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


Expand Messages
  • D R Lindberg
    ... temperatures have been rising in recent decades. In reality, the data show that there has been no rise in global average temperatures since about 1997.
    Message 1 of 194 , Apr 27 12:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" wrote:
      > D R Lindberg recently averred that it's a fact that "average world
      temperatures have been rising in recent decades." In reality, the data
      show that there has been no rise in global average temperatures since
      about 1997. Also, due to decreased solar activity - a trend expected to
      continue for years to come - some scientists are now predicting the
      onset of global cooling.

      It is always a good idea to check your sources.

      Here is the data, which show what you can see they show, not what Mr.
      Rose says they show:

      Compare the recent 5-year averages with those in the late 1990s:

      Here are some comments on your source:



      The old "deniers are being persecuted" line is garbage. The
      intimidation has been all the other way. Climatologists have been
      threatened with everything from being fired to having their children
      "brutally gang-raped" and being burned alive by lynch mobs.
      Andrew Breitbart called for James Hansen to be executed; Rush Limbaugh
      also said climate scientists should be executed. Phil Jones received so
      many death threats he had to receive police protection.
      Deniers are not being suppressed. Lindzen, Christy, et al. routinely get
      articles published in peer-reviewed journals. They can chatter about
      their nonsense 24/7 on the internet. Their books are best-sellers. They
      OWN right-wing talk radio. Best of all, they managed to sink Phil Jones
      and the CRU and derail Copenhagen. The persecution and intimidation are
      all the other way.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... Which means you really don t agree. You speak of Darwinian morality as you might speak of the morality of con artists swindling elderly widows. You
      Message 194 of 194 , May 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
        > gluadys: "There is no such thing as 'Darwinian morality'."
        > I agree. The Darwinian explanation of morality is quite distant from what most people (especially theists) think morality is.

        Which means you really don't agree. You speak of "Darwinian morality" as you might speak of the morality of con artists swindling elderly widows. You would agree their morality is abysmal and not at all like the morality you uphold.

        But abysmal as it may be, it is still a morality of sorts.

        When I say "there is no such thing as 'Darwinian morality' " I mean that literally. There is no moral system at all which can be called "Darwinian": neither a moral system I might approve of, nor one I wholeheartedly condemn.

        The theory of evolution gives us no idea at all how humans "ought" to behave. It prescribes no moral behaviour that would meet the standard of the Ten Commandments. Nor does it prescribe any moral behaviour that would condone murder, rape, promiscuity or any of the other immoral behaviours people like to attribute to it.

        It simply does not follow from anything we have learned about evolution, including human evolution, that there is any such thing at all as "Darwinian morality."

        As Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:
        > "The scientific claim is that morality is natural. It is an adaptation produced by natural selection to make us good cooperators."
        > http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/evolutionary-ethics-part-two/37836?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

        Ruse may well be right. A level of awareness that allows the formation of moral codes is probably an adaptation produced by natural selection. But beyond that all we can say is that some behaviours we approve of have adaptive value and some behaviours we disapprove of also seem to have adaptive value, depending on the circumstances. Much depends on the species. It is apparently of adaptive value that female preying mantises bite the head off the male who is cohabiting them at the moment.

        There is no more reason we "should" behave altruistically because it has adaptive value than to say we "should" behave selfishly because it has adaptive value. "Is" is not "ought".

        Historically, the competitive instincts have gotten the lion's share of attention in evolutionary studies. The best competitor passed on the adaptive genes which allowed it to survive and reproduce. This led to the misconception that evolution promoted immoral behaviour. Now more recent research is showing many cases in which altruistic behaviour is adaptive, especially as groups compete with groups. But to say this means that evolution promotes altruistic behaviour as anything but a survival strategy is just as much a misconception as the opposite error.

        Better to say that evolution promotes behaviours, both individual and group behaviours, that maximise the ability to survive and reproduce. From our anthropocentric perspective we pass judgment on these as "moral" and "immoral". But that tells us there is a human standard of morality not that there is a Darwinian morality.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.