Sawing off the branch on which it sits

[_Xenophon]

Did she actually lead her argument with a reference to the esteemed philosophical musings of The Bloodhound Gang?!?

Thank you for sharing that, I needed the laugh.

[_Lemmie]

Did she actually lead her argument with a reference to the esteemed philosophical musings of The Bloodhound Gang?!?

Thank you for sharing that, I needed the laugh