Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)


"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someonelse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:SPWif.585495$_o.439609@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dm8dej$o7t$02$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> Apparently the current administration tends to think AFTER the fact and
> >> tends to select only that evidence which supports their pre-conceived
> >> conclusions. Secondarily, their "thinking" tends to hew strictly to
> >> ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). They are
not
> >> the first to do this, nor, sadly, will they be the last.

> > That they adjust their reasoning AFTER the fact was the impression I got
as
> > the Iraq war went on. First, the reason to wage war was "Iraq has WMD".
> > After it was evident that there was no WMD to be found, the reason was
"to
> > liberate Iraq from Saddam". After Saddam was caught and hostilities
didn't
> > slow down, it was "to bring them democracy".
> > Each of those reasons may be honorable, but somehow it appears like
> > defining the rules DURING the game to make sure that one certain party
is the
> > winner, no matter how things may go.

> The question is not so much whether to go to war, but what to expect as
> response to the war itself and to the aftermath (it being a given that the
> US would triumph in a "traditional" ground war). Most of those who knew
even
> a little bit about Iraq, its history, culture, traditions, and peoples
were
> well aware that things would sink rather rapidly into the chaotic
conditions
> we see today, especially in the Sunni Triangle. While some progress is
being
> made from certain aspects, and while the overall situation seems to be
> improving, much of the dire conditions could have been and should have
been
> avoided through careful consideration of the entire country, rather than
> simply focussing upon a military solution to the removal of Saddam Hussein
> and the possibility of the development or deployment of WMD.

I guess that the decisions to wage war were mainly made by generals and
military staff with focus on the MILITARY aspects, not by anthropologists
who would have drawn social and cultural issues into consideration.

> As to the WMD question let me only say that a colleague (albeit one I do
not
> know well) worked in S.H.'s nuclear weapons development program. What he
has
> said is quite seriously frightening enough to warrant action against
> Hussein. It is unfortunate that the entire country had to be dragged down
> with him, like some modern day Gotterdammerung (sorry, I've forgotten how
to
> umlaut on an American ASCII keyboard); such, however, seems to be the way
of
> dictators.

Yes, it seems to be typical for dictators to drag their country down when
they founder. Another reason why nations should better not have them!
What I can't really understand is that no WMD were found in Iraq in spite of
lots of efforts and best equipment standards on the American side. If there
were WMD, why didn't Saddam *USE* them when things went rough for him? I
don't believe he would have had much qualms to deploy them.

> >> For some reason it seems to be the tendency to work the inductive
process
> >> backwards, cooking the data, looking for the evidence that supports an
> >> established hypothesis, and then calling it "scientific" or
"reasoning."
> >> Some of my students have even claimed they were taught that reverse
process
> >> AS IF it were the way science is supposed to be done... they were
taught
> >> that in high school, apparently.

> > It might be an interesting experiment to turn the chain of causation
> > upside
> > down, in order to make the flaws of a theory transparent. But it should
be
> > made clear that the inductive process has only ONE direction. To invert
it
> > is no longer scientific but rather religious. (Which brings us back to
the
> > original title of this thread, "What does an evolutionist actually
> > believe"). :-)

> And that is exactly the point of Popper's so-called "falsifiability": to
> turn the process on its head to see what flaws might therein be revealed.
> However, falsifiability was already covered by the inductive process to
> begin with under its several prior-standing caveats. That term, in itself,
> has been twisted all sorts of ways, especially in the popular mind, to
uses
> for which it was not designed nor ever considered.

The inductive process is an intellectual TOOL. Like any tool, it can be
misused.

> >> But as a primitive, ape-like creature with nothing more than fangs and
claws,
> >> I cannot see how savannah survival is possible.

> > It is actually possible, but only if you are quadruped, like baboons,
> > because only quadruped animals can flee fast enough when threatened by
> > predators.
> > Our bipedalism makes us comparably poor runners and poor tree climbers.
> > Without the use of tools and fire we would have little chances to
survive
> > in the open savannah.
> > Not to mention the fact that we need to drink large amounts of water
every
> > day.

> Indeed so. It is possible to survive, but only with speed and agility,
> neither of which we humans are blessed with to any degree worth
mentioning.
> The alternative is stealth, which our size rather obviates as a
possibility.

Well, big sized herbivores don't need much camouflage, because their mere
size keeps predators away. But our ancestors were tiny (compared with an
average US citizen, that is), so this can't be what helped our ancestors to
survive in the savannah. If we apply Occam's razor, the most likely
alternative is that they didn't dwell in the savannah in the first place.
Of course, the image of a hominid within a savannah surrounding was the
paradigma of the past 100 years, so even reasonable anthropo-paleologists
are reluctant to give it up. But this is not the first time that it takes
dozens of years for a new idea to root.

> >> The single bit of evidence that stands out for me is the spine-hip-leg
> >> alignment and that only marine mammals have a similar arrangement.

> > Marine mammals and otters. But note that these animals gather their food
> > by swimming and diving, while our ancestors turned to stand erected and
> > gather food with their HANDS. That way of life requires a quite
different body.
> > There is a wonderful book about the theory of how we acquired bipedalism
> > by Prof. Carsten Niemitz:
> > http://www.biologie.fu-berlin.de/humanbio/amphniem.htm
> > Sorry, it's German, but if you scroll down you will find a brief
abstract
> > of the book in English.

> Thanks, but I can still manage to read a bit of German. I'm rusty, but
still
> useable.

Cool! :-)

> However, please note that you are *assuming* that "our ancestors turned to
> stand... " when we cannot be altogether sure that this is, in fact, what
was
> happening.

At least the outcome is evidence for the fact that our ancestors turned to
stand up on the rear legs. :-)

Whatever happened, though, it shouldn't be all that hard to
> determine at what point it happened, and it must have happened rather
> quickly (evolutionarily speaking of course). That's part of the reason I
> remain interested in paleo-anthro.

Indeed, it must have happened quickly, and it must have happened to a
relative small isolated group of hominids (or animals? I think this could
also have been the turning point for when we started to be human.)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
    ... > ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). ... the reason to wage war was "Iraq has WMD". ... > cannot imagine trying to live on a savannah without at least an atlatl. ... >> back to quadrupedalism, ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
    ... >> ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). ... the reason to wage war was "Iraq has WMD". ... > made clear that the inductive process has only ONE direction. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Toad is the Epitome of Stink Bombs
    ... The question is, if this so called evidence actally exists, will it be ... "The question may be asked what was the reason or motive for the ... motive need be proven by the prosecution, and circumstantial evidence ... and reject that interpretation which points to ...
    (misc.legal)
Loading