He'll be Weighing Brains Next
white...@msn.com
He'll be Weighing Brains Next
GAVIN EVANS
The Guardian 11/14/2003
So, here we go again - all the way back to South Africa 1948, Germany
1933 and further, covering the logic of colonial conquests over
centuries. What it amounts to is this: we rule because we're smarter
than you (and, by the way, that's also why you're so poor and we're so
rich).
The current culprit - not for the first time - is Richard Lynn,
emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, who has a
long track record here (he also "discovered" that men are more
intelligent than women). Lynn claims that samples from 50 countries
reveal that the average IQ in Africa is 70. Black South Africans, for
example, have an average IQ of 66 - slightly smarter than the
sub-moronic Ethiopians at 63. IQ, he claims, is an accurate measure of
intrinsic intelligence, which means that Africans are thicker than the
rest of us, and because "intelligence is a determinant of earnings",
black South Africans and Ethiopians are poor.
What is remarkable in all this is not so much that there are people who
believe him - after all, there are still those who insist the Earth is
flat - but rather that any creditable institution should take it
seriously. Yet this week we've heard Lynn pontificating on Radio 4's
Today programme, on BBC Radio 5 Live, and appearing in more-than
respectful form in the Times.
Forgetting for the moment his early predecessors - from the red of
tooth-and-claw early Darwinians to the Nazi geneticists - Lynn operates
in a tradition launched in 1969 by the Californian psychologist Arthur
Jensen who argued that intelligence was determined by genetics, that IQ
differences reflected genetic differences, and that efforts to raise
intelligence by educational effort were wasted. The London-based
psychologist, Professor HJ Eysenck, enthusiastically endorsed his case
before it was picked to pieces over the next decade and ultimately
shown that much of the earlier data Jensen and Eysenck relied on had
been fabricated.
The result was that this kind of thinking was exiled to the academic
hinterlands of apartheid South Africa. However, all this changed in
1994 when the American social commentators Charles Murray and Richard
Herrnstein produced their book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class
Structure in American Life, which claimed that black people were
genetically inferior to white people, as illustrated by lower IQs, and
that poverty is a result of low IQs (which reflect low intelligence).
The Bell Curve received a huge wave of publicity and was punted in
particular by the once-liberal magazine The New Republic (then edited
by the former Tory student activist, Andrew Sullivan). Again it took a
while, but piece by piece their argument was picked apart, with critics
exposing mathematical errors, logical inconsistencies and deficiencies
within the IQ tests cited (such as questions on trigonometry that
measure educational knowledge rather than intelligence).
But the most significant fallacy within this kind of pseudo-science
goes to the heart of our current knowledge about human evolution. It is
now beyond serious dispute that we all emerged from Africa, and that in
scientific terms the concept of race is of little significance. The
Harvard geneticist Dr Richard Lewontin, for example, stresses that
individuals rather than races are the repositories of genetic
variability, and that racial classifications are products of society
rather than biology. For instance, relatively settled African
populations in central Africa have far greater genetic diversity than
anywhere else on the planet. We may choose to identify them by their
common skin colour and hair type, but in genetic terms these
individuals may have more in common with, say, white Anglo Saxons.
What has also emerged from the Human Genome Project is just how dynamic
and fluid our genetic make-up can be, and the extent to which it is
influenced by nutrition, pollution, disease, family life and education.
First invented in France 99 years ago, IQ tests were designed to
measure general intellectual capacity, with a score of 100 being the
universal average. The notion of intrinsic "general" intelligence is
fast losing ground, but even if we accept this dubious premise, it is
easy to disprove the idea that it can be measured by a test. In order
to prevent the average IQ rising above the 100 mark, test designers in
developed countries have been compelled to make their tests more
difficult because we're getting better at doing them. Most contemporary
palaeontologists suspect that human intelligence has not risen
substantially over the last 70-80,000 years (at which point,
incidentally, we were all black Africans); so improvements in IQ
performance over the last century clearly have nothing to do with
increased genetic intelligence and everything to do with cultural
changes.
Which raises the question: why do flat-Earthers like Lynn, Murray,
Eysenck and Jensen still get so much attention every time they announce
that Africans, or black Americans, or poor people, are struggling
because they're inherently dumb. But perhaps that's not such a
difficult one to answer.
Perplexed in Peoria
<white...@msn.com> wrote in message news:drrtjc$28ik$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
[snip]
> Which raises the question: why do flat-Earthers like Lynn, Murray,
> Eysenck and Jensen still get so much attention every time they announce
> that Africans, or black Americans, or poor people, are struggling
> because they're inherently dumb. But perhaps that's not such a
> difficult one to answer.
A bit more difficult to answer is the question of why you, Michael,
have chosen this 2003 diatribe against a 2002 book as something
important to inflict upon us now in 2006? Is it that you think
Lynn deserves MORE attention?
EKur...@aol.com
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> <white...@msn.com> wrote in message news:drrtjc$28ik$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> [snip]
> > Eysenck and Jensen still get so much attention every time they announce
> > that Africans, or black Americans, or poor people, are struggling
> > because they're inherently dumb. But perhaps that's not such a
> > difficult one to answer.
>
> have chosen this 2003 diatribe against a 2002 book as something
> important to inflict upon us now in 2006? Is it that you think
> Lynn deserves MORE attention?
..and if he does, why choose an article by an ignorant journalist?
And, in any case, what has this issue got to do with evolution?
white...@msn.com
> Which raises the question: why do flat-Earthers like Lynn, Murray,
> Eysenck and Jensen still get so much attention every time they announce
> that Africans, or black Americans, or poor people, are struggling
> because they're inherently dumb. But perhaps that's not such a
> difficult one to answer.
A bit more difficult to answer is the question of why you, Michael,
have chosen this 2003 diatribe against a 2002 book as something
important to inflict upon us now in 2006? Is it that you think
Lynn deserves MORE attention?
