I'm not interested in liars who wallow in their own lies, sorry.

Jesus, say Dawkins is a social Darwinist Nazi when he's consistently said he's not and you're golden. Say Gould is a creationist when he's not sure and you're fucking lynched.

I had a look at the paper but it doesn't appear to be relevant. . — FrancisRay

You were interested in how science accounts for empathy, no?

say Dawkins is a social Darwinist Nazi when he's consistently said he's not — Kenosha Kid

I agree that Dawkin's influence shouldn't entirely be held against him. It's not his fault that while inspiring a generation, he was also embraced by neo-Nazis.

Usually, when we we talk against "Dawkins,' it's his legacy of intriguing, but fatally flawed works we're targeting, not the real Dawkins, who, as Wilson pointed out, is not a scientist.

I agree that Dawkin's influence shouldn't entirely be held against him. It's not his fault that while inspiring a generation, he was also embraced by neo-Nazis. — frank

About as accurate and fair-minded as one could expect. Likewise it's not Gould's fault that he was brainwashed as a child to the point where he's incapable of understanding evolution. I'm sure Midgley has her causes too.

He was raised an orthodox Jew iirc — Kenosha Kid

Idrc. Not an orthodox family, mea culpa.

Stephen Jay Gould was born in Queens, New York, on September 10, 1941. His father Leonard was a court stenographer and a World War II veteran in the United States Navy. His mother Eleanor was an artist, whose parents were Jewish immigrants living and working in the city's Garment District.[10] Gould and his younger brother Peter were raised in Bayside, a middle-class neighborhood in the northeastern section of Queens.[11] He attended P.S. 26 elementary school and graduated from Jamaica High School.[12]

When Gould was five years old his father took him to the Hall of Dinosaurs in the American Museum of Natural History, where he first encountered Tyrannosaurus rex. "I had no idea there were such things—I was awestruck," Gould once recalled.[13] It was in that moment that he decided to become a paleontologist.[14]

Raised in a secular Jewish home, Gould did not formally practice religion and preferred to be called an agnostic.[15] When asked directly if he was an agnostic in Skeptic magazine, he responded:

If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.

Though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father"[16] he stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[17] In describing his own political views, he has said they "tend to the left of center."[18] According to Gould the most influential political books he read were C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[18]

While attending Antioch College in the early 1960s, Gould was active in the civil rights movement and often campaigned for social justice.[19] When he attended the University of Leeds as a visiting undergraduate, he organized weekly demonstrations outside a Bradford dance hall which refused to admit black people. Gould continued these demonstrations until the policy was revoked.[20] Throughout his career and writings, he spoke out against cultural oppression in all its forms, especially what he saw as the pseudoscience used in the service of racism and sexism.[21]

Interspersed throughout his scientific essays for Natural History magazine, Gould frequently referred to his nonscientific interests and pastimes. As a boy he collected baseball cards and remained an avid New York Yankees fan throughout his life.[22] As an adult he was fond of science fiction movies, but often lamented their poor storytelling and presentation of science.[23] His other interests included singing baritone in the Boston Cecilia, and he was a great aficionado of Gilbert and Sullivan operas.[24] He collected rare antiquarian books, possessed an enthusiasm for architecture, and delighted in city walks. He often traveled to Europe, and spoke French, German, Russian, and Italian. He sometimes alluded ruefully to his tendency to put on weight.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

Yeah, apologies to Gould's parents, it doesn't sound like they're to blame.

I wasn't aware science had an explanation. It was not in that paper. To explain empathy one would have to explain consciousness.

I appreciate you may not agree. There is always a paradigm-problem for these discussions where mysticism becomes relevant. I would rather say that the natural sciences have no method for studying or understanding empathy, but scientists like to speculate beyond the data. All they have for data is the assumption that empathy is a real thing and not just a misinterpretation of behaviour. Only a few decades back they were arguing that consciousness is a misinterpretation of behaviour. and they have no method even now to refute this claim except first-person reports.

I have no beef with science or scientists, but I wish they'd be more careful to distinguish between what they can and cannot study with their methods. That the physical sciences can explain empathy is, as far as any scientist knows, a science-fiction fantasy. I would say it is very obviously a fantasy, just anther hang-over from the grand-fantasy of Behaviourism, so never quite understand why anyone would think otherwise. It seems some sort of major paradigm-shift is required to switch between our respective positions, I find this a constant source of fascination but have never found a way of addressing it. . . . . . .

