Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FT

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... David is making things up again. ... Apparently they get denounced for fascist science .!!!New para.Lorentz is the starting point for the thread as a
    Message 1 of 111 , Nov 18 2:14 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > As Langston sets so much store by Wikipedia which he thinks is the very last word in academic repectability,

      David is making things up again.

      > 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.

      Ad hominem. Lots of people -- including some socialists -- were sympathetic to the Nazis before the war, as government control of the German economy seemed to be working much better than the more free-market system prevalent in the USA, UK, and Canada.

      > 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?).

      Can social and political views be guided by science? Some people here seem to think, "No!"

      > 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.

      David is making things up again.

      > This sounds very much like re-tread eugenics (also mentioned in the above Yahoo thread)

      Eugenics was considered quite respectable before the war, even in some leftist circles. There are fads and trends in science as in anything else.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      JDK, Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the fittest just describes those who have survived. With regard to your last sentence –
      Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23 9:20 AM
      • 0 Attachment

        Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.

        With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.


        The Alumni Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   CA   90243
               (818) 352-4141

        On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

        Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species.  There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".  

        Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy).  It also drove the communists crazy too.   Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?


        Sent from my iPad

        On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:


        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
        > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
        > > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
        > > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
        > > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
        > >
        > Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
        > It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
        > reason I won't hide my background.
        > This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
        > charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
        > mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
        > Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
        > JDK

        *shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.

        Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.

        Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.

        One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.