Ragland:
Do I think Lynn deserves more attention? I think him and his ilk
deserve attention. There are a whole line up of "social scientists" who
think like Lynn, in the U.S., Canada, Europe and elsewhere. They are
still active and they have their own following among the Far Right and
others. Philip Rushton is a good example. Yes, these people deserve
attention. They shouldn't be allowed to go under the radar. Just
because this is a few years back doesn't make it untimely. I would
argue there are many more people who believe Africans, black Americans
and poor people are inherently dumb than there are those who believe
the earth is flat.
white...@msn.com
..and if he does, why choose an article by an ignorant journalist?
And, in any case, what has this issue got to do with evolution?
Ragland:
Apparently what the journalist stated was threatening. What does it
have to do with evolution? Very broadly it relates to aggression which
is is a very primitive conserved trait of our DNA.
[moderator's note: Well, so does the assassination of Martin Luther
King Jr, but you're not going to see me allowing discussion about
THAT. Stay on topic. - JAH]
John Edser
"white...@msn.com" white...@msn.comwrote:-
> Lynn claims that samples from 50 countries
> reveal that the average IQ in Africa is 70. Black South Africans, for
> example, have an average IQ of 66 - slightly smarter than the
> sub-moronic Ethiopians at 63. IQ, he claims, is an accurate measure of
> intrinsic intelligence, which means that Africans are thicker than the
> rest of us, and because "intelligence is a determinant of earnings",
> black South Africans and Ethiopians are poor.
>
> What is remarkable in all this is not so much that there are people who
> believe him - after all, there are still those who insist the Earth is
> flat - but rather that any creditable institution should take it
> seriously. Yet this week we've heard Lynn pontificating on Radio 4's
> Today programme, on BBC Radio 5 Live, and appearing in more-than
> respectful form in the Times.
JE:-
These people exist because of our brand new (middle ages recycled) Post
Modern world of self fulfilling prophecies granted by verification/non
verification. It's a magic place. Just about anything you like is granted
unto you as long as you ruthlessly play the evasion game. It helps being
paid by the public sector where only extreme acts of unacceptable things
like pedophilia can get you sacked. In this mathematically correct world
every Looney Tune is to be given a grant and their Warhol 15 min of fame
in the name of "democratic fairness". What is the only antidote? Refutation.
Delete it and this Lynn stuff is all you can expect in the name of
"science".
IQ has never been standardized against proven intelligent people. This being
the case IQ intelligence is just the ploy of those who wish to dictate for
their own political reasons what intelligence is. And who are they? Those
with the least inductive intelligence: specialists.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
John Edser
"white...@msn.com" white...@msn.com
> A bit more difficult to answer is the question of why you, Michael,
> have chosen this 2003 diatribe against a 2002 book as something
> important to inflict upon us now in 2006? Is it that you think
> Lynn deserves MORE attention?
> Ragland:
> Do I think Lynn deserves more attention? I think him and his ilk
> deserve attention. There are a whole line up of "social scientists" who
> think like Lynn, in the U.S., Canada, Europe and elsewhere. They are
> still active and they have their own following among the Far Right and
> others. Philip Rushton is a good example. Yes, these people deserve
> attention. They shouldn't be allowed to go under the radar. Just
> because this is a few years back doesn't make it untimely. I would
> argue there are many more people who believe Africans, black Americans
> and poor people are inherently dumb than there are those who believe
> the earth is flat.
JE:-
Michael, well stated.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
EKur...@aol.com
> ..and if he does, why choose an article by an ignorant journalist?
> And, in any case, what has this issue got to do with evolution?
>
> Ragland:
> Apparently what the journalist stated was threatening. What does it
> have to do with evolution? Very broadly it relates to aggression which
> is is a very primitive conserved trait of our DNA.
moderator
> Well, so does the assassination of Martin Luther
> King Jr, but you're not going to see me allowing discussion about
> THAT. Stay on topic.
I don't see that he *has* a topic germane to evolution , except that
... the heredity/environment race/IQ issue resembles the ID/Evolution
debate in some ways. In both controversies it is possible to assume a
noble and virtuous posture on the "progressive" side of the debate
without being expected to do any hard study. Just say the right things
and you will be praised for your insight and astuteness, as we see in
this thread. One find that passionate devotees of Evolution (who very
often couldn't tell parthenogenesis from cladogenesis, or a genotype
from a haplotype) almost always embrace the environmentalist (or
nurture) position in the IQ debate, even though they know nothing about
Factor analysis, have never heard of Spearman, and could not tell you
what is meant by saying that the IQ test is "highly g-loaded". Even the
most obvious ignorance is tolerated, as in the top post, as long as the
correct formulas are mouthed.
[moderator's note: Okay, I'm going to allow this screed, or rant,
or whatever it is, but then I'm dropping the hammer on this thread.
We're here to talk about EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, and despite Dobzhansky's
famous dictum, we have to narrow our focus or take it elsewhere. - JAH]
There are further interesting similarities (if I can beg the
moderator's indulgence): the recent Dover vote and court decision have
demonstrated the utter impotence of the Creation/ID agenda, yet
contributors to a certain newsgroup where the issue is debated act as
though it continues to be a major threat to civilization, rivalling
Militant Islam. Likewise, all public policy that touches on education
in the US is predicated on the environmentalist position - one thinks,
for example, of Grutter v. Bollinger, an affirmative action case that
came before the Supreme Court in 2003; Justice O'Connor, for the
majority, wrote that, though racial affirmative action is now needed to
promote diversity, sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years
from now, the need will disappear. This is pure environmentalism. Both
Thomas and Scalia concurred. Yes, Thomas and Scalia. This alone is
enough to put to rest any fear of a return to hereditarianism, or of
the rise of a Eugenics movement. And of course, there is No Child Left
Behind, promoted by a conservative president and supported across the
board.
white...@msn.com
EKurt:
..and if he does, why choose an article by an ignorant journalist?
And, in any case, what has this issue got to do with evolution?
Ragland:
Apparently what the journalist stated was threatening. What does it
have to do with evolution? Very broadly it relates to aggression which
is is a very primitive conserved trait of our DNA.