I wasn't aware science had an explanation. It was not in that paper. — FrancisRay

That's what the paper is about. Are you sure you read the right one?

I would rather say that the natural sciences have no method for studying or understanding empathy, but scientists like to speculate beyond the data. — FrancisRay

Ah, this is a matter of faith for you then. Not so much "science has not" but "science can not" disguising a "science must not".

I have no beef with science or scientists, but I wish they'd be more careful to distinguish between what they can and cannot study with their methods. — FrancisRay

Oh, people have been reminding them since the heliocentric model.

You've thought about everything haven't you? You must be a brain in a vat or something, fed on royal jelly. — bert1

He has, to his immense credit. — Kenosha Kid

:grin: :cool:

Wait, you're a Dawkins fan, you picked the name Kenosha Kid, and you've inexplicably picked on orthodox Jews.

I see a banning in your future.

I don't really understand you response. It doesn't seem to be based on my comments but just re-iterates your dislike of my view. Let;s leave it. I know when I'm beat.

Wait, you're a Dawkins fan, you picked the name Kenosha Kid, and you've I explicably picked on orthodox Jews.

I see a banning in your future. — frank

:rofl: That's excellent!

Come on, that's a self-undermining polemical argument. I disagree with Gould on Non-overlapping magisteria, but creationism implies divine intervention & rejection of Evolutionary Biology. You can be right or wrong on the mechanism of Evolution, but being wrong doesn't make someone a creationist (that also goes for Fodor & Piatelli, who actually deny the centrality of Darwinian explanations)

Further in the same wiki entry on Gould, a paragraph is illuminating:

Against Sociobiology

In 1975 [one year prior to the publication of The Selfish Gene], Gould's Harvard colleague E. O. Wilson introduced his analysis of animal behavior (including human behavior) based on a sociobiological framework that suggested that many social behaviors have a strong evolutionary basis.[52] In response, Gould, Richard Lewontin, and others from the Boston area wrote the subsequently well-referenced letter to The New York Review of Books entitled, "Against 'Sociobiology'". This open letter criticized Wilson's notion of a "deterministic view of human society and human action."[53]

But Gould did not rule out sociobiological explanations for many aspects of animal behavior, and later wrote: "Sociobiologists have broadened their range of selective stories by invoking concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection to solve (successfully I think) the vexatious problem of altruism—previously the greatest stumbling block to a Darwinian theory of social behavior... Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply."[54]

So, it's all about altruism, after all. NOT selfishness, and NOT some sort of metaphor of altruism but the real behavior, that consists in an individual helping another even when that help costs the individual a little something. This behavior, common in the animal world in particular among social animals, had prior to Hamilton and Price no Darwinian explanation. The mechanism for the genetic selection of altruism that they came up with is simple enough: sacrificing a bit of your own comfort for someone with similar genes than yours ultimately benefits the genes you have in common and their future odds of survival. Altruism to members of the same clan can get positively selected over the long run because it benefits the survival of the group and their somewhat common genepool.

The discovery depressed Price mightily, who later committed suicide. But it could be seen, rather than as a depressing idea, as a very positive one in that it means that evolution rewards kindness.

Enters Dawkins, who repackages the idea as "the selfish gene", for reasons probably linked to the zeitgeist. "The Altruistic Gene" would not have sold quite as well in the rising individualism of the late 70s. In doing so, Dawkins muddles the debate quite a lot. But thanks to Stephen J Gould, we now have a clear idea of the historical sequence and of the real stakes at hand.

I don't really understand you response. It doesn't seem to be based on my comments but just re-iterates your dislike of my view. Let;s leave it. I know when I'm beat. — FrancisRay

People have been insisting on what science should and should not study for as long as science has been going. It doesn't stick. They're not bothered.

I disagree with Gould on NOMA, but creationism implies divine intervention & rejection of Evolutionary Biology. — Saphsin

Creationism implies a creator. There are (bad) creationist theories of evolutionary biology (which Gould, consistent in his separation of church and science, rightly denounces).

Gould believed there might have been a creator and believes that religion is the key to understanding human values. Okay, he's not really a creationist, obviously (though this is a thread devoted to utterly misrepresenting scientists), but he was guilty of magical thinking. It makes sense to me that he and Midgley would see eye to eye: both have a closed door policy to science investigating what makes us who we are.

