|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 29, 2012 17:53:39 GMT 10
My favourite and one I agree with from this list of 373 so-called cultural universals is number 57. Namely Cutural Variability. It gives the lie to the lot. 373! I do not intend to waste everyone's time by addressing one a day for over a year. Still, I will be happy to address any particular ones I'm asked about. Until then I'll close with an item close to the end of the original list, one we can all agree is universal — "Socialization."
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 29, 2012 18:42:37 GMT 10
Question. "The innate versus the manifest: How universal does a universal have to be?" Answer. Ask a philosopher, a mathematician, a grammarian or a five year old.
Not counting exceptional individuals we still need to allow for the norms of exceptional societies. From being promised a great deal of evidence, which was not forthcoming, we are told it is not reasonable of us to expect any!? So much for a science having to produce testable hypotheses!? Still, the situation in this case is not quite that clear: It is here asserted that the choice is between two mechanistic options. Here we are being led to accept an entirely spurious dichotomy. We are not purpose built machines but flexible organisms and we behave accordingly. As Fritjof Capra wrote ( The Turning Point, p.286): Capra went on to say: Thus, the choice in not between mechanistic options. Such options are not even possible. In other words, all this convoluted talk of dedicated psychological mechanisms and discreet mind modules is claptrap.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 30, 2012 13:30:35 GMT 10
I really don't care if you want to believe that the body doesn't exist. How is the crusade to fight it going? All of the sad sad talk about a blank slate hoping that everyone is absolutely the same is demonstrably claptrap. Demonstrably of course if those supposedly interested are not afraid to examine. An open mind won't kill you.
The mechanistic view derives from the blank slate ultimately because there is no person that isn't programmed. There can be no decisions because there is no being that can decide. All crimes are society's fault. All wars came from society. Close prisons and get rid of laws, all you need is enough programming to make utopia.
The absolute stupidity and the fear of anything that might endanger an agenda that involves forcing people to be perfect has to be rejected. If people are individuals working in society then society does not get to be awesome overlord.
If, at any time in your mastery of psychology, biology, and anthropology (not to mention every other science) please bring it. Make snide comments about Bayes, one day you might read a Wiki article about it and decide you understand that too.
Have the sack to leave this up. The social learning only modeal has been dispensed with. You (under your pseudonym) has decided to crusade against the idea that your body matters. I am sure that you will reverse it overnight. Good luck, let me know how it turns out. I did offer to direct you to a few places that you could bring your crusade and your good news to those stupid scientists so that you can enlighten them.
You could finally fix everything. Wouldn't that be great.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 30, 2012 21:08:40 GMT 10
I really don't care if you want to believe that the body doesn't exist. How is the crusade to fight it going? If you have finished your paranoid tantrum you may care to show where anyone here has stated the body doesn't exist. On the contrary, if you like, I can show how the body's abilities and inabilities have been addressed. All of the sad sad talk about a blank slate hoping that everyone is absolutely the same is demonstrably claptrap. Demonstrably of course if those supposedly interested are not afraid to examine. An open mind won't kill you. The mechanistic view derives from the blank slate ultimately because there is no person that isn't programmed. It is EP which has the fixed mechanistic view (innate psychological mechanisms and modules). The alternative view is flexible and organic, allowing the possibility of self-control. If the assumptions of EP are demonstrable, then demonstrate them. There can be no decisions because there is no being that can decide. All crimes are society's fault. All wars came from society. Close prisons and get rid of laws, all you need is enough programming to make utopia. On the one hand, according to EP we are all innately programmed. On the other hand, no social program can afford to make assumptions about human nature because, given the flexibility of the human condition, there will always be exceptions. The absolute stupidity and the fear of anything that might endanger an agenda that involves forcing people to be perfect has to be rejected. If people are individuals working in society then society does not get to be awesome overlord. There is an interaction between individuals and society allowing greater freedom than would innate behaviours if it were the case. I am troubled by the racist and sexist applications of EP by some practitioners drawing dubious distinctions between groups. If, at any time in your mastery of psychology, biology, and anthropology (not to mention every other science) please bring it. Make snide comments about Bayes, one day you might read a Wiki article about it and decide you understand that too. EP claims it is applicable in multiple domains without regard for or understanding of even their basic principles. Bayes is a useful tool but even its application requires some relevant evidence to gauge. Otherwise it's a case of garbage in, garbage out. Have the sack to leave this up. The social learning only modeal has been dispensed with. You (under your pseudonym) has decided to crusade against the idea that your body matters. I am sure that you will reverse it overnight. Good luck, let me know how it turns out. You seem to be gibbering here. Please quote an instance of I or anyone here conducting such a crusade or where I have ever deleted members' posts except in the case of profanity or a few posts under the public access "Open Slather" category (I usually prefer to leave abusive posts as evidence of the poster's character and class). There was one instance where I accidentally deleted a innocent post in a members' only category and I promptly took precautions against it happening again. I did offer to direct you to a few places that you could bring your crusade and your good news to those stupid scientists so that you can enlighten them.
You could finally fix everything. Wouldn't that be great. Remember, you came here. I will address your posts here but I do not intend going out of my way to discuss balderdash for your benefit any more than I would go out of my way to engage with Sociobiologists, Objectivists, Creationists or with someone raving on a street corner. Also remember, all you need do here is provide some valid and relevant evidence to show there is at least some merit in EP. That is the least one can expect from any field claiming to be a science.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 31, 2012 6:58:35 GMT 10
For the record, I am not ideologically opposed to the possibility of innate (genetic) human behaviours (instincts). While our evolutionary line shows diminishing instincts and increased reliance on learned behaviours, the question remains as to whether or not in humans that tendency is now fully realised.
Our increased brain size gives us the capacity but that would only be a precondition for total reliance on learned behaviours. Have any residual instincts (more or less fixed behaviours) proved to be such a liability in diverse situations that natural selection has eliminated them entirely (except for some primitive reflexes)?
I don't know. However, I have yet to find valid and reliable evidence of humans instincts, despite the possibility having been intensively researched since the late 19th century. Thus far the null hypothesis has proved to be the most defensible position and the various affirmative hypotheses have been discredited.
The question persists. Carl Sagan, in The Dragons of Eden, postulated that the widespread notion of dragons and fear of reptiles is innate and derives from our evolutionary heritage. He wrote:However, the ubiquity of belief in the book's eponymous dragons might easily be explained by the ubiquity of dinosaur fossils. The burden of proof remains with those who assert human's have instincts.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Apr 1, 2012 10:03:37 GMT 10
More quotes from partially read wiki articles.
Any time you want to go over this in a forum that you don't control, have as many of your other names showup also, we can. Until then. Bye.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 1, 2012 17:32:44 GMT 10
... have as many of your other names showup also... FYI I am Philip Carter, the owner of this forum, when not posting in my capacity as administrator ('Solomon'), I will do so as 'Tamrin,' (so named after a not so humble servant of the Queen of Sheba).
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 1, 2012 22:00:18 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 2, 2012 15:07:23 GMT 10
From being promised a great deal of evidence, which was not forthcoming, we are told it is not reasonable of us to expect any!? So much for a science having to produce testable hypotheses!? No one would allow that he could not see these much-admired clothes; because, in doing so, he would have declared himself either a simpleton or unfit of his office Hans Christian Andersen (Born this day 1805) The Socio-Biologist's new clothes.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 19:17:57 GMT 10
More quotes from partially read wiki articles. Where?
|
|