Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:27:05 GMT

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:36:57 +0000, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <41affd03.62730149@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:56:16 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
>>(Lester Zick) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Nov 2004 01:12:27 -0800, cantueso@dieznet.com (cantueso) in
>>>comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
>>>>news:<41a0bf12.12119545@netnews.att.net>...
>>>>> On 20 Nov 2004 11:16:43 -0800, zzbunker@netscape.net (ZZBunker) in
>>>>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Directed evolution isn't the issue. The issue I raised merely concerns
>>>>> whether man is categorically different from animals and explanations
>>>>> for those differences.
>>>>
>>>>it would depend on your definitions and on your intentions, because
>>>>in fact you would be looking for MEANING and the direction of your
>>>>question is metaphysical, not biological; or who would establish the
>>>>criteria?
>>>
>>>It also depends on the issue I raised which wasn't directed evolution.
>>
>>For those who are interested in what the original issue of this thread
>>was, it was that Darwin's principle of natural selection and evolution
>>of man from animals did not, as is often assumed, contradict the idea
>>that there are categorical differences between man and animal. What it
>>contradicted was creationist religious and mythopoeic explanations for
>>those differences.
>>
>>Regards - Lester
>
>The above is worse than the sort of revisionist nonsense which folk like
>Dennett have found themselves egregiously rewriting over the years
>(Chomsky is another - and there are many others). Each of these
>"intellectuals", having written extremely erudite (but naively arrogant)
>disparaging nonsense about what people like Skinner have empirically and
>practically contributed (he, like Chomsky just didn't understand what he
>was reading). He's subsequently found himself working his way back to
>Darwin in a vain effort to "rediscover" what Skinner and his students
>practically revolutionised psychology with back in the 1930s.
>
>You should make an effort to find out what naturalised epistemology
>really amounts to (and replaces), just as you should try to grasp where
>behavioural and molecular genetics is going to take us.
>
>If Dennett is true to his word, he'd recognize this as fair criticism

David, allow me a little question since the people you choose to
reference are not confreres of mine and probably not of yours.

How many instances of the empirical control and prediction of behavior
are there in the history of EAB which do not involve animal training?
If the answer is none or nearly none, it becomes intuitively obvious
to the casual observer what the science in EAB amounts to, that it
only refers to the control and prediction of training regimens and
not behavior in general. This is why behaviorists in general and you
in particular have to campaign so diligently with your naturalized
nonsense to obscure the fact that the only thing you can control and
predict are animal training regimens and that EAB would be more
appropriately referred to as EAT.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... >> How many instances of the empirical control and prediction of behavior ... >> are there in the history of EAB which do not involve animal training? ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>The above is worse than the sort of revisionist nonsense which folk like ... >>If Dennett is true to his word, he'd recognize this as fair criticism ... >are there in the history of EAB which do not involve animal training? ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Loading