In any case the question of 'metaphor' is a sideshow. Dawkins uses it as snakeoil to slide in and out of when and as he needs; the question is if the underlying notion which it is used to communicate - the gene as the sole unit of natural selection - is valid or not. It isn't, and the book is a waste of the trees that were destroyed in its printing for it. — StreetlightX

You've read a lot more of this stuff than I have, so I'd be curious what your view of the landscape is. Is something selected by natural selection? If so, what? Do you have a sense of the current consensus on this, or what the leading competing views are now? Obviously forty years ago whether group selection was likely or even possible was still a very active question.

While I'm interested in your views, I really don't understand the animus you display here. If Dawkins was wrong about genes, he was wrong. It happens. The course of science is meandering. I'm in no position to judge whether he's right, but I like that he makes as clear a case as he can for his view of the unit of selection. As I said, I thought of him as advancing the debate. If his view is wrong then he has done everyone a service by making the best case for the wrong view that he can, so that its shortcomings can be clearly shown. In that tweet that @Saphsin shared, Pigliucci says there are solid biological criticisms of Dawkins's view, but that Midgley was indeed attacking a straw man. Here's a recent snippet summary of Pigliucci's criticism:

In a nutshell, TSG presents an exceedingly reductionist view of biology that is simply incapable, in my mind, of taking in the bewildering variety of biological phenomena that we have documented ever since Darwin. Dawkins’ focus on the gene level and only the gene level, his refusal to take seriously the idea of multi-level selection, his (later) casual dismissal of epigenetics, his ridicule of advances coming out of paleontology, his utter ignorance (judging from the fact that he hardly wrote about it at all) of important concepts like phenotypic plasticity, phenotypic accommodation, niche selection, robustness, and evolvability — to mention but a few — meant to me that his view of biology was hopelessly limited. — Pigliucci

Okay, cool. TSG is forty years old, and even at that time one-sided and misses some important stuff. Sounds good. It's not my field but I could imagine this is all true. And if Pigliucci is right to characterize Dawkins as dug-in and dismissive of alternative views then that's interesting, but it's mainly consumers of popular science books who would need to be wary, as working scientists aren't taking their cues from such stuff anyway.

I still can't help but feel there is a value to the community in a certain sort of narrow-mindedness. You can look at the position of Quine in American philosophy: his preferences and commitments are always as clear and consistent as he can manage, and that made his objections (I'm thinking of the development of modal logics in the mid-century, for instance) valuable as a rock to hurl yourself against.

For all I know, the gene-centric view will win out in another forty years and the current almost universal embrace among philosophers of possible-world semantics will be all but forgotten. We can all just keep doing our work rather than handicapping some supposed horse race of ideas.

@Kenosha Kid... I'm not all that closely related to my cat, yet I feed it, even going out of my way to the pet shop to buy it a special diet recommended by the vet, at considerable expense.

How does evolution explain this?

So he isn't a creationist, even "obviously" in your words. So why say it? Gould and Mary Midgley don't seem to see eye to eye despite the latter's citation of the former. I don't know Midgley's work, but a quick search shows she has advocated support for Lovelock's pseudo-scientific Gaia hypothesis for instance, which Gould has staunchly rejected. Kim Sterelny's book on the debate between the two figures is much more balanced than your portrayal of Gould's work, plenty of people in evolutionary biology think differently than you.

Also your categorization of creationism is way too broad, that's not what most people think of as creationism. I mean I'm very inclined philosophically from looking at evolutionary history and the picture it shows that there is a tension between Evolutionary Biology and Theism, but people can hold onto both views without being a creationist, just like people hold onto all kinds of poorly compatible views.

I'm not all that closely related to my cat, yet I feed it, even going out of my way to the pet shop to buy it a special diet recommended by the vet, at considerable expense.

How does evolution explain this? — Banno

You and your cat share about 90% of common DNA. You're far closer to him phylogenetically than you think.

Going on a limb here but... Let's see. The Price-Hamilton theory predicts that one's feelings of solidarity correlates with genetic closeness. That means one is more likely to feel a desire to help a sibling than a cousin, more likely to want to help a cousin than a more distant relative, etc. I think it's generally correct, statistically speaking; it would help explain the pregnancy and universality of racism for instance. But if we go beyond the species, the theory predicts that we are more likely to bound with mammals than with reptiles or fish because we are closest to them, which I think is also by and large true.

(Y)

I'm not all that closely related to my cat, yet I feed it, even going out of my way to the pet shop to buy it a special diet recommended by the vet, at considerable expense.

How does evolution explain this? — Banno

I'm scared to answer because it seems like you're joking but my faith in humanity has been truly shaken. In case you're being serious, natural selection doesn't spitball every conceivable scenario. What's relevant is the environment in which the characteristic evolved and how that evolution bestowed a survival advantage. If you were kidding, apologies.

