I recommend:

African Politics: A Very Short Introduction - Ian Taylor

Short but dense, basically explaining the big picture of why "Africa is poor" Also has an extensive bibliography in the back. I recommend looking up Ian Taylor's papers which are also good, he's the only one I know in english that explains thoroughly how modern French Imperialism in West Africa through CFA Franc works.

Also watch:

Fire in the Blood, a documentary of how the big pharmaceutical companies caused the death of millions in Africa through blocking access to AIDS medicine.

This is prescient:

"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps towards it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some record of one’s opinions about important events. Otherwise, when some particularly absurd belief is exploded by events, one may simply forget that one ever held it. Political predictions are usually wrong, but even when one makes a correct one, to discover why one was right can be very illuminating. In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality. If one recognizes this, one cannot, of course, get rid of one’s subjective feelings, but one can to some extent insulate them from one’s thinking and make predictions cold-bloodedly, by the book of arithmetic. In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean world where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality.”

- George Orwell “In Front of your Nose”

I think what fits more for what you're asking for may be:

Richard DeWitt - "Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science"

Other than that, I think it would be better to pick up books for biology, chemistry, and physics separately.

If I were arguing with someone who rejected Bernie in the primaries, I would have a different emphasis and saying the same things as you laid out here. We should be able to hold multiple ideas that target the separate angles in our head at the same time, that’s social reality. If you’re wrong about an important part of the picture, you got things wrong. That’s what it means to make various interconnected decisions. This is not complicated.

I wrote a much longer comment a few pages back about the Left’s relation to the current situation, it was the first one before this exchange blew up. We’re much stronger than we were in the Obama years, but there needs to be some breathing room to push our agenda, not constantly defending against Far Right policies. Someone also posted a good Contrapoints video.

And that's what I was talking about limiting in terms of calculations, and you bring in everything else.

Yeah I do selectively choose to care about visible consequences and human lives instead of the things you're spouting about.

Frankly the left could learn some lessons from the evangelists, given that the Christian crazies have far more sway and power than these so-called 'effective' left actions. — StreetlightX

Yeah but that's not what we were talking about.

Dress it up all you like. What you 'intend' is irrelevant.

I only brought it up because you were ranting about endorsement, which is intention-riddled. Intentions are pretty irrelevant, what matters are the cold-predictable effects of the actions, not some perceived inherent attribute to them. And you don't care about those, it's all emotional for you.

What I don't buy is the feel-good bullshit that a Biden win is not an endorsement of the democrats. It is. It absolutely is, and anyone who wants to pretend to think otherwise is lying to themselves in the name of a pseudo-realism that disregards reality. You vote for Biden, you endorse him, you endorse what he's done, you endorse what he's going to do, and you endorse the corporatist ecology that he'll extend, expand, and entrench. Fucking own it.

Wow, Christian Morality runs deep even among philosophical atheists...

Personally I don't believe in sin or the necessity of shame or essentialist nature of actions or anything like that. I'm a virtue consequentialist, and I adapt my moral actions to what's most effective for myself and their predictable effects on others in the world.

If I’m pushing a button that chooses which President I want to fight, then that’s what I’m doing. Not endorsement. Your shouting doesn’t change the intent or nature of the action.

Even if hypothetically it actually is an endorsement or whatever, if the difference between the candidates results in saving the life of one person, I’ll do it, and even more so when its many lives. That's what matters and the other concocted moral thick concepts are comparably trivial.

It was an analogy to make a specific point, I think it’s doable even if not perfect.

I get what you’re saying though. I think some are good at transitioning expertise in one area to another context effectively, others aren’t.

I’m inclined to agree with the often overly loose use of the word fascist, but I think he got worse this year and could be even more if he wins again.

Also no idea what you’re talking about for the rest, but it sounds delusional.

Err.. it's better to sacrifice a pawn if that helps you avoid checkmate. We should rather kill off their Queen even if they're left with their bishop. The ultimate goal of course is you want to checkmate the opponent, but you can’t do that if you can’t do these small moves.

Of course there are those who are too conservative and only care about saving their pieces, and they end up being killed off and never win checkmate. You have to be both bold going forward and compromising when needed.

I try to keep my feelings out of it, because they don’t really matter. Politics is about doing all you can to help people, which requires a disciplined mind.