[moderator's note: Well, so does the assassination of Martin Luther
King Jr, but you're not going to see me allowing discussion about
THAT. Stay on topic. - JAH]
Response: Okay Boss. But I don't think the person who assasinated
Martin Luther King Jr. sat on academic
faculty and was a part of the international euge_ics movement which
associates itself with Darwinian evolution.
Yes, because Lynn is a part of the international euge_ics movement
discussing it here is not appropriate and
I apologize. In addition, it leads to much discord on s.b.e. I'll note
some interesting aspects of cre_tionism and
evolution and I hope you will post my response and be done with it.
Both cre_tionism and euge_ics (in terms of
logical thought processes) distort and misrepresent Darwinian
evolution. But who ever stated Darwinian evolution
is entirely controlled by logical thought processes?! In the case of
cre_tionism it says it is false and in the case of euge_ics it
states it is entirely compatible. There appears to be more opposition
from the scientific community to cre_tionism
because theoretically it could lead to that being taught in public
schools and library boards removing books on Darwinian evolution in
public libraries. However, the international euge_ics movement
represents another kind of danger. Less
we not forget social Darwinism by Spencer and the thoughts of Adolf
Hitler and others worldwide. The cre_tionists appear
to be more numerous and indeed there is even a usenet group called
talk.origins where cre_tionists and those who
oppose it fence off. You will not find as much media exposure to
eugeni_s than to cre_tionism yet euge_ics has never
gone away and represents a real threat. Those biologists and
geneticists in the scientific community need to be just as
concerned about euge__ics as they are about cre_tionism. More on topic
than Martin Luther King Josh.
[moderator's note: See my comment on EKurtz's post. 'Nuff said
on this topic: let's move along. - JAH]
Perplexed in Peoria
<EKur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ds86a3$1dt5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> ... Likewise, all public policy that touches on education
> in the US is predicated on the environmentalist position ...
I disagree. I would say that it makes just as much sense to say
that it is based on the universally accepted notion that both
genes and environment matter, and environment is the only
thing that public policy can (and should) do something about.
What does this have to do with evolutionary biology? It has
a damned lot to do with it. You can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.
There are NO DIRECT POLICY IMPLICATIONS in anything that
science says about what human nature is or how we got this way.
It may be interesting to know about this stuff; it may even help
to evaluate whether a policy is achieving its objectives. But
it helps not at all in deciding what the objectives of policy
should be.
The trouble with evolutionary biology is that too many people
think that it matters in areas where it just doesn't matter.
John Edser
EKur...@aol.com wrote:-
> ...In both controversies it is possible to assume a
> noble and virtuous posture on the "progressive" side of the debate
> without being expected to do any hard study. Just say the right things
> and you will be praised for your insight and astuteness, as we see in
> this thread. One find that passionate devotees of Evolution (who very
> often couldn't tell parthenogenesis from cladogenesis, or a genotype
> from a haplotype) almost always embrace the environmentalist (or
> nurture) position in the IQ debate, even though they know nothing about
> Factor analysis, have never heard of Spearman, and could not tell you
> what is meant by saying that the IQ test is "highly g-loaded". Even the
> most obvious ignorance is tolerated, as in the top post, as long as the
> correct formulas are mouthed.
JE:-
The debate hinges entirely on the _scientific_ validity of IQ which is just
a simplified/over simplified model of what intelligence as a theory is
supposed to be. The fact remains the IQ model has never ever been
standardized so it was and remains, a misused model of a theory of
intelligence. Standardization tests the IQ test. This means that a
statistically significant sample of known intelligent people within a range
of cultures who represent a true sample of proven high intelligence from
within all of these cultures e.g. the arts, mathematics to the sciences in
our culture, are mixed in with a much larger number of randomly selected
members of from the defined cultural range of types being tested. Each
individual within this experimental group must be tested for their IQ in a
double blind cross over way (to remove experimenter bias). The aim is to
test if IQ can identify more of the known intelligent individuals within the
group greater than chance. If it can then an objective error level of IQ can
now be established by repeating the standardization a significant number of
times. Only when all this HARD work has been completed does it become
possible to test the intelligence of any one individual with an objective
error of +/- using an _empirically_ valid test (note that "insilico" is
deleted as empirical). If the IQ test cannot identify the defined
intelligent sample within the experimental group greater than just chance
then IQ is proven to be useless. Note that the standardization of any model
IQ is entirely cultural, i.e. can only be validly employed to test the
intelligence of individuals if those individuals are within and not outside
of the cultural limits set for the standardization test. Employing IQ
outside of the standardized bounds constitutes a very serious misuse (for
obvious reasons). This type of misuse is typically reserved for the
unconscionable political manipulation of hapless out group "racial" types.
Regards,
EKur...@aol.com
> > ...In both controversies it is possible to assume a
> > noble and virtuous posture on the "progressive" side of the debate
> > without being expected to do any hard study. Just say the right things
> > and you will be praised for your insight and astuteness, as we see in
> > this thread. One find that passionate devotees of Evolution (who very
> > often couldn't tell parthenogenesis from cladogenesis, or a genotype
> > from a haplotype) almost always embrace the environmentalist (or
> > nurture) position in the IQ debate, even though they know nothing about
> > Factor analysis, have never heard of Spearman, and could not tell you
> > what is meant by saying that the IQ test is "highly g-loaded". Even the
> > most obvious ignorance is tolerated, as in the top post, as long as the
> > correct formulas are mouthed.
>
> The debate hinges entirely on the _scientific_ validity of IQ which is just
Suffice it to say that in this domain, as in all other technical areas
that come up for discussion in SBE, you do not know what you are
talking about.