So he isn't a creationist, even "obviously" in your words. So why say it? — Saphsin

I falsely recalled him coming from a strongly religious background, which I've retracted twice. My point wasn't that he was a god-botherer but that he was of that mindset that there are human phenomena that are magic.

Also your categorization of creationism is way too broad — Saphsin

That's what it is.

I mean I'm very inclined philosophically from looking at evolutionary history and the picture it shows that there is a tension between Evolutionary Biology and Theism, but people can hold onto both views without being a creationist, just like people hold onto all kinds of poorly compatible views. — Saphsin

I wouldn't disagree, although I'd always find suspect the scientific robustness of someone who, deep down, feels they have the big answers and are just filling in the detail of _how_ God did it

Also your categorization of creationism is way too broad, that's not what most people think of as creationism — Saphsin

Btw you'll generally find Catholics accept that evolution is real, since the Pope John Paul George Ringo II accepted the theory in the 90s. So your definition of creationism is not only far too specific, it's incorrect.

I'm scared to answer because it seems like you're joking but my faith in humanity has been truly shaken. In case you're being serious, natural selection doesn't spitball every conceivable scenario. What's relevant is the environment in which the characteristic evolved and how that evolution bestowed a survival advantage. If you were kidding, apologies. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps that my caring for a cat that is not a close genetic match is a sort of peacock's tail - showing off my caring and supportive nature in order to impress potential mates.

But if we go beyond the species, the theory predicts that we are more likely to bound with mammals than with reptiles or fish because we are closest to them, which I think is also by and large true. — Olivier5

I have goldfish and chooks. The fish do fuck all. It would certainly be easier to buy eggs than to keep chickens. Girl has a pet lizard.

I grow poppies, too, and other flowers. I'm not happy when they don't do well. How close are my genes to theirs?

Don't know about your cat, but I heard somewhere a bit of the story of dogs that I found fascinating. It's a very old relationship. The theory was that wolves would naturally scavenge a bit around the settlements of early humans. Animals have a characteristic ethologists call "flight distance", how close you allow a possible threat to come before bolting. The idea is that wolves with a shorter flight distance would be the beginnings of domestication: humans come out to chase wolves away from the garbage dump, and one doesn't run off immediately but stays and gets a closer look, eventually leading to interaction, maybe deliberate feeding of that wolf by a human. To me, the idea of some random variation laying the groundwork for small changes in behavior that enable big changes in behavior and then genome (since we soon get artificial selection), that's all pretty cool.

Perhaps that my caring for a cat that is not a close genetic match is a sort of peacock's tail - showing off my caring and supportive nature in order to impress potential mates. — Banno

If we're guessing, I'd say your initial desire to have a cat had little to do with altruism, and that the care you have for it now has much to do with the fact that you see it every day and it depends on you. Being a cat owner, you probably ascribe more human characteristics to it than is justifiable.

It's a very old relationship. The theory was that wolves would naturally scavenge a bit around the settlements of early humans. Animals have a characteristic ethologists call "flight distance", how close you allow a possible threat to come before bolting. The idea is that wolves with a shorter flight distance would be the beginnings of domestication: humans come out to chase wolves away from the garbage dump, and one doesn't run off immediately but stays and gets a closer look, eventually leading to interaction, maybe deliberate feeding of that wolf by a human. — Srap Tasmaner

I also thought of the original domestication of dogs when Banno introduced his furry babe magnet. My understanding was that dogs were useful at finding large prey, humans better at killing it. It was in the interest of dogs to ensure humans had excess food. Now they've evolved eyebrows to look sad. We're such suckers.

Cats are solitary hunters and humans are socializing, so the bigger question is why cats put up with us.

I have goldfish and chooks. — Banno

Would you describe your relationship to your goldfish as significantly altruistic? I don't understand why people have them at all, so I'm genuinely interested.

There are those - not us, of course - who when asked any question that is at all disconcerting, answer that it is the will of god. Their faith is such that this is sufficient explanation. Indeed, if god is, and is as is usually described, then they must be right.

Those of a more philosophical disposition will disagree. The trouble with the explanation "God wills it" is that it is so uninspiring. It leads to nothing - even undermining prayer, since god will do as he pleases regardless.

It's the logic of this theology that offends. The will of god explains everything, and so tells us nothing.

Explaining all behaviour in terms of selfish genetics strikes me as adopting the same logic. Even if it is right, it is shallow.