Not so hard to explain how one should feel about it though. I’ll be glad that this intolerable fascistic shit show ends, and that the Left now has some breathing room and opportunities, even if it’s squeezing in the cracks. The other half is a frustrating reminder that we won’t have a Bernie Presidency, and all the other shit that comes with the Democrats.

Who actually thinks in these terms? Indicative and Symptomatic? What does that mean and why should I care. Seriously Wtf

Have you ever played any video games or sports, or read military fiction, or maybe chess? Anything involving tactics? You take out the leading general, and their replacement general is weaker and easier to fight (of course you fight them afterwards) That's the lesser evil, and I fail to see anything problematic. Any serious tactical struggle for power that doesn’t reduce harm (save soldiers, choosing the right enemies) is normative stupidity. Nothing regretful or abstract about that. What's abstract are all these notions you're bringing it up. It's honestly the kind of characteristic centrist liberals are infected with rather than those interested in realist notions like power and advantage.

I'm not talking about explicit arguments, but you are clearly stuck on the mindset of putting so much significance into the act, to the point that the act of voting is like a symbolic endorsement of Biden that must garner shame, rather than a simple act that must be done, one small step in a chain of a thousand necessary actions because of its predictable consequences.

I really don’t understand why this is so hard for you, you show you hate Biden in the primaries and in year long protests. Some actions involve reducing evil, others are about increasing good. You somehow can’t possibly fathom people hating Biden and knowing the full consequences of the Democrats and have no issue voting, but many people do it. This is the easy and quick part. Honestly, you’re not cut out for politics because there are all sorts of vastly more complicated and compromised decisions in a thousand other moments.

I got introduced to philosophy in an elective class when I was 13 in middle school, it could be doable a few years earlier. The issue is difficulty and lack of experience to think about such questions, maybe start off with something simple even such as simple like “where do numbers come from?” that can spark curiosity.

I responded that way because you gave me that political horizon crap.

Look, I don’t know what this meta-filth is, I don’t see what it adds to political analysis and strategic decisions we make every week. There are available choices that have different political effects, and what you do on voting day is one of them, what you do the following day or week or month is another, and you’re saying that you don’t like them and talking about these notions seem to make you very passionate, but frankly beyond my obviously shared sense of disgust and dissatisfaction with the situation, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I talk with many people about politics and this is one of the most confusingly framed discussions.

It is more advantageous to activists and causes less suffering for civilians if we move ourselves to a situation where we fight against Biden instead Trump. That’s it, obviously we do that in combination with many things like all processes in life. You can sit around moping and meta-analyzing about some responsibility that gets tied in with voting that I can’t understand or don’t see reason to care for talking about anymore. I discuss these details to assuage my guilt? What a bizarre train of thought to arise, not everyone thinks like this unless they’re obsessed with satisfying their sense of identity.

I also read that Pigliucci blog post you cited. If you reread it right now, you get a different impression of this current discussion.

I don’t even want to talk about this subject for more than 5 minutes because it’s one small step out of a thousand to think about.

I think it’s an ailment of not being able to juggle multiple ideas in one’s head at the same time because of ideological blinders.

You’re very smart, surely you can deduct how the least bad option may be voting one day and spending the rest of the 4 years on left wing activities can be better than a different combination of political actions. Those are the available options.

This is the limit of my political horizon? What are you talking about, there aren’t any centrists in this discussion. I supported Bernie, and then the anti-police Black Lives Matter protests this summer. Maybe you didn’t know that, but I made my politics explicit a couple of pages back in what the Left should do. You’re seriously in denial by leaving out convenient points.

Yeah it’s difficult to take apart a badly worded abstraction you came up with, but I tried to entertain what you said instead of ignoring it, so I also had to give an abstract response.

If you’re responsible for pushing for the less worse option between two available options, it doesn’t make sense to say there is additional political debt, to keep it simple.

But again, outside this philosophyforum, who cares about these notions? What’s the outcome?

Abstinence from voting in consequence is like a half vote for the worse option. I care about the consequences, not some imagined essentialist property that exists in this act of voting compared to not voting. There’s two choices, voting or not voting. If there is no alternative 3rd option where there is no responsibility for the existence of the current political state of affairs, there is no additional political debt. Political debt only makes sense if you sacrificed, an additional cost relative to another choice in terms of your actions.