John Edser
EKur...@aol.com wrote:-
>
> > > ...In both controversies it is possible to assume a
> > > noble and virtuous posture on the "progressive" side of the debate
> > > without being expected to do any hard study. Just say the right things
> > > and you will be praised for your insight and astuteness, as we see in
> > > this thread. One find that passionate devotees of Evolution (who very
> > > often couldn't tell parthenogenesis from cladogenesis, or a genotype
> > > from a haplotype) almost always embrace the environmentalist (or
> > > nurture) position in the IQ debate, even though they know nothing
> about
> > > Factor analysis, have never heard of Spearman, and could not tell you
> > > what is meant by saying that the IQ test is "highly g-loaded". Even
> the
> > > most obvious ignorance is tolerated, as in the top post, as long as
> the
> > > correct formulas are mouthed.
> > JE:-
> > The debate hinges entirely on the _scientific_ validity of IQ which is
> just
> > a simplified/over simplified model blah blah blah.
> suffice it to say that in this domain, as in all other technical areas
> that come up for discussion in SBE, you do not know what you are
> talking about.
JE:-
No discussion, no critique, no weighing of arguments against the facts, not
even an attempted measure of logical or rational self consistency just child
like negativity. EK proves yet again to be an empty headed Piranha.
John Edser
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimme...@sbcglobal.net
> <EKur...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > ... Likewise, all public policy that touches on education
> > in the US is predicated on the environmentalist position ...
> I disagree. I would say that it makes just as much sense to say
> that it is based on the universally accepted notion that both
> genes and environment matter, and environment is the only
> thing that public policy can (and should) do something about.
JE:-
Well stated.
> What does this have to do with evolutionary biology? It has
> a damned lot to do with it. You can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.
> There are NO DIRECT POLICY IMPLICATIONS in anything that
> science says about what human nature is or how we got this way.
JE:-
I agree. IMO every scientific truth (empirical or heuristic) has a use and a
misuse.
> It may be interesting to know about this stuff; it may even help
> to evaluate whether a policy is achieving its objectives. But
> it helps not at all in deciding what the objectives of policy
> should be.
> The trouble with evolutionary biology is that too many people
> think that it matters in areas where it just doesn't matter.
JE:-
I think that any stated scientific truth matters in any area of human action
be it individual or social. The problem is science cannot provide a morality
for any of us, we have to do that for ourselves e.g. the use/misuse of
nuclear power. All science can do is demonstrate how nature solves a
problem. The warning that nature provides is that our morality cannot
transgress any natural law, i.e. morality must always work within a set of
natural laws which only science can discover. For me this is the objective
difference between a civilized and an uncivilized morality.
EKur...@aol.com
> > in the US is predicated on the environmentalist position ...
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> I disagree. I would say that it makes just as much sense to say
> that it is based on the universally accepted notion that both
> genes and environment matter, and environment is the only
> thing that public policy can (and should) do something about.
I think that if I replied to the above I would stray into areas that
have been proscribed by the moderator. Suffice it to say that I
disagree.
> What does this have to do with evolutionary biology? It has
> a damned lot to do with it. You can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.
> There are NO DIRECT POLICY IMPLICATIONS in anything that
> science says about what human nature is or how we got this way.
You don't have to shout. My point is that you can nevertheless find
policy decisions that are underpinned by what science (or, in one case
I can think of, "science") says about human nature. (note that I am not
arguing about the consequences of belief in T0E, but of the belief in
the nurture side oof the nature/nurture debate).
> It may be interesting to know about this stuff; it may even help
> to evaluate whether a policy is achieving its objectives. But
> it helps not at all in deciding what the objectives of policy
> should be.
This is true, but deciding objectives is not the only issue in social
policy; there are at least two other issues that can depend on one's
theory of human nature: whether the results are achievalbe in
principle; and the method used to implement the policy. (an example or
two would help to illustrate my point, but those that come to mind
would cause me to stray into areas that have been proscribed .....)
> The trouble with evolutionary biology is that too many people
> think that it matters in areas where it just doesn't matter.
Example?
Perplexed in Peoria
<EKur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:dsek60$16h8$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > <EKur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ds86a3$1dt5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > ... Likewise, all public policy that touches on education
> > > in the US is predicated on the environmentalist position ...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > I disagree. I would say that it makes just as much sense to say
> > that it is based on the universally accepted notion that both
> > genes and environment matter, and environment is the only
> > thing that public policy can (and should) do something about.
>
> I think that if I replied to the above I would stray into areas that
> have been proscribed by the moderator. Suffice it to say that I
> disagree.
Well, I had probably strayed a bit too far in that direction myself.
But we certainly don't need to discuss educational policy, or
nature/nurture. In any case, I suspect we probably don't disagree
all that much, anyways.
> > What does this have to do with evolutionary biology? It has
> > a damned lot to do with it. You can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.
> > There are NO DIRECT POLICY IMPLICATIONS in anything that
> > science says about what human nature is or how we got this way.
>
> You don't have to shout. My point is that you can nevertheless find
> policy decisions that are underpinned by what science (or, in one case
> I can think of, "science") says about human nature. (note that I am not
> arguing about the consequences of belief in T0E, but of the belief in
> the nurture side oof the nature/nurture debate).
Fully agree. Though I think that one can adopt a policy slogan
of "No child left behind" without assuming (falsely, IMO) that every
child is equally endowed genetically.
> > It may be interesting to know about this stuff; it may even help
> > to evaluate whether a policy is achieving its objectives. But
> > it helps not at all in deciding what the objectives of policy
> > should be.
>
> This is true, but deciding objectives is not the only issue in social
> policy; there are at least two other issues that can depend on one's
> theory of human nature: whether the results are achievalbe in
> principle; and the method used to implement the policy. (an example or
> two would help to illustrate my point, but those that come to mind
> would cause me to stray into areas that have been proscribed .....)
No need for examples. I agree with those points too.
> > The trouble with evolutionary biology is that too many people
> > think that it matters in areas where it just doesn't matter.
>
> Example?
Examples of people? You (though you have given a convincing denial),
Michael Ragland (whitesickle), Lynn, E.O. Wilson, Richard Lewontin,
Gould, Dawkins, ... the list goes on and on. And each side accuses
the other of falling into the Naturalistic Fallacy, and then falls
in themselves.
Lewontin talks the best game, but even he finds himself subconsciously
motivated to attack scientific results he finds discordant with
his world-view.
