can make a clear distinction between libertarianism and > syndico-anarchism > that has been making a comeback. > > Also, I tend to equate libertariansim with social darwinism. > Though both have > different histories and rationales both political-economic > camps tend to > produce identical results. > > However, is there a practical difference between libertarianism and > utilitarianism? There were just WAY too many "isms" in that post for me. It is way too early in the morning for that. My head is still spinning. - jmh What about Bagism? Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Libertarianism, Social Darwinism, Syndico-Anarchism, and Utilitarianism.
On Monday 2004-03-01 16:39, Julia Thompson wrote: > Trent Shipley wrote: > > I can make a clear distinction between libertarianism and > > syndico-anarchism that has been making a comeback. > > Can you define syndico-anarchism for me? > > Thank you. > > Julia My understanding of syndycho-anarchism is imperfect, but with that cavat let us proceed. Syndico-anarchism was an historical variation in the socialist family of political thought. Its heyday was in the last part of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th. It is most closely associed with Souther Europe, especially Spain and Italy. In some ways South European syndico-anarchism bears a family resemblence to Anglo-American libertarianism in that both see *legitimate* state-level government as emergent. Libertarians are vested in the Hobbes-Locke master narrative of society as emergent from individuals and their contracts. Continental political thought as always dismissed this anglophone fascination with social emergence as absurd. In Contental master narratives humans are irreducibly social creatures. Society is just as eternal and fundamental as the individual. Thus, you will not be surprised that syndico-anarchists saw the community as the fundamental political actor. In the context of the developing economies of Italy and Spain "community" meant the "primordial" rural village or parish. Village society would be leveled (usually the anarchist saw violence as necessary to level the patron class). Then villages would take care of their own much as they always had and invest in common goods such as schools, roads, clean water, sewage, and village co-ops (socialism). Villages would then combine together to form task-specific regional agreements and organizations. Of course, in cities the village community could not be the the atomic political unit, instead the modern instantiation of the trade guild, the labor union (called a labor syndicate in French, Italian, or Spanish) would be the natural basis of urban proletariat community. Labor syndicates would become the worker-owners of the industries in which they labored, take care of their own, and negotiate with other syndicates to run the city. Ultimately, a National government would emerge from the actions of automomous villages (anarchy) and unions (syndicates). There would be progress, local autonomy (you can see why it would apeal to Basques), a sense of belonging, and no one would be forgotten. Note that historically, syndico-anarchists were quite prone to assasination and terrorism. Today we are seeing a revival of syndico-anarchist ideas both among some virtual communities. (Some say Richard Stallman is a libertarian, but given his devotion the the community-of-hackers, I see him as a virtual-anachist.) Also among anti-globalizationists and greens we are seeing neo-anarchist thinking. Note however, that we now use the word 'anarchy' to mean chaos, especially social and political chaos. This is not what the olde syndico-anarchists meant by anarchy. (Though they were willing to embrace they theory that if central power was sufficiently disrupted the sovereignty of the local communities and labor formations would necessarilly emerge from the resulting chaos.) By the 20th century and still today we often use 'anarchist' to mean someone who for aesthetic or political reasons desires political and social chaos as an end-in-itself. Nevertheless, we need to be aware of anarchy and anarchist as references to syndico-anarchism and its derivitives. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Libertarianism, Social Darwinism, Syndico-Anarchism, and Utilitarianism.
Trent Shipley wrote: > > I can make a clear distinction between libertarianism and syndico-anarchism > that has been making a comeback. > > Also, I tend to equate libertariansim with social darwinism. Though both have > different histories and rationales both political-economic camps tend to > produce identical results. > > However, is there a practical difference between libertarianism and > utilitarianism? Can you define syndico-anarchism for me? Thank you. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Libertarianism, Social Darwinism, Syndico-Anarchism, and Utilitarianism.
I can make a clear distinction between libertarianism and syndico-anarchism that has been making a comeback. Also, I tend to equate libertariansim with social darwinism. Though both have different histories and rationales both political-economic camps tend to produce identical results. However, is there a practical difference between libertarianism and utilitarianism? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