Anyways, this is all highly abstracted from talking about any of the details about activism and government, which I wrote a long post about. Talking about the nuances of responsibility or some other unhelpful use of terminology is very convenient for shielding your eyes from reality.

You have responsibility for the consequences of your actions, just like all decisions in life. And all decisions in life are about choosing the better options. There are two available actions, you don't escape it. You really do seem to think there is a magical 3rd alternative reality that avoids responsibility by talking about this additional political debt by voting.

Yes I am responsible for a less worse administration, and then my responsibility for the rest of the 4 years is fighting against the current administration. There are two available choices. I don’t know where this alternative 3rd reality where I have less political responsibility for the current state of affairs exists, vote abstinence has consequences and that’s what I also have responsibility for if I choose to. This additional political debt thing if you “also” vote is some intangible magical substance you cooked up, not empirical analysis. This is terrible political philosophy.

Yeah if you don’t care about how the political differences affect other people, you’re a selfish jerk.

There are two possibilities, Trump or Biden. A particular political action leads to the difference of a less horrid administration in the future. I have no idea what it means to be complicit in a less worse circumstance. It’s either an incoherent abstraction I don’t care about, or I prefer it.

Sorry you just don’t read the news. One example, the Democrats, as horrid as they are, have been trying to push keeping $600 a week unemployment benefits during COVID as well as a stimulus package, which the Republicans have blocked. Trump completely dismantled pandemic programs that was set up by the previous administration. If you want this to continue onto next year, and you think the Democrats are no different, you’re not anymore informed about basic political facts than those who are taken in by establishment serving corporate propaganda.

I wrote a whole post about the differences. And you would know what the differences are if you just read the news and weren’t in denial.

I don't care about "theory", and I care much less about how I personally “feel” about the theory. I care about what voting actually does to impact the chain of events. Because that's what politics is about, the real world, not this self-fulfilled narrative in your head.

"That wasn't the question. The point is rather that you don't need to reject evolution to be a creationist. Creationists believe in a creator, that is all."

To memory, this isn't what anyone calls a creationist. When people say creationist, they don't mean any belief in a religious God involved with the universe, they mean a belief system that rejects Evolution. Memory of every discussion involved with the term and quick googling seems to coincide with my definition. Clearly you had different experiences, so I'm very confused.

You're missing the point. Yeah I find it much more preferable to spend the next 4 years fighting against Biden than Trump, those are the physical consequences. It doesn't mean I symbolically support Biden. And even if you desperately squeeze an argument otherwise, the fact that you care about such implications instead of the political consequences on people's lives means you're pathetic. Politics is about satisfying your ego and your sensual interpretation of events instead of what happens in the real world.

I'm leaving out explicit Young Earth Creationists, and not much different rebranded Intelligent Design folks who admit the Earth is old. Those are all definitely creationists.

And then there are those who rhetorically say they accept Evolution happened, and Darwin was maybe right about a thing or two, but if they feel the need to fill evolution with divine intervention to make the whole story work, they're probably also a kind of creationist.

Then there are people who don't directly interfere with the scientific claims of evolutionary biology, but they feel the need to add some metaphysical interpretation to it to make it compatible with their own religious beliefs. "Evolution is a process was used as a process to guide God's creation" or something along those lines. I don't think this counts as creationism. Saying that you need to be an atheist to also accept Evolution as scientific theory or else you're a creationist is a really high standard that I don't think works.

"To vote for someone like Trump or Biden is to vouch for them."

Yeah if you put that much emotional and symbolic attachment to the act of pushing a button at the voting booth (or by mail), which I find quite bizarre and pathetic really.

Reasons for voting Biden

1. Because Biden is obviously less bad. As horrible as he and the Democrats are, it’s pretty clear that they both vote along with the Republicans, but also often vote against terrible Republican policies. The difference between the policies of Democrats and Republicans (both small and large) will make a difference to hundreds of millions of lives. (if you add global warming, even more long term)

2. As bad as the Democrats are, much of their base is far more progressive than the politicians are. So activists have the space to organize the public and put pressure on politicians to implement programs. There is no such opportunity with the Republicans, both the voters and the politicians are hopeless. It’ll be another waste of 4 years of barely defending against an onslaught of right wing policy after right wing policy.