I have pretty much decided to stop thinking about human evolution
because it seems that no one can think about the subject objectively.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> JE:-
> I think that any stated scientific truth matters in any area of human action
> be it individual or social. The problem is science cannot provide a morality
> for any of us, we have to do that for ourselves e.g. the use/misuse of
> nuclear power. All science can do is demonstrate how nature solves a
> problem. The warning that nature provides is that our morality cannot
> transgress any natural law, i.e. morality must always work within a set of
> natural laws which only science can discover. For me this is the objective
> difference between a civilized and an uncivilized morality.
There have been several societies which Americans would consider
criminal and even evil that functioned within the bounds of natural
laws. For example the late and unlamented Soviet Union under Stalin
encompassed dreadful modalities and mores that we would call evil, yet
they were physically possible. There is nothing unphysical whatsoever
about the Gulag. So the constraints of nature upon the mores of a
society does not guarantee goodness. The notion that what is natural is
good, is sometimes referred to as the naturalistic fallacy. By your
criterion the morality of Stalin's Soviety Union was civilized. I have a
problem with that. Another example is the current chaos of Haitii. It
functions in the sense that what happens there happens within the bounds
of physical laws. I would have a hard time calling that unfortuante
Carribean republic civilized. Hobbsean regimes where life if nasty,
brutish and short are well within the envelope of the physically
possible. For example: Europe during the Dark Ages.
I think the terms like civilized and uncivilized are loaded to the brim
with value. How about the terms possible and impossible. A society,
regardless of the quality of its civilization is possible if it runs
within the bounds of physical laws.
Bob Kolker
white...@msn.com
PIP:
Examples of people? You (though you have given a convincing denial),
Michael Ragland (whitesickle), Lynn, E.O. Wilson, Richard Lewontin,
Gould, Dawkins, ... the list goes on and on. And each side accuses
the other of falling into the Naturalistic Fallacy, and then falls
in themselves.
Lewontin talks the best game, but even he finds himself subconsciously
motivated to attack scientific results he finds discordant with
his world-view.
I have pretty much decided to stop thinking about human evolution
because it seems that no one can think about the subject objectively.
Ragland: I'm not a scientist or have a scientific mind. The others are
evolutionary scientists (aside from Lynn) and yet do have their own
bias.
A long time ago a person told me I didn't have a scientific mind but
thought I was creative. In any event, I think it is rare for a
researcher/scientist
to be completely undistorted by emotion or personal bias. Or
emphasizing or
expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings
or interpretation.
On the other hand I think it is impossible for a researcher scientist
to do research if it
is taking place entirely within the mind and modified by individual
bias. So it is
a combination of perceptible phenomena of the observable without
distortion of
personal feelings or interpretation and occurring within the mind and
influenced
by emotions, personal bias and interpretation. Like so many things in
nature
there is a paradoxical relationship.
An interesting idea is the mind/brain really capable of perceptible
phenomena of the
observable without distortion. Afterall, it is our "minds" that are
perceiving and who
is to say there aren't constraints, limits, parameters, etc. which
possibly distort
"observable phenomena" or which at least limit out perceptual
abilities. Another
example is an extraterrestrial. Would it perceive "observable
phenomena" the
same way we do?
Is reality what we think it is or something else? I would argue reality
is not a
static thing but fluid. We do not know what we are because we are
changing. Having
said that I do believe in science and the advances which have occurred.
An
example there is indeed a reality can be measured through progression.
For example,
the first modern Model T to sending a man on the moon. In terms of
scientific and
technological advances reality has changed much but reality of people
hasn't
changed much.
Science and technology has to have a frame reference but it operates
within the
current constraints of reality. As it continues to advance it will
eventually break
through those constraints and then another set of constraints will be
imposed.
Ultimately it will continue to change reality not only in scientific
and
technological ways but for the species.
How have I accused others of falling into the Naturalistic Fallacy and
then
falling in it myself. I know you were mentioning this in a generic
sense but
I would be curious. I'm openminded. I'm very excited about the prospect
of human genetic engineering although it hasn't even been done yet and
in my lifetime signicant applications probably won't be. I imagine it
possible if it was being done now I would have more leverage with the
moderator. In other words something to sink my teeth in. I imagine the
group
would be more livlier too. I think a few hundred years from now and
maybe less
evolutionary biology will be archaic, a rare specialty.
Perplexed in Peoria
<white...@msn.com> wrote in message news:dsimlh$2s9h$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> How have I accused others of falling into the Naturalistic Fallacy and
> then falling in it myself. I know you were mentioning this in a generic
> sense but I would be curious.
Well, as you probably realize, the trigger for this particular
accusation was that both you and 'ekurtz' seemed to think that
Lynn's 'research' has important implications. And, as I hope I
have made clear, I think that the issues that Lynn and his political
allies are interested in are completely irrelevant to any decisions
that people make about how we should live together (or even to
whether we should live together).
In any case, I hope you weren't too offended by my accusation. I
did put you in some pretty good company in my listing. (Some
not-so-nice company too, but that's life.)
However, I do recall that a couple years ago, you posted an
essay which was specifically about the Naturalistic Fallacy
and I disagreed with your take. You can probably find that
exchange by Googling.
> I'm openminded. I'm very excited about the prospect
> of human genetic engineering although it hasn't even been done yet and
> in my lifetime signicant applications probably won't be. I imagine it
> possible if it was being done now I would have more leverage with the
> moderator. In other words something to sink my teeth in. I imagine the
> group would be more livelier too.
Well, then we could debate whether a mother was engaging in child
abuse if she wanted a child with Michael Jordan's genes, rather than
Albert Einstein's. Gee, I look forward to those debates. NOT!!!
> I think a few hundred years from
> now and maybe less
> evolutionary biology will be archaic, a rare specialty.
Well, it is conceivable that it will no longer be relevant for H. sap.
and his symbiotes, parasites, and farm animals. Of course, I would
say, in keeping with my opinions about the Naturalistic Fallacy, that
it is not all that relevant today.
