 |
Duration: 09:01 minutes
Upload Time: 2007-11-13 01:15:00
User: JHBowden
:::: Favorites
:::: Top Videos of Day
|
Description:
A tour of the thought of Australian philosopher David Stove.
Synopses I have written:
The Rationality of Induction
http://readmejhb.blogsome.com/2007/09/01/the-rationality-of-induction/
Robert Nozick's War Wounds
http://readmejhb.blogsome.com/2006/09/12/robert-nozicks-war-wounds/
Darwinian Fairytales
http://readmejhb.blogsome.com/2007/05/09/darwinian-fairytales/
Scientific Irrationalism
http://readmejhb.blogsome.com/2006/10/11/scientific-irrationalism/
Cole Porter and Karl Popper
http://readmejhb.blogsome.com/2006/09/15/the-jazz-age-and-the-philosophy-of-science/
|
Comments |
Z4lUS ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 09:43:19
Thanks Jason, looking forward to more. I've just begun to dive into philosophy. Any recommendations?
__________________________________________________ |
Elhan2005 ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 10:42:32
Thanks for bringing him up.
__________________________________________________ |
truthadvocate ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 18:46:21
Stove obviously didn't understand evolution nor science according to your description. No evolutionist would ever treat Darwin as a prophet or DNA as a God. Evolution is the simplest explanation for what we observe throughout the world. The things you mentioned, which at first thought may seem to contradict evolutionary principals, do not. Example: helping people that have no genetic similarity to us DOES help us survive as a species that lives & collaborates in highly populated communities
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 22:48:18
Stove did not deny that organisms descended from each other through modification in a process that spans billions of years.
Stove did argue that there are cases where natural selection has no explanatory power. In addition, Stove argued modern gene puppetry theories are almost completely worthless.
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 22:48:30
For example, a defender of the Darwinian new testament would have much trouble explaining soldiers, priests, abortionists, and homosexuals in terms of genes, given heteros leave more descendents than homos, priests don't leave any descendents, abortionists kill their descendents, and soldiers can die in their effort to kill others of their own species.
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-13 22:50:46
The Darwinian Old Testament suffers from similar problems. The theory states that offspring of species have variations, and offspring are produced at a faster rate than the food supply, which produces a contest where only the fittest survive. You're saying this theory is universal, since natural selection applies at all times, and all places. I need not remind you that the 21st Century is a time, and Western democracies are places.
__________________________________________________ |
threeofwands ::: Favorites 2007-11-14 17:01:14
you seem very confused right in here. priests, homomsexuals, soldiers, and abortionsists are roles that homo-sapiens construct and occupy. they are not biological species.
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-14 22:29:40
threewands--
You have a keen eye for the obvious.
Note that people playing the roles of priests and homosexuals reproduce far less than those who don't. Hence their existence cannot be explained strictly in terms of natural selection.
__________________________________________________ |
threeofwands ::: Favorites 2007-11-14 22:46:03
you must be talking about some kind of "social darwinism" school. scientists who deal only with natural selection attempt to identify reasons for biological change (for example bipedalism or a disappearing appendage). priests and soldiers are usually dealt with by historians.
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-14 23:13:57
threeofwand--
You're making an extra-stupid argument. Do you deny that homosexuals, abortionists, soldiers, and priests exist? If natural selection was a universal theory, homosexuals, for example, would have been weeded out millions of years ago, namely because homosexuals usually don't leave offspring.
__________________________________________________ |
threeofwands ::: Favorites 2007-11-14 23:29:35
well, most people familiar with current research in natural selection are aware that homosexuality is a pheneomena that occurs in many insect and animal species.
as far as soldiers and priests, i can only say that these are cultural phenomena that should be studied by historians and social theorists. if this strikes you as blind stupidity, my apolgies. cont.
__________________________________________________ |
threeofwands ::: Favorites 2007-11-14 23:32:57
as far as abortionists, it is my understanding that they are health care professionals (doctors) and so are wealthy enough to have as many offspring as they like. that this will Not end up making a bunch of abortion specialists in the future i take as a given, and not a refutation of natural selection.
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-15 09:15:27
three--
Look, if natural selection applies at all times and places, and we're controlled by our selfish genes as the Darwinian New Testament predicts, what kind of selfish gene would kill its own genetic offspring? 'Wealth' is a social construct as you would put it, like a 'healthcare professional'. I agree though that wealth and education are better explanations of why the practice of abortion persists within my species. Appealing to genes simply won't do the explanatory job.
__________________________________________________ |
JHBowden ::: Favorites 2007-11-15 09:16:16
threewands--
"are aware that homosexuality is a pheneomena that occurs in many insect and animal species"
This does makes your case worse, not better. Under natural selection, homosexuality should not exist at all in any species. And you can't dismiss this by saying homosexuality among insects is a social insect construct, or some other stupidity.
__________________________________________________ |
threeofwands ::: Favorites 2007-11-15 18:35:04
in my opinion this particular criticism would be applicable more to Lamarck and acquired characteristics. that view has been discredited since Darwin.
by the way, if you read these posts you will see that we are not in disagreement on how best to study cultural phenomena such as soldiers, priests, etc.
__________________________________________________ |
