Jump to content

Our politics are in our DNA. That’s a good thing.


Recommended Posts

Fascinating, but not particularly surprising - at least to me. ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-politics-are-in-our-dna-thats-a-good-thing/2019/07/05/c4d8579e-984d-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.c89a0267d049

 

(Let me know if you cannot access and I will PM you a copy)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Given that genetics plays an important role in the way we think and behave in general and in many cases the career paths we choose, it seems to be a logical conclusion that it would also influence our political biases. 

"Political arguments may rage within families, communities and even nations, yet they only rarely threaten the cohesion of the group."

This appears to be getting a little less rare these days, and that is very unfortunate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/6/2019 at 4:42 PM, johnnyAU said:

Given that genetics plays an important role in the way we think and behave in general and in many cases the career paths we choose, it seems to be a logical conclusion that it would also influence our political biases. 

"Political arguments may rage within families, communities and even nations, yet they only rarely threaten the cohesion of the group."

This appears to be getting a little less rare these days, and that is very unfortunate. 

The reason my family can have different political opinions is because we don’t talk about it within the family to keep the cohesion! 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, toddc said:

The reason my family can have different political opinions is because we don’t talk about it within the family to keep the cohesion! 😂 

smart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's not the main point of the article, but it presupposes that the Darwinian, macro-evolutionary model is correct.

Quote

Given how natural selection works, it’s entirely possible that an aversion to evolutionary explanations is in itself a product of evolution. In a hostile environment, wouldn’t a belief in self-determination be adaptive?

 Doesn't this argument cut both ways?  Why isn't a belief in the naturalistic, evolutionary model (and the associated disbelief in a Creator) considered to be a product of evolution?   Isn't the author's inclination to accept the evolutionary model as true merely a product of his genetic 'programming'?

Quote

If liberalism and conservatism are partly rooted in genetics, then those worldviews had to have been adaptive — and necessary — in our evolutionary past.

   Only if one assumes that the evolutionary model is correct.  Evidence that we are predisposed by our genes to act or think in a certain way does not mean that we don't have free will to act either in accordance or contrary to those inclinations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2019 at 11:30 AM, triangletiger said:

I know it's not the main point of the article, but it presupposes that the Darwinian, macro-evolutionary model is correct.

 Doesn't this argument cut both ways?  Why isn't a belief in the naturalistic, evolutionary model (and the associated disbelief in a Creator) considered to be a product of evolution? Because evolution theory didn't even exist until Darwin discovered it.  It cannot be a product of evolution by definition.

  Isn't the author's inclination to accept the evolutionary model as true merely a product of his genetic 'programming'? It's a product of product of education.  One's aptitude for learning is likely influenced by ones genes.

Only if one assumes that the evolutionary model is correct.  Of course. But it's a very safe assumption.

Evidence that we are predisposed by our genes to act or think in a certain way does not mean that we don't have free will to act either in accordance or contrary to those inclinations.  True, it just becomes harder (less natural to do so.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I know it's not the main point of the article, but it presupposes that the Darwinian, macro-evolutionary model is correct.

 Doesn't this argument cut both ways?  Why isn't a belief in the naturalistic, evolutionary model (and the associated disbelief in a Creator) considered to be a product of evolution? Because evolution theory didn't even exist until Darwin discovered it.  It cannot be a product of evolution by definitionI think you're missing my point and don't have grasp of the full ramifications of the Darwinian model.  On Darwinism, wouldn't any and all beliefs be products of evolution?  Darwinism is self-refuting in that, on its view, our cognitive abilities aren't evolved to discern truth from falsehood, but to provide a survival advantage.  So, the fact that people have come to believe in Darwinian evolution must mean that it provides some kind of survival advantage, not that it corresponds with reality.

  Isn't the author's inclination to accept the evolutionary model as true merely a product of his genetic 'programming'? It's a product of product of education.  One's aptitude for learning is likely influenced by ones genes.  See my response above.

Only if one assumes that the evolutionary model is correct.  Of course. But it's a very safe assumption.  Even though it refutes itself?