However, if it is no longer relevant with respect to the rest of the
natural world, then it will have to be because the rest of the natural
world doesn't exist anymore. That would be, IMO, sad.
But, of course, as an OOL enthusiast, I will still be interested in
evolutionary biology even a few hundred years from now. Or at least
I hope so. ;-)
John Edser
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com>
> > JE:-
> > I think that any stated scientific truth matters in any area of human
> action
> > be it individual or social. The problem is science cannot provide a
> morality
> > for any of us, we have to do that for ourselves e.g. the use/misuse of
> > nuclear power. All science can do is demonstrate how nature solves a
> > problem. The warning that nature provides is that our morality cannot
> > transgress any natural law, i.e. morality must always work within a set
> of
> > natural laws which only science can discover. For me this is the
> objective
> > difference between a civilized and an uncivilized morality.
> There have been several societies which Americans would consider
> criminal and even evil that functioned within the bounds of natural
> laws. For example the late and unlamented Soviet Union under Stalin
> encompassed dreadful modalities and mores that we would call evil, yet
> they were physically possible. There is nothing unphysical whatsoever
> about the Gulag.
> So the constraints of nature upon the mores of a
> society does not guarantee goodness.
JE:-
I did argue that morality remains independent of natural law so we always
have to decide for ourselves what is moral. I include natural biological law
as well as natural physical law as "natural law". My point was that whatever
is moral must remain within the set of natural law and not outside of it. Of
course this does not mean that all applications of natural law must be
moral!
Your example of Stalin et al was interesting because it represents a good
example of what I am arguing. The logic of communism/fascism is the same as
the logic of classical group selection. Here the Darwinian individual
becomes reduced to the status of just a dependent group part which can be
selected to sacrifice itself to the group as one independent whole, i.e. the
individual can be selected to act in an altruistic way for the benefit of
one group. This type of altruism has never been observed in nature. Also,
group selection has never been observed in nature despite Hamilton's
rationale and the myriad of supposed verification of it. In all cases,
mutualised monocentric Darwinism can explain apparent organism altruism
within nature to refutation, including the evolution of meiotic drive genes.
The reason as to why communism failed was not because a group centric
morality is somehow inherently wrong but simply because any group centric
morality stands outside of natural law. Until group selection is uniquely
observed in nature this is how things stand, like it or lump it.
> The notion that what is natural is
> good, is sometimes referred to as the naturalistic fallacy.
JE:-
I entirely agree. Please note: my argument did not embrace "the naturalistic
fallacy" in any way.
> By your
> criterion the morality of Stalin's Soviety Union was civilized.
> I have a
> problem with that.
JE:-
Group selection has never been uniquely verified in nature which means: only
refutable group selection can explain a certain empirical observation.
Hamilton's rational was and remains entirely ambiguous. Everything that can
be explained using Hamilton's duo-centric group selection can also be
explained using mutualised mono-centric selection at the fertile organism
level which is of course the more simple explanation. Communism failed
because it stands outside of natural law. This is the reason why yesterday's
racial fascists of the right and today's communist/socialist hard left still
attempt to move heaven and earth to prove that group selection does exist in
nature.
The real root of today's problems with evolutionary theory is that Post
Modern science has allowed irrefutable theories of nature to become valid.
In today's gene centric Neo Darwinism irrefutable simplified/over simplified
versions of Darwin's refutable theory (termed "models") have actually been
allowed to replace the theory they were simplified, oversimplified from
which is just an absurdity. Indeed, if you refer to my discussion with Dr
Guy Hoelzer re: Wynne-Edwards Guy allowed "insilico" processing of just
fictional data as "empirical". Such things ARE allowed within Post Modern
science as is the writing up of debits as credits within "creative" Enron
accounting schemes. Intelligent design can rightfully argue to be a valid
theory of Post Modern science if Dr Moran's random sampling error process is
allowed as a theory of evolution in its own right because it only provides
irrefutable evolution (not just irrefutable random variation for non random
and refutable selection to act on). In Post Modern science no bar exists to
stop intelligent design claiming to be a valid theory of science. Only if
all valid theories of nature are required to remain refutable (as Popper
correctly argued) can Post Modernism be stopped and science progress.
> Another example is the current chaos of Haitii. It
> functions in the sense that what happens there happens within the bounds
> of physical laws. I would have a hard time calling that unfortuante
> Carribean republic civilized. Hobbsean regimes where life if nasty,
> brutish and short are well within the envelope of the physically
> possible. For example: Europe during the Dark Ages.
>
> I think the terms like civilized and uncivilized are loaded to the brim
> with value. How about the terms possible and impossible. A society,
> regardless of the quality of its civilization is possible if it runs
> within the bounds of physical laws.
JE:-
I claim that the more of nature we understand via the testing of refutable
theories against nature via the scientific method, the more we can stop the
dreadful error of requiring individuals to obey (and inevitably fail to
obey) just an impossible morality (a morality that only exists outside of
natural law).
white...@msn.com
<whitesic...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dsimlh$2s9h$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> How have I accused others of falling into the Naturalistic Fallacy and
> then falling in it myself. I know you were mentioning this in a generic
> sense but I would be curious.
PIP:
Well, as you probably realize, the trigger for this particular
accusation was that both you and 'ekurtz' seemed to think that
Lynn's 'research' has important implications. And, as I hope I
have made clear, I think that the issues that Lynn and his political
allies are interested in are completely irrelevant to any decisions
that people make about how we should live together (or even to
whether we should live together).
Response: Eugenics has a long and complex history with
different ideas and types of it. As you are aware, it was popular
in the 20th century and certain forms of it, particularly in
Nazi Germany and other countries such as the U.S. and I
believe Britain (perhaps a few others) left something to be highly
desired. In the case of Nazi Germany it took a most horrific form.
So in the past it has been shown to have important "social and
political" implications and there is no reason why it doesn't and
couldn't today although not on the level it did in the recent
past. Since we have moved into the "Golden Age of Genetics"
where the environment takes a second backseat and in many
cases no seat at all (you may dispute this) this has, in my opinion,
reenergized the international eugenics movement. This is potentially
dangeous IMO.
