my emphasis.These evolutionists' main business has been to show how conduct which does not benefit the agent can survive in evolution by benefiting his kin; they have worked out the arithmetic of 'kin-selection'. This way of thinking actually makes any dependence on individual selfishness as a motive unnecessary, and the term 'selfish' should not appear in their writings. For some reason, however, they are still devoted to it. Even the least romantic of them, W. D. Hamilton, has a paper called 'Geometry for the Selfish Herd', and Wilson takes enormous pains to show that a great range of obviously uncalculated altruistic human behaviour, such as impulsive rescuing, is really bargaining, and therefore concealed selfishness. They show a strong and unexamined tendency to assume both that individual I motivation must actually, despite appearances, be selfish, and that it makes i sense to talk of entities other than individuals as being selfish. R. S. Trivers, I closely followed by Dawkins, has inflated this bad habit into a mythology. — Midgeley
It's clear her target is the supposed science being popularised as well as the populariser himself. — unenlightened
and the unexamined assumption is that selfishness requires no explanation because it is metaphorically literally built into the genes. — unenlightened
Evolutionary biologists agree Dawkins is junk science.
— frank
Reference? — Kenosha Kid
The "selfishness" of the gene isn't built into the gene, but into also the environment, the selection laws that stem from them, and the process of hereditary reproduction. — Kenosha Kid
This is the same equivocation I was complaining of in Dawkins. If its built into something, it cannot be a metaphor. the scare quotes prevent me from taking it seriously, but the continuation of the sentence does exactly that. — unenlightened
you just going to continue to pretend you said something else? I'll remind you of your words and my question: — Kenosha Kid
But on the contrary, the selfishness of things without selves is taken as - what shall we say? - part of the natural order, and in need of no explanation but the explanation of everything else. — unenlightened
Stop being so belligerent and learn something. — frank
What did she say about Nietzsche? Didnt see that. — frank
But it is explained, quite thoroughly, in genetic theory. Of course, genetic theory has assumptions, all theories have. They're far from "unexamined" though. — Kenosha Kid
I've specifically asked you to teach me about your particular claim. You seem very intent on avoiding that. Is there a magic combination of words? Pretty please with a cherry on top? No? Well, if you can't... — Kenosha Kid
I did. The Myers video goes into detail about why adaptationism is bad science. Did you want a citation that proves Dawkins is an adaptationist?
Uh. — frank
the way, Myers is also an adaptationist. You helpfully posted a video at the start of which he says adaptation is definitely real. :up: :100: :cheer: — Kenosha Kid
You don't appear to understand what an adaptationist is. — frank
It's the view that many characteristics are evolved to fit the organism's environment — Kenosha Kid
He contends, that is, that the appearance of 'a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals' including ourselves, is only a deceptive phantom. The underlying reality, as he often says, is not any other individual motivation either, but the selfishness of the genes. — Olivier5
No, its the view that all characteristics of a population must be products of adaptation. — frank
I dont want to explode your logic centers, but... — frank
He just knows that adaptation is the more important, as per evolutionary biology consensus, — Kenosha Kid
Biologists do believe adaptation is the most important factor in bacterial evolution, but not for humans. — frank
Here's an article about what British scientists think of him. — frank
I think you're confusing biologists and creationists. You're a religious man, I take it. — Kenosha Kid
Nope. Biologists. Humans dont have a large enough population to exhibit adaptation as the primary force of evolution. — frank
I'm a flat out nihilist, btw. I have no religion. — frank
Then you're outright lying about the biologist consensus on human evolution, since that consensus is that humanity evolved largely through natural selection. Seems par for the course for you. — Kenosha Kid
EDIT: Just to be not Frank, Pew Research's 2009 poll showed that 87% scientists believed that humans evolved naturally. — Kenosha Kid
The metaphorical selfishness of genes is used to explain, and prove - against all experience - the universality of human selfishness, from which the metaphor is taken. An argument form worthy of a creationist. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.