Evidence that we are predisposed by our genes to act or think in a certain way does not mean that we don't have free will to act either in accordance or contrary to those inclinations.  True, it just becomes harder (less natural to do so.)  Agreed.  However, I do believe we are creatures of habit and the more we practice at something, the easier and more 'natural' it becomes to us.  We are more malleable than we realize.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2019 at 6:27 PM, triangletiger said:

I think you're missing my point and don't have grasp of the full ramifications of the Darwinian model.  On Darwinism, wouldn't any and all beliefs be products of evolution?  Darwinism is self-refuting in that, on its view, our cognitive abilities aren't evolved to discern truth from falsehood, but to provide a survival advantage.  So, the fact that people have come to believe in Darwinian evolution must mean that it provides some kind of survival advantage, not that it corresponds with reality.

First, I am referring to evolutionary theory in general, not "Darwinism" which would be falsely attributing all modern research and thinking on the subject directly to him.

But to answer your question, yes, any and all beliefs are products of evolution.  Likewise, our cognitive abilities are a products of evolution. 

It is a mistake to assume that all of the products of evolution must necessarily have an associated "survival" value.  Many of the products of evolution exist without such an association to survival (as a species). 

Stephen J. Gould adapted the architectural term "spandrel" to describe these evolutionary attributes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

People believe in evolutionary theory because the scientific  basis for such belief is overwhelmingly compelling.  It is the central organizing principle of biology and associated fields.

And I don't know what you mean by evolution "refuting" itself.   It is a much of a scientific truth as any other scientific theory.  (The word "theory" is commonly and erroneously used to mean hypothesis, which is why you can hear some to make an argument that evolutionary theory is "just" theory.  It's more:

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term “theory” in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say “hypothesis.” That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. 

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.......

From:  https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/23/theories-vs-theories/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2019 at 6:27 PM, triangletiger said:

Agreed.  However, I do believe we are creatures of habit and the more we practice at something, the easier and more 'natural' it becomes to us.  We are more malleable than we realize.

I don't disagree with that at all.

But nevertheless, us creatures - with all of the characteristics associated with us - are a result of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, I am referring to evolutionary theory in general, not "Darwinism" which would be falsely attributing all modern research and thinking on the subject directly to him.

But to answer your question, yes, any and all beliefs are products of evolution.  Likewise, our cognitive abilities are a products of evolution. 

It is a mistake to assume that all of the products of evolution must necessarily have an associated "survival" value.  Many of the products of evolution exist without such an association to survival (as a species). 

Stephen J. Gould adapted the architectural term "spandrel" to describe these evolutionary attributes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

People believe in evolutionary theory because the scientific  basis for such belief is overwhelmingly compelling.  It is the central organizing principle of biology and associated fields.

And I don't know what you mean by evolution "refuting" itself.   It is a much of a scientific truth as any other scientific theory.  (The word "theory" is commonly and erroneously used to mean hypothesis, which is why you can hear some to make an argument that evolutionary theory is "just" theory.  It's more:

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term “theory” in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say “hypothesis.” That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. 

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.......

From:  https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/23/theories-vs-theories/

 

This excerpt (below) from Nancy Pearcey’s book Finding Truth explains what I mean by self-refuting.  And even if a trait (such as cognitive traits) do not serve to provide a survival advantage and is a ‘spandrel’, there’a no for believing that it provides us with the ability to discern reality. I do have STEM background (Electrical Engineering degree from AU) and understand the difference between a law, a hypothesis, and a theory in science.  I also think when we talk about evolution, we need to distinguish between micro-evolution (changes within a species) and macro-evolution (changes which occur over vast spans of time which, through the process of mutation, result in one species evolving into another).  The former is widely accepted and has a strong scientific basis; the latter is more controversial.

Quote

A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. "This circle is square" is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself….

An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.

Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, "If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." What is the contradiction in that statement? 

Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it "serves evolutionary success, not truth." In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.

Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: "This statement is a lie." If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.

Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, "Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive." But that means Crick’s own theory is not a "scientific truth." Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide.

Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, "Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth." Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.

To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.

A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, "If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it."

On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, "Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?" His answer is no: "I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so." Hence, "insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining."

Darwin’s Selective Skepticism

People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin’s famous "horrid doubt" passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy."

But, of course, Darwin’s theory itself was a "conviction of man’s mind." So why should it be "at all trustworthy"?

Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his "horrid doubt" selectively — only when considering the case for a Creator.

From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his "inward conviction … that the Universe is not the result of chance." It was in the next sentence that he expressed his "horrid doubt." So the "conviction" he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.

In another passage Darwin admitted, "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man." Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: "But then arises the doubt — can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?"

That is, can it be trusted when it draws "grand conclusions" about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey’s "instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

In short, it was on occasions when Darwin’s mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory.

Modern followers of Darwin still apply the theory selectively. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature," in which "mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity." In other words, God is an idea that appears in the human mind when the electrical circuitry of the brain has evolved to a certain level of complexity.

To be logically consistent, however, Gould should turn the same skepticism back onto Darwin’s ideas, which he never did. Gould applied his evolutionary skepticism selectively — to discredit the idea of God.

Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, "If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones." Thus "to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method."

Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, "the mind that does science … is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science."

Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.

The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.

� 2015 Nancy Pearcey. Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism Secularism, and Other God Substitutes published by David C Cook. All rights reserved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

This excerpt (below) from Nancy Pearcey’s book Finding Truth explains what I mean by self-refuting.  And even if a trait (such as cognitive traits) do not serve to provide a survival advantage and is a ‘spandrel’, there’a no for believing that it provides us with the ability to discern reality. I do have STEM background (Electrical Engineering degree from AU) and understand the difference between a law, a hypothesis, and a theory in science.  I also think when we talk about evolution, we need to distinguish between micro-evolution (changes within a species) and macro-evolution (changes which occur over vast spans of time which, through the process of mutation, result in one species evolving into another).  The former is widely accepted and has a strong scientific basis; the latter is more controversial.

 

Did I say that?  No, I didn't.  :-\  Maybe you should confirm your full understanding of my statements before assuming what I meant.

I was addressing the false assumption that evolutionary changes must necessarily have a direct survival benefit (by definition).  I said nothing about what these "spandrels" may be responsible for.

There is no difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution in the way they only a temporal difference due to generation times.  And "macro" evolution is certainly not "controversial". To the contrary -as I said - it is the foundational basis of biology and related sciences.

Regarding Nancy Pearcy,  blah blah blah.  If you think there's something profound in there, please highlight it and I'll discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 10:06 PM, homersapien said:

Did I say that?  No, I didn't.  :-\  Maybe you should confirm your full understanding of my statements before assuming what I meant.

I was addressing the false assumption that evolutionary changes must necessarily have a direct survival benefit (by definition).  I said nothing about what these "spandrels" may be responsible for.  I think you're are missing my point (or are intentionally acting as if you are obtuse, which we both know you are not).  Regardless, my intention was not to get your dander up, but merely to engage in dialog.  You put forth the information about spandrels as if it defeats my point that evolutionary process not providing a basis for getting at an accurate assessment of reality.  Was your intention merely to counter my claim that all evolutionary changes occur to provide a survival benefit?  If so, then I concede the point. 

My point is that, even if every evolutionary change does not occur to provide a survival benefit, they still don't occur with the end of getting at an understanding of truth/reality.  In the words of Francis Crick (the well-known scientist (and atheist) who discovered DNA), "Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive."  If this is the case, then how can we believe anything that we perceive as truth and an accurate reflection of reality?  Do you not see how the theory of evolution is self-refuting?  What am I missing?

There is no difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution in the way they only a temporal difference due to generation times.  And "macro" evolution is certainly not "controversial". To the contrary -as I said - it is the foundational basis of biology and related sciences.  The difference between micro- and macro-evolution is in the empirical evidence available to substantiate a belief in them.  There is much more scientific evidence supporting micro-evolution.  How is a belief in macro-evolution the foundational basis for biology and other life sciences?  I don't see how it's necessary to believe in it in order to do biology.  We can (and have) certainly come to know much about the way in which living organisms and cells operate without the necessity of assuming that any given life-form evolved from previous life-forms.

Regarding Nancy Pearcy,  blah blah blah.  If you think there's something profound in there, please highlight it and I'll discuss it.  I realize the excerpt was quite a 'wall of text', but it lays out the case that I am trying to make with much more clarity than I can myself.  The Francis Crick quote cited above came from it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...