First, can you really separate the international eugenics movement
and politics from Darwinian evolution? I think the answer is "no" you
can't. Now obviously evolutionary biologists aren't going to study
the eugenics movement and politics but that doesn't mean they
aren't a product of Darwinian evolution. You're argument I extrapolate
evolutionary biology to many areas where it doesn't matter is accurate.
But hear my line of reasoning on this.
For example, many wonderous scientific-medical advances have
been made in the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. yet the bulk of mankind
lives in
relative squalor and dies from many diseases which are preventable.
In comparison, the developed world spends much more money in
general on cardiovascular disease and other diseases the West is
prone too. The amount of dollars spent on these diseases compared
to the preventable diseases the majority of the world suffers from or
is killed by is much higher. This makes a mockery of a "globalized"
world in this context. It is also an example of Darwinian evolution.
How much scientific research and funding is influenced by Darwinian
evolution? Despite the advances of science and medicine how much
of this has trickled down to much of the majority of humankind. In many
cases not much. One author I was reading (of all things a Catholic and
was loaded with religion so that is why I didn't post it here) was
writing
about science and medicine and the inequities which accompany it.
There are primarily two forms: One is globally where as I outlined
above
all these scientific and medical advances have occurred but they
concentrate
nationally rather than globally. Vast numbers of people in the
undeveloped
world die of preventable diseases. The second is locally within a
nation
itself where the rich have access to and can afford the newest advances
of
science, genetics and medicine but locally there is a vast class of
people who can't afford it.
Again, I would state this is an example of Darwinian evolution and you
can
just see the tremendous kinds of challenges and problems it poses.
PIP:
In any case, I hope you weren't too offended by my accusation. I
did put you in some pretty good company in my listing. (Some
not-so-nice company too, but that's life.)
Ragland: Yes, I noticed. Your selection was pretty good but
unwarranted.
The company you chose, aside from possibly Lynn, are much more
knowledgeable
about evolution than I could ever hope to be.
PIP:
However, I do recall that a couple years ago, you posted an
essay which was specifically about the Naturalistic Fallacy
and I disagreed with your take. You can probably find that
exchange by Googling.
Ragland: I'll try to fish it up and maybe restart it.
> I'm openminded. I'm very excited about the prospect
> of human genetic engineering although it hasn't even been done yet and
> in my lifetime signicant applications probably won't be. I imagine it
> possible if it was being done now I would have more leverage with the
> moderator. In other words something to sink my teeth in. I imagine the
> group would be more livelier too.
PIP:
Well, then we could debate whether a mother was engaging in child
abuse if she wanted a child with Michael Jordan's genes, rather than
Albert Einstein's. Gee, I look forward to those debates. NOT!!!
Ragland: Come on! You know that is simplistic PIP. Those kinds of
conversations are occurring now and they are borne of ignorance. I
personally don't believe a replica of a person entailing every aspect
of
their being, (a clone), can be duplicated. A clone? Most likely yes
but I believe the environment, unless it is identical for a clone (and
that is impossible in my judgement) will not yield a perfect carbon
copy of that individual.
> I think a few hundred years from
> now and maybe less
> evolutionary biology will be archaic, a rare specialty.
PIP:
Well, it is conceivable that it will no longer be relevant for H. sap.
and his symbiotes, parasites, and farm animals. Of course, I would
say, in keeping with my opinions about the Naturalistic Fallacy, that
it is not all that relevant today.
However, if it is no longer relevant with respect to the rest of the
natural world, then it will have to be because the rest of the natural
world doesn't exist anymore. That would be, IMO, sad.
Ragland:
I agree with what you're saying. It would be sad and I think it will
be a long time before the natural world doesn't exist anymore but
if that happens it will likely be due to Homo Sapiens.
Perplexed in Peoria
<white...@msn.com> wrote in message news:dsl3qf$tou$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
I do.
> this has, in my opinion,
> reenergized the international eugenics movement. This is potentially
> dangeous IMO.
I agree with both points.
> First, can you really separate the international eugenics movement
> and politics from Darwinian evolution? I think the answer is "no" you
> can't.
The question is whether the proponents of eugenics and/or genetic
engineering to solve the problems of human nature can separate
their ideas as to how things OUGHT to be from an understanding
of how we got here.
In my mind, they are completely separate issues.
> Now obviously evolutionary biologists aren't going to study
> the eugenics movement and politics but that doesn't mean they
> aren't a product of Darwinian evolution. You're argument I extrapolate
> evolutionary biology to many areas where it doesn't matter is accurate.
> But hear my line of reasoning on this.
>
> For example, many wonderous scientific-medical advances have
> been made in the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. yet the bulk of mankind
> lives in
> relative squalor and dies from many diseases which are preventable.
> In comparison, the developed world spends much more money in
> general on cardiovascular disease and other diseases the West is
> prone too. The amount of dollars spent on these diseases compared
> to the preventable diseases the majority of the world suffers from or
> is killed by is much higher. This makes a mockery of a "globalized"
> world in this context. It is also an example of Darwinian evolution.
No it is not. Or at least the sociological and historical explanations
of the situation are not. There certainly are evolutionary consequences
of this situation, but those are likely to be a short term blip on the
change in gene frequencies within mankind. And frankly, I don't see
why I should care that they mean that the average skin color of mankind
is growing darker. Two hundred years ago, it was growing lighter.
Big deal.
> How much scientific research and funding is influenced by Darwinian
> evolution? Despite the advances of science and medicine how much
> of this has trickled down to much of the majority of humankind. In many
> cases not much. One author I was reading (of all things a Catholic and
> was loaded with religion so that is why I didn't post it here) was
> writing
> about science and medicine and the inequities which accompany it.
> There are primarily two forms: One is globally where as I outlined
> above all these scientific and medical advances have occurred but they
> concentrate nationally rather than globally. Vast numbers of people in the
> undeveloped world die of preventable diseases. The second is locally
> within a nation itself where the rich have access to and can afford the
> newest advances of science, genetics and medicine but locally there
> is a vast class of people who can't afford it.
