14378RE: [LandCafe] Re: FT
- Nov 18 11:27 AM@Walto
See you're still trying to reason with the irrational.As Langston sets so much store by Wikipedia which he thinks is the very last word in academic repectability, he might also be persuaded to look up the Yahoo group for evolutionary psychology on the Net.This is a group of mainly, it appears,professors and associate professors and in one significant exchange Googleable under: evolutionary psychology Yahoo group Konrad Lorentz they get down to real professional issues:they can't get grants for research if they mention evolutionary psychology.Apparently they get denounced for "fascist science".!!!
New para.Lorentz is the starting point for the thread as a philosopher asks "Is n't it high time to rehabilitate Lorentz and acknowledge the role he played in the development of Evolutionary Psychology?"It is has to be broken to him that Lorentz had "presented a distorted version of his concept of innate schemata....as scientific support for Nazi race laws and their importance in preventing the mongrelisation of the species"It turns out KL re-visited his Nazi-friendly texts and cleaned them up post war.He had been a card carrying member of the Nazi Party, of course.
New para Professor Irwin Silverman of Toronto Univ makes a sensible point towards the end of the thread about such people "allowing their science to be guided by their social and political views " (Can it be science if it is guided by social and political views?).But in the light of the highly controversial nature and disputed status of Evolutionary Psychology, I think people on land cafe should be wary of Evolutionary Psychology per se and have no truck with arguments which seeks to distort LVT into a system for rewarding "reproductive success" by giving the use of the best land to the largest families.This sounds very much like re-tread eugenics (also mentioned in the above Yahoo thread)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:28:25 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: FTI'm going to snip all the errant and repetitive nonsense and bragging about what only you will "consent to know" your post and just respond to the substance. (There isn't much.)
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
> > >Natural rights are a hypothetical ideal of those undertakings that societies would adopt if people had all the relevant facts, and the wisdom and honesty to apply them.
> > First, rights would have to be societal undertakings, and no basis whatever has been given for that claim. Then you can start arguing for what the "hypothetical ideal" might be.
> "right, n. a recognized claim or title; 'a right to free speech'"
> What makes such a claim or title "recognized" but society's undertaking to recognize it by securing it to its possessor against adverse influences? No undertaking, no recognition.
This is reminiscent of Holmes' "Laws are what courts decide." It's what has been called a categorial claim. I take it that what you're trying to say is this:
* Rights are just those claims to freedom from interference that are protected by some society.
* Protection by a society is a type of societal undertaking.
* Therefore rights are a type of societal undertaking.
It could be called a constructivist approach, since by its lights rights aren't discovered, but made. I don't have a huge problem with this, except that I think it's slightly misleading. If you look at the argument closely, you can see that it isn't quite valid: the conclusion doesn't actually follow. I don't take that to mean that rights are God-given or otherwise "discoverable," however. I'd say that it's a weird translation of a position according to which there really aren't any such things as natural rights or laws at all. I think that putting your view that way is more consonant with correct usage.
> > > > What will be the analogous research program that will produce evidence of this theory?
> > >
> > > It's one of the hypotheses that the methods of evolutionary psychology can be employed to examine.
> > Go for it, then. Use a finding of evolutionary psychology to support any one of your claims. I'm still waiting.
> See, e.g., Gintis 2000 and 2003, and others for applications of the concept of inclusive fitness outside kin groups. This is far beyond LandCafe's purview, but Wikipedia gives a succinct summary of what aspects of human nature are involved:
> "Capacity for generalized altruism, acting like a 'good Samaritan,' cognitive concepts of justice, ethics and HUMAN RIGHTS [emphasis mine -- RL]."
What do you take follows from the fact that the term "HUMAN RIGHTS" [empahsis yours] appears in that sentence? Again, I take the main question not to be how or when these concepts were derived (though those are also interesting and may be helpful in determining the answer to the main question), but rather whether there is anything in the world to which these concepts (new or old) actually correspond.
> > > > The first and foremost obstacle to their being any such program is that, unlike in the case of memories, there is a reasonable doubt that there are any such things as natural rights to be shown to be identical to ANYTHING. Nobody doubts that there are memories of cows, but lots of people doubt that there are natural rights.
> > > Not when they are correctly defined.
> > Redefined, you mean. Let's call those "hammer-rights" so we can distinguish them from whatever everybody else means by the term.
> What "everybody" else means is just a different aspect of the same thing. Establishing the correct definitions of terms is crucial to empirical science, and often not intuitive. It took Newton to correctly distinguish between "mass" and "weight," two qualities that are intuitively indistinguishable, but in reality are very, very different.
Sometimes the meanings of terms morph so that it still makes sense to say we are talking about the same thing, sometimes there is a Kuhnian paradigm shift so that the words don't mean anything like the same thing. In the case of mass and weight, that the qualities are, as you say, "intuitively indistinguishable" actually cuts against the argument you are trying to make here. What you are calling a right and what JDK calls a right are quite easily distinguishable. If I can put words in his mouth for a second, he would say that just as there's a difference between the call an umpire makes and whether the runner was "really out"--"the societal undertakings" can also be wrong, and will be if they don't ferret out the REAL natural rights.
And now, if I can put words in YOUR mouth for a second, I think the reply to this is that societies may indeed be wrong: they are when they construct rights that are not "success enhancing." And, I'd continue, that there are no reasonable criteria for getting rights RIGHT that can be relied upon other than such "success enhancement." (I myself prefer to demur from both views: I am not persuaded either that one can suss out "natural laws" from intuitions/revelation or from anthropology/evolutionary psychology. The whole search seems sightly cuckoo to me.)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>