Niles Eldredge

[In Bloom]

I think you'll find its the Papists. And they *all* do, they've got no choice.

A bit OT, but not all Catholics believe that, you do get liberal Catholics (though I suppose you could argue that since many of them don't believe in Papal infallibility, they can hardly be described as "Papists").

 

[phildwyer]

From a evolutionary perspective, reproduction is the reason that we have sex. It is also the reason why sex is pleasurable. Of course that doesn't mean that sex has to be about procreation, just that that's what it was originally there for.

True enough, but how often do people in the Western world have sex with procreation as its aim, compared to the number of times they have sex with pleasure as its aim: all homosexuality, all sexual acts other than the obvious, all sex by post-menopausal women, all sex with contraception, all sex during mensturation, all masturbation... you can't really make a case that babies are our main motive for doing it.

 

[In Bloom]

True enough, but how often do people in the Western world have sex with procreation as its aim, compared to the number of times they have sex with pleasure as its aim: all homosexuality, all sexual acts other than the obvious, all sex by post-menopausal women, all sex with contraception, all sex during mensturation, all masturbation... you can't really make a case that babies are our main motive for doing it.

Pleasure is the direct motivation for most sex in the West, but why is it pleasurable, if not because of natural selection?

 

[888]

That's why I said what I said in post 4.

 

[Buds and Spawn]

what's "biological determinism"? And do you have any quotes that show Dawkins (or any other evolutionary scientist) expressing the position? As far as I can see it's just a straw-man term of abuse used to denounce anybody who has a different take on evolution (like 'group selection', 'ultra-darwinist' and so on) I have never seen any evidence that such extreme positions are held by real scientists.

Wikipedia on biological determinsim - not a bad article but a bit brief.

I think it's self- evident that Dawkins is a biological determinist (to a degree). If you want to know why then read his books (the title of one of his best-known works 'The Selfish Gene' kind of gives it away).

Importantly (and IMO) that doesn't mean Dawkins' science is bad, nor does it make him right-wing. In my view he is an ultra-rational humanist. Much of his work is (deliberately?) misinterpreted because so much of it is a reaction to all the fake science, and mumbo jumbo that grips the world...

I personally think he should chill out a bit. Winding people up is no way to communicate your ideas and knowledge, although I do enjoy his articles which lay into religion...

 

[Fruitloop]

I think you'll find its the Papists. And they *all* do, they've got no choice.

Papists ⊂ Fundy Wackos

 

[ZWord]

All the same, I kind of agree with the Pope. Condoms surely are satanic devices... a big con.

Con d Om.

 

[p-j]

I personally think he should chill out a bit. Winding people up is no way to communicate your ideas and knowledge, although I do enjoy his articles which lay into religion...

I think his books are very good indeed, but yeah, he needs to chill out - he seems to be completely unfamiliar with the concept of self-doubt.

 

[Japey]

I often wonder whether those Darwinists who consider themselves politcally left-wing are fully aware of the uses to which some versions of their theories are being put--the criminals at Enron based their corporate practice on Richard Dawkins's ultra-Darwinist manifesto, _The Selfish Gene_, which they carried to the office with them and read aloud from at coffee breaks. Books like these ought to make the more innocent Darwinists aware of such facts.

Dawkins states explicitly at the beginning of the Selfish Gene that the book has nothing to do with finding an ideal political system, and cautions strongly against basing a political model on such theories.

If enron executives based their practice on the Selfish Gene then that's their responsibility. The bible explicitly states that Christians should not get involved in politics, but this doesn't prevent many from trying. We can safely assume that the enron execs were bent before they read the Selfish Gene - which perhaps gave them some good quotes for their own amusement. Drawing a causal link is like blaming Marilyn Manson for school shootings.

And if the enron execs did follow the Selfish Gene, then they've been hoisted with their own petard

 

[gurrier]

Wikipedia on biological determinsim - not a bad article but a bit brief.

From that article "Very few scientists would wholly support the strong thesis of biological determinism." - I would say none and hence that it is a straw man position. There is an ongoing debate about the influences of nature versus nurture among some scientists, but I think the 'biological determinist' label is just a classic straw man.

I think it's self- evident that Dawkins is a biological determinist (to a degree). If you want to know why then read his books (the title of one of his best-known works 'The Selfish Gene' kind of gives it away).

I have read his books and it's not self-evident to me at all. The title of his book doesn't give anything away about biological determinism either. I would say that the closest thing I've seen to biological determinism is Pinker and he's just an eejit who doesn't have a clue.

I personally think he should chill out a bit. Winding people up is no way to communicate your ideas and knowledge, although I do enjoy his articles which lay into religion...

I agree with this though. Although I think its mostly a symptom of him thinking he's more of a groundbreaking innovator than he is.

