logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-04-26 20:38:49 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Society & Culture

  The Darwinists Are Back
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: The Darwinists Are Back  (Read 742 times)
Joe Dees
Heretic
*****

Posts: 5428
Reputation: 1.94
Rate Joe Dees



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile WWW
The Darwinists Are Back
« on: 2004-11-22 18:25:59 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.94) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
hell-kite
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.01
Rate hell-kite



feed me!
299741427 299741427
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:The Darwinists Are Back
« Reply #1 on: 2004-11-23 07:03:46 »
Reply with quote


Greetings!

A good article, I think. For me, it raises important issues, such as
1.   the moral responsibility of scientists regarding how their results are used by people with decisional power (VERY important, especially for evolutionary psychology)
2.    “how much weight should policy makers give to scientific research”, i.e., instead of attempting utopia, how much should they heed psychological peculiarities of the human species?
3.   with how much certainty should scientists promote their ideas – for after all, epistemological constraint essentially forbid the use of the ontological word “fact”

Reminding oneself of the due scepticism towards scientific “revelations”, I don’t want to go into detail regarding the particular evolutionary topics raised. Instead, I heartily agree to the general argument that “one should keep in mind” certain (so-called, but I shall leave this aside from now on) insights into the human psyche – for mainly pragmatic reasons. If the outcome of an intervention can be improved by improving its theoretical framework, it’s pragmatic to consider all kinds of models or variables.

On the policy level you can probably do that, given the correct scientific evaluation, with little danger of abusing any scientific “insights”.

Yet, on a higher level, such as regarding our value system (human rights etc.), one should probably stick to the utopian “where to” instead to the evolutionary “where from”. Certain aspects of human nature do not deal very well with the constraints of civilisation (besides, cf. Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents), but still we should try to sublimate.

Or should we? Well, I think we should. I guess “our” ethic is mostly based on how to preserve multimillion-societies; there might be different models, none of which is at all practicable given the status quo. Furthermore, our ethic is in principle directed towards society’s weaker members; I do not see an alternative I could emotionally support.

Sorry but right now I just don’t have the time (or, related, the patience) to think things through to the last conclusion. These are just the first thoughts that came to my mind.

Björn
Report to moderator   Logged

Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed