Comments on: Robert Wright: A Grand Bargain Over Evolution

By: Sorbet

Sorbet — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:48:41 +0000

“Actully”

You really need to get an upgrade McCarthy. You are making simple spelling mistakes now.

Again, not answering Dan’s detailed comments pretty much exposes your ignorance and, true to your nature, displays an embarrassingly simple inability to understand subtlety and nuance (eg. Science has limitations when applied to social science = Science cannot be applied to social science AT ALL and must be bunk). As Dan mentioned, it is pretty pointless replying to you because one is always sure he will not get any response signifying anything more than an ant’s IQ.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:44:12 +0000

Actually, that was quite relevant to what was said. You can disagree with Sorbet’s comment, of course (I don’t, but after all, I said pretty much the same thing, if less succinctly).

Anyway, I have to admit I feel pretty foolish, not just for endless multiple-postage, but for wasting some time on a lovely early-fall day writing that bloated comment to begin with, since it’s kinda pointless.

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:15:46 +0000

That’s the Sorbot, making a rote response using some of the words but, actully, without relevance to what was said.

By: Sorbet

Sorbet — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:34:02 +0000

“with or without any “evidence” such as is found in the behavioral, social and, now, so much of the cognitive sciences”

That’s McCarthy for you. Seeing everything in black and white without actually reading up on it. According to McCarthy, limitations render something completely useless.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:44:39 +0000

“… calling it a “fantasy monologue of the subconscious”.”

Oh my god you are a Turning test program!

Sorry. Er . . who? what? You’ve lost me there . . .

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:52:20 +0000

One of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard was an architecture critic, talking about P. Johnson’s Glass House, calling it a “fantasy monologue of the subconscious”.

You related to Ken Nordien?

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:46:58 +0000

Sorry for #229, #230. {Hangs head in shame, piddles on rug}.

“And you, yourself add this irony of ironies, especially in light of the cited material I gave you from Eddington.
“Well, you know what they say about “assume”, right? Demote? No! We’re talking about entirely different things (values aren’t “lower” than “knowledge”, they’re on entirely different axes).””

This is going over my head; I have no idea why this is ironic. Explain?

[Quotes Richard Lewontin (who was apparently attacking our hosts' "good example", Sagan] “He cannot have forgotten the well-publicized War on Cancer, which is as yet without a victorious battle despite the successful taking of a salient or two.”

Ok, there would seem to be some actual truth to the argument Lewontin develops from this, in terms of funding and esp. publicity & reporting (something that would really be relevant on this blog ). On the other hand, it makes me want to slug the guy. ‘Ooooh, {jazzhands} look, we didn’t cure cancer yet, and some of the avenues of research didn’t pan out (or haven’t yet been translated into therapies)!!!

Idiot.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:33:37 +0000

Ok, instead of just invisibly eating the last bit, it now explicitly drops it into moderation, no matter what I do. (I apologize for the mess once/if stuff all comes out – that wasn’t particularly rational of me : )

Very annoying. But not as bad as certain political/philosophical blogs where it grabs everything containing the word c1alis – including, of course, soC1ALISm . . . )

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:30:19 +0000

[edited, reposted]

Which is not to say that I think her argument is perfect – I think she conflates two related, but not necessarily identical things. I do think she addresses the argument I assume (you know what they say . . . ) you’re going to make, though, pointing out (as everyone sensible does) that extremely abstract theologies don’t do this, but . . . well, so?

(And I would disagree with the idea that religion hasn’t developed over time. Not towards greater understanding of the real external world in general , of course (except to the degree that it acquiesces to the findings of science), but – as Wright argues, no? – it has responded to human’s social world, which is what I think it’s actually dealing with.)

* I’d add, if somebody gets all offended, I don’t think these are in any way bad things – indeed, the opposite. See Alison Gopnik on The Real Reason Children Love Fantasy.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:27:02 +0000

[reposting]
Which is not to say that I think her argument is perfect – I think she conflates two related, but not necessarily identical things. I do think she addresses the argument I assume (you know what they say . . . ) you’re going to make, though . . .
(“And here’s the thing. That whole trope about how religious beliefs are completely beyond evidence or reason? I don’t think that’s really true. I mean, if you’re talking about the extremely abstract, “God is love” God of much modern liberal theology, the one that’s been abstracted so far out of the real world that it barely deserves the name “God”… then sure. But if you’re talking about a God who acts on the physical world in any way whatsoever, then that is a hypothesis that is absolutely not beyond evidence or reason.“. Although “barely deserves” is pretty harsh, sure – but this is the (surely correct) disclaimer everybody sensible gives.

(And I would disagree with the idea that religion hasn’t developed over time. Not towards greater understanding of the real external world in general (except to the degree that it acquiesces to the findings of science), but – as Wright argues, no? – it has responded to human’s social world, which is what I think it’s actually dealing with.)