 

[Buds and Spawn]

Biological determinism is simply seeing biological factors (e.g. genes) as the dominant force in shaping life, existence etc.. I see Dawkins as a determinist in his argument that we exist (solely) to propagate our genes, not because he says the 'rest' isn't important or valuable (he doesn't say that of course).

What Dawkins makes clear is that he doesn't believe that his science should be interpreted politically / socially as an excuse for any fascist ideology etc.. and that's where the straw-man comes in - in the social representation of the science, and importantly in the fabrication of absolutes in scientific debate(s).

I think Dawkins has strayed too far into the territory of philosophy (although you could argue ad infinitum where the boundary between the two disciplines lies). Consequently he's muddied the waters somewhat....

As a Prof. for the 'public understanding of science' at Oxford you'd expect better.

Duck's to avoid low-flying false-dichotomies

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think Dawkins has strayed too far into the territory of philosophy

Oooh, you're going to be in trouble.

 

[Buds and Spawn]

Oooh, you're going to be in trouble.

I'm saying that as a scientist (well I was once upon a time), atheist, and rational human being of course...

 

[gurrier]

I think Dawkins has strayed too far into the territory of philosophy (although you could argue ad infinitum where the boundary between the two disciplines lies). Consequently he's muddied the waters somewhat....

Yep, I have to agree with that. But from the quotes in the review of Elridges book above, it looks to me like he has strayed wildly into the realm of speculative philosophy (it actually reads more like a review of a self-help book).

Virtually all evolutionary scientists seem to be unable to resist the urge to come up with a grand theory of 'what does it all mean' - I suspect it's a consequence of spending too much time contemplating randomness.

 

[Fruitloop]

Virtually all evolutionary scientists seem to be unable to resist the urge to come up with a grand theory of 'what does it all mean' - I suspect it's a consequence of spending too much time contemplating randomness.

AKA 'Pinker's syndrome'

 

[phildwyer]

Pleasure is the direct motivation for most sex in the West, but why is it pleasurable, if not because of natural selection?

The fact that human beings, alone among animals, prefer to engage in non-reproductive sex proves that the human mind does not operate according to Darwinist imperatives.

 

[Japey]

The fact that human beings, alone among animals, prefer to engage in non-reproductive sex.

What about Bonobo chimps?
And there's plenty of evidence of gay animals having sex - where's their reproductive instinct?

 

[phildwyer]

What about Bonobo chimps?
And there's plenty of evidence of gay animals having sex - where's their reproductive instinct?

There is no evidence of "gay animals having sex." Human beings are the only animals that have "gay" sex. This proves that culture rather than nature predominates in determining human behavior.

 

[888]

There's plenty of evidence of animals of the same sex having sex - just do a google search for gay animal sex.

Are you a) nitpicking, or b) saying homosexuality is purely cultural?

 

[phildwyer]

There's plenty of evidence of animals of the same sex having sex - just do a google search for gay animal sex.

Are you a) nitpicking, or b) saying homosexuality is purely cultural?

I'm saying its purely cultural. There is obviously no evolutionary imperative behind it. It is a misnomer to refer to animals as "gay."

 

[Fruitloop]

What's with the 'evolutionary imperative'? Aren't we teleologising (woohoo!) a little? Evolution is more of a meandering stream than an autobahn.

 

[revol68]

why??

surely one could see perhaps think that other animals have degrees of culture, no?

I mean chimps have social structures, and these will often vary dependant on the environment they are in. I think i read somewhere about chimps on conditions of abundance and safety being less hierarchial than those in other environments.

 

[montevideo]

don't worry son, one day all this'll be...

...the desolate emptiness of human souls

 

[Jo/Joe]

The purpose of genitalia is reproduction. Pleasure makes sure they get used. Once you've got them you're going to want to use them, however that maybe.

The fact that human beings, alone among animals, prefer to engage in non-reproductive sex proves that the human mind does not operate according to Darwinist imperatives.

Nope.

I am fucking glad I'm programmed to get erections.

 

[888]

I'm saying its purely cultural. There is obviously no evolutionary imperative behind it. It is a misnomer to refer to animals as "gay."

Well there are animals that have sex with other animals of the same sex - it's quite frequent in fact - that there is no obvious evolutionary imperative behind it does not mean there isn't one.


Homosexuality isn't purely cultural, that's a very strange and obviously wrong thing to say.

 

[soulman]

Homosexuality isn't purely cultural, that's a very strange and obviously wrong thing to say.

Do you believe other species define themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual?

 

[revol68]

i think he was using the term homosexual to refer to individual acts, as opposed to identities.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you believe other species define themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual?

Do they have the option?

 

[888]

i think he was using the term homosexual to refer to individual acts, as opposed to identities.

Yes, although it's also the case that some animals have a permanent preference for the same sex...

Animals don't have the pathetic and conceited need to "define themselves"... good for them.

 

[soulman]

Animals don't have the pathetic and conceited need to "define themselves"... good for them.

Or to be defined as?