Michael Ragland wrote:

> 
> PR:
> While these comments may seem rather mundane from the perspective of
> what we have come to expect from our fellow humans, you seem blissfully
> ignorant of the fact that such noble motives are currently
> incomprehensible from the perspective of the only viable hypothesis we
> have of the processes that produced us: 
> 
> Response:
> Of course I'm not blissfully ignorant that such 'noble' motives are
> currently incomprehensible from the perspective of the only viable
> hypothesis we have of the processes that produced us i.e. Darwinian
> evolution. I'm amazed Phil. I've spent the last two or three years on
> and off on s.b.e. writing about how Darwinian evolution is contrary to
> such 'noble' motives and the NEED for genetic engineering. 
> 

Referring to an explanatory void between feature X and theory Y is
just another way of talking about the fact that feature X is
incomprehensble from the perspective of theory Y.  What else
could it possibly mean?

> 
> Mike. How do you account for the the noble motives in yourself given
> that all these authors find them incomprehensible? Or do you simply
> think these guys really don't really mean any of this, e.g., that they
> are diliberately overstating the case? 
> 
> Response:
> They are scientists. The scientists you quote may or may not have such
> 'noble' desires.   Dawkins apparently entertains such when he refers to us
> being the only species which may upset their designs. The only way that
> can be done is through genetic engineering which Dawkins may or may not
> have been thinking about when he stated that. All those scientists are
> describing 'natural selection'. Don't necessarily think these scientists
> think natural selection is right. They may or may not. They are
> describing it.     
> 

No. No. No.  They are most definitely NOT describing the way the world
"is", at least not the part of it occupied by human beings.  Human being
would probably be most aptly described as "benevolently selfish".
It would be just plain crazy for Donald Campbell to claim that human beings
exhibit "nothing more positively social than care for offspring and the
coming together of the sexes".  These guys are all pointing to a
DISCREPENCY between what our best theory PREDICTS and what actually
EXISTS.  Natural selection is not a religious dogma, it a scientific
hypothesis complete with enigmas and anomalies where reality itself
is concerned.  That's why it was necessary for Dawkins to write an
entire last chapter that was nothing less than a disclaimer.  He
was saying that we have made tremendous strides in our understanding
of altruism IN NON-HUMAN SPECIES, but that when it comes to
the altruistic extremes in human nature (e.g., the "altruism" of
the 9/11 terrorists) we haven't even scratched the surface.  We are
going to need a hypothetical X, something no one can currently
envision, that for the time being we will simply refer to as
"memetics".  That's why he went out of his way to make a disclaimer
in the Intro to Blackmore's book on memes.  He had nothing postive
in mind, just an empty space that as of yet needs to be filled with
a full fledged addendum to the theory of natural selection so that
we can get it to encompass some of the appalingly maladpative
things we find in human nature (e.g., self-incinerating Buddhist
monks).  He is saying that, far from explaining human nature,
our formal models have rendered it even more of an enigma than
previously imagined.

The only guy who made the kind of mistake you are referring to was
E. O. Wilson in the last chapter of 'Sociobiology'.  And he caught
holy hell for it.  He didn't actually claim we had solved the mystery
of human nature, but he also wasn't careful enough to tone down his
enthusiasm, making it seem as though we were right on the verge of
some big breakthrough.  He got in one hell of a mess as a result,
and his career most definitely took a turn for the worse.  He
not only had things thrown at him and dumped on his head, but a
group of
scientists, etc. referred to as 'Sociobiology Study Group of
Science for the People' headed by Steve Gould and Richard Lewontin
took out full page adds and denounciations in major publications.

> PR:
> Do you disagree with E. O. Wilson's remark that altruism (e.g. concern
> for the species as a whole) is 'the central theoretical problem of
> sociobiology'? 
> 
> Response:
> When I have read about 'altruism' in sociobiology it has made no
> reference to concern for the species as a whole. It has been in
> reference to kin selection. I don't think humans have a concern for
> their species as a whole.
> 

Immediate kin are the EXCEPTION to the "ruthless selfishness" we
should expect to find:

     I shall argue that a predominent quality
     to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.
     This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness
     in individual behavior.  However, as we shall see, there are
     SPECIAL circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own
     selfish goals best by fostering a LIMITED form
     of altruism.  'SPECIAL' and 'LIMITED' are important words in
     the last sentence.  Much as we might wish to believe otherwise,
     universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are
     concepts which simply do not make evolutionary sense (Dawkins).


PR
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/29/03 2:54:02 PM