3. Trump will pack the Supreme Court.

4. It's much easier to challenge the 2 party system if the Democrats are in popular. If we show the public that centrists won't solve their problems they'll turn more left leaning. Bernie got popular after the discontent from Obama. When the Republicans are in power however, the Democratic base is far more prone to focus on being anti-Republican. Voter surveys showed that in the Democratic Primaries, the number one reason many voters opted for Biden was because they were concerned that he had a better chance of defeating Trump (sure that was complete false propaganda, but the Left doesn't control corporate media)

You minimize damage where you can, and shoot for our goals when you can, depending on the current opportunities. Taking one day to vote to put the less Right-Wing politician in power is easy, while the rest of the year can be organizing against the government and corporations.

Trump in power is a regression, he rolled back many progressive policies and corporate regulations, while implementing new right-wing policies. Not only does that hurt millions of people, but the Left is wasting time defending against them instead of pushing their own programs. It is obvious it's preferable to the Democrats to be in power, because they pass less Right-Wing policies, and there is a Democratic public base for the Left to organize to push our own programs. The more Right-Wing policies there are, the more time it takes to combat them. The Left has not implemented anything in the past 4 years. For all those who talk against electoral politics (while also constantly bitching about it more than I would), they can never use their imagination to understand the balance of forces, popular forces from below and the elites they’re struggling with. Maybe it’s because they don’t actually talk to American activists.

That Trump came into power in part due neoliberal policies that the Democrats share responsibility for is not logically inconsistent with this. And the Left is not as weak as it was just a decade or two ago, it has the capability to grow and organize the public, and push its demands. But that will not happen with Trump in power. With Bernie, there was a good chance of success. With Biden, the hurdles are much higher, but there’s at least a small crack of opportunity. With Trump, he’s just going to put more kids in concentration camps.

When discussing strategic decisions, even more so for ones that can easily be done, it's all about maximizing positives and minimizing negatives. With the available options in this particular choice (what you do on that one day, not what you do for the rest of the 4 years) under which circumstances can the Left build more of an advantage and in which less people get less tortured and killed. Trying to give a lecture about both parties having a bad record on neoliberalism and imperialism isn't answering the question.

If you really thought voting had zero effect on the distribution of political power either way (a ludicrous position in consideration of very clear evidence, but for argument's sake), you would actually shut up about it and focus on movement building instead of worrying about what people do on election day.

And if your politics was actually based on concerns of human lives, you would break things down and ask certain questions yourself, what is going to happen to person X (child in concentration camp, women who seek abortion, people in areas vulnerable to climate change, people in Iran or Cuba who suffer from Trump sanctions) what is my decision going to have on their lives. What would “they” want me to do. That's the definition of solidarity.

If you feel shameful for voting, you’re putting waaaay too much emotional and symbolic significance into that one act. Practically contradictory with simultaneously saying voting has no impact. Anyways, real politics is about making actions that make a difference on human lives who feel the impact between different policies (that includes me and my unemployment benefits by the way so fuck anyone can’t read the news and thinks it doesn’t, and it’s incomparably worse for many others), it’s not about your personal pride, so using the word shame shouldn’t even arise.

Depends if they interfere with claims made by evolutionary theory.

(Y)

So he isn't a creationist, even "obviously" in your words. So why say it? Gould and Mary Midgley don't seem to see eye to eye despite the latter's citation of the former. I don't know Midgley's work, but a quick search shows she has advocated support for Lovelock's pseudo-scientific Gaia hypothesis for instance, which Gould has staunchly rejected. Kim Sterelny's book on the debate between the two figures is much more balanced than your portrayal of Gould's work, plenty of people in evolutionary biology think differently than you.

Also your categorization of creationism is way too broad, that's not what most people think of as creationism. I mean I'm very inclined philosophically from looking at evolutionary history and the picture it shows that there is a tension between Evolutionary Biology and Theism, but people can hold onto both views without being a creationist, just like people hold onto all kinds of poorly compatible views.

Come on, that's a self-undermining polemical argument. I disagree with Gould on Non-overlapping magisteria, but creationism implies divine intervention & rejection of Evolutionary Biology. You can be right or wrong on the mechanism of Evolution, but being wrong doesn't make someone a creationist (that also goes for Fodor & Piatelli, who actually deny the centrality of Darwinian explanations)

Ah come on, you undermined yourself there.

Anyways, leaving this dumpster fire of a conversation.