![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » July 2nd, 2017, 9:05 am wrote:Ok, let me ejaculate...
The eugenicists' problem was... "How come the sick, infirm, dumbasses, and alkies (ahem) seem to be doing better than us? " (i.e. fecundity of the Chens: just when you thought it was safe...
Well, they only could if we had a non-circular definition of fitness, likesay... "white, male, and Oxbridge educated"
Now that's an empirical hypothesis.
That's a definition of fitness that does not circularly appeal to itself.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » July 3rd, 2017, 1:22 am wrote:Hope you understand I accept the tautology problem as a real one.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » July 3rd, 2017, 12:55 am wrote:Sure. That's what I was trying to say about context. The environment is a dynamic, ever-shifting context. Some species even go so far as to dial reproductive success down to zero when food is scarce. Adults conserve energy, don't mate, and maybe a few live to see a better year. It's the "how" that is interesting, not the mere numbers, or the spotting of those dull tautologies.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » July 2nd, 2017, 12:39 pm wrote:hyksos » July 2nd, 2017, 3:11 am wrote:I was about to come to this thread and leave some notes about how the vast majority of DNA on earth is tied up in the oceans in these little machines called marine bacteriophages. I was going to say something about how this is suggestive of evolution having actually happened.
But it appears I have arrived too late. The forum regulars are already catching on to what is really going on in this thread. The most glaring portion of this thread is NoShips refusal to discuss the specifics about any particular scientific theory. It is as if he knows ahead of time that he must keep the subject in completely abstract generic terms in order to seem to strengthen his position. If he were possibly drawn into specific pieces of evidence and their specific theories, he would surely lose ground quickly, much like a failing army getting bogged down into mud.
It's hard to know what to to when confronted with someone such as yourself, Hyksos. You've already made your position clear, a few pages ago, that science produces no knowledge; one consequence of which is that nothing scientists say should be believed, when they're talking shop at any rate. Absolutely nothing!
Now, if you ask me, it's about as arrantly absurd as a position can possibly be, the kind of thing we might expect to hear from a fellow claiming to be Napoleon. It is, nonetheless, your position, and you're the little Corsican who has to face the consequences.
Now, what on earth would be the point of bringing up DNA, marine bacteriophages, and whatever else when, on your own account (not mine), scientists know diddly-squat about these things?
Come to think of it, why even mention evolution at all? According to your position of scientific omni-ignorance, the amount of knowledge science has to boast on the issue is -- better steady yourselves now, folks -- zilch!
Now who's supposed to be the bad guy here again?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
"If science cannot do everything I expect from it out-of-the-box, then it can't do anything ever, and should never be believed".
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » July 3rd, 2017, 3:53 am wrote:I want to add something else about this. In the instrumentalist tradition, science does not produce knowledge in the sense of a capital T truth.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
In ET, "selection" actually just means a change in allele frequencies. Nowhere in ET, that I'm aware of, does selection imply or connote a "selector entity."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » July 6th, 2017, 6:57 am wrote:I will. If that's what Fodor suggests, then he may be making another ET strawman. Will try to watch later.
Edit: Snuck a peek. Hmm. Fodor seems not to understand a lot of biological concepts, as they relate to phenotypic expression. He misses a lot on Gould's spandrels.
"The crucial test is whether one’s pet theory can distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of adaptationism I’ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes along." -- Fodor (quote from the Why Pigs Don't Have Wings essay, which preceded the book)
Does he not understand a trait piggybacking on another? Or that "matching their environment" is easily seen as the answer, where adaptation depends critically on a predator reducing their visibility. Is it really in doubt what trait goes along for the ride?
The rival mechanisms he suggests to NS seem to be supplementary of NS, not contradictory. He seems to have ontological problems seeing how a gene mechanism can also be an adaptation. Wow, must there only be one pure narrative of how things work, Jerry? Only simple functional levels need apply? Sorry, I just don't like his dumbed down biology.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests