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


Expand Messages
  • JamesG
    D R Lindberg: Your original claim was that there s been no rise in global average temperatures since about 1997. The charts show that every year since (with
    Message 1 of 194 , Apr 29, 2013
      D R Lindberg: "Your original claim was that 'there's been no rise in global average temperatures since about 1997.' The charts show that every year since (with one exception on one chart) has had a higher global average temperature."

      No, what the charts show is that every year since 1997 the global land-ocean temperature index has fluctuated between +0.40 and +0.63 above the base line temperature (whatever that is), with no upward trend line. The global temperature deviation from the base line during that period did not show an increase in global temperature from year to year, as you seemingly think (the deviation last year was +0.56). In short, the increase in average global temperature leveled off (or paused) around 1997. Whether the earth will resume warming (as those committed to the theory of AGW predict) or begin to cool (as those who think solar activity is the primary cause of temperature changes on earth) remains to be seen. There's just too much uncertainty to say, as far too many say (usually for political reasons), that the science of global warming is settled.

      Jim in Missouri
    • 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
        --- 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.