> Again, I would state this is an example of Darwinian evolution and you
> can just see the tremendous kinds of challenges and problems it poses.
How is it an example of Darwinian evolution? Are you claiming that the
class of people with less access to medical care is producing fewer
fertile offspring than the class with access to first-class medical
care? That this has a significant impact on gene frequencies? To be
honest, I don't see that this is happening.
The disparities you mention are a serious moral problem, and in the
medium term they may result in serious threats to world peace, but
how is Darwinism involved in that? You seem to be under the impression
that Darwinism teaches that suffering and inequality are somehow
good and acceptable. I don't think it teaches that. In fact, I
don't think it even touches on the question.
[snip]
> > I'm openminded. I'm very excited about the prospect
> > of human genetic engineering although it hasn't even been done yet and
> > in my lifetime signicant applications probably won't be. I imagine it
> > possible if it was being done now I would have more leverage with the
> > moderator. In other words something to sink my teeth in. I imagine the
> > group would be more livelier too.
>
> PIP:
> Well, then we could debate whether a mother was engaging in child
> abuse if she wanted a child with Michael Jordan's genes, rather than
> Albert Einstein's. Gee, I look forward to those debates. NOT!!!
>
> Ragland: Come on! You know that is simplistic PIP. Those kinds of
> conversations are occurring now and they are borne of ignorance. I
> personally don't believe a replica of a person entailing every aspect
> of
> their being, (a clone), can be duplicated. A clone? Most likely yes
> but I believe the environment, unless it is identical for a clone (and
> that is impossible in my judgement) will not yield a perfect carbon
> copy of that individual.
Cloning has nothing to do with my point. Let me be more specific.
Michael, in your desire to see future generations of mankind freed
from the scourge of aggression, and in your belief that there is
a technological fix for this problem in genetic engineering, you
are committing the same logical and moral mistakes as the eugenicists.
Both of you think that you know what is wrong with current human nature,
both of you have a vision as to how to fix it, and neither of you
much cares what the bulk of mankind wants. People have always
had some control over the human nature of the next generation, and
they have chosen, in their wisdom, to create the next generation with
a large variety of traits, at least half of them matching the nature
of the decision maker.
If you, or Lynn, or anyone else seriously expects the bulk of mankind
to go along with your schemes, once they understand what those schemes
entail regarding their own reproductive freedom, well ..., you are in
for some nasty surprises.
white...@msn.com
Appreciate your honest straight shooting response to me. You write,
"You seem to be under the impression that Darwinism teaches that
suffering and inequality are somehow
good and acceptable. I don't think it teaches that. In fact, I don't
think it even touches on the question." Let me just say this. I think
valid observations can be made by looking at Darwinian
evolution and also conclusions. Yes, I am a eugenicist but not of the
variety which populates the earth today. The eugenicists today are in
many ways just like the eugenics of the 20th century. I do want to see
the human race improved through genetic engineering and I have stated
many times on s.b.e. aggression is a trait which needs to be altered
genetically to make us as a species less aggressive. Whether that will
prove possible I don't know. However, it is a given somebody out there
will try it. As far as reproductive freedom such "schemes" as
introducing this into the population need not violate reproductive
freedom. It need not be coercive, compulsory, mandatory, etc. So how
then would you get people to have their progeny genetically engineered
with aggression altered? Over a long period of time. On the
evolutionary scale it wouldn't be long but in terms of how you and I
register time it would be a very long time.
Do you really expect the natural family to continue to be viable?
Assuming its not then something else will have to replace it. I would
see this occurring after genetic engineering had made signifigant
inroads and not before. In terms of genetic engineering we're not just
talking about creating humans whose aggression is altered but possibly
creating a more complex DNA. Wouldn't a parent want such a son or
daughter? Face it. We're not going to last as a species as long as Homo
Erectus did. We're not going to be able to compete with these newly
genetically engineered "humans" and this will cause alot of problems
and eventually we will die off.
What does the bulk of mankind want? If you mean having some control
over the human
nature of the next generation I think that is going to continue for
quite awhile. At some point, however, genetic engineering is going to
become available and people will hopefully still have some control over
the human nature of the next generation. In other words they will have
a choice. But I would argue such genetically engineered humans will
represent a departure of our genes having control over human nature of
future generations. At first it will be some diseases but eventually it
will be more.
You write, "Cloning has nothing to do with my point. Let me be more
specific. Michael, in your desire to see future generations of mankind
freed from the scourge of aggression, and in your belief that there is
a technological fix for this problem in genetic engineering, you are
committing the same logical and moral mistakes as the eugenicists. Both
of you think that you know what is wrong with current human nature,
both of you have a vision as to how to fix it, and neither of you
much cares what the bulk of mankind wants.
Looking at human history, I would say there is nothing right or wrong
about human nature. It's a question of adaptiveness. Is the human
species currently adaptive to its environment? No, it is not. What
happens to an organism when it is no longer adaptive to its
environment? This is known as
"Mismatch Theory" but unlike those theorists (many of whom are
pessimistic) I hold out hope in the form of genetic engineering so we
can become more adaptive to our environment.
I don't relate to all the modern science and technology around me. Go
into a 7-11 and you shouldn't have to ask if the people in there relate
to modern science and technology. I think even many scientists don't
relate to it well.
You state, "Let me be more specific. Michael, in your desire to see
future generations of mankind freed from the scourge of aggression, and
in your belief that there is a technological fix for this problem in
genetic engineering, you are committing the same logical and moral
mistakes as the eugenicists."
First, I don't know if there can be a "fix" or not. I'm hoping for it
but not in my lifetime. How am I committing the same logical and moral
mistakes as the eugenicists?
I consider human nature to basically be a product of Darwinian
evolution. We are not a caring and compassionate species. If you want
to call that a naturalistic fallacy then contact Stephen Hawking. I
don't know why, however, since it is obvious.
Michael Ragland