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

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:55:25 +0000

In article <41b04a5f.69613881@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>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

The animals that concern most people are managed by legislation and
policy. For academic insights into this, see the Applied Analysis of
Behavior (journal of). For more rough and ready insights, see the work I
have referenced in our CJS.

To carry on writing nonsense, just keep your head up your rectum. 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... forms that meet the criteria of elminability and non-creativity. ... The definition I gave, which is not nonsense, is: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... > opposite reactions and you aren't interested in anything you can't ... nonsense. ... Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... > opposite reactions and you aren't interested in anything you can't ... nonsense. ... Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... > opposite reactions and you aren't interested in anything you can't ... nonsense. ... Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... >The above is worse than the sort of revisionist nonsense which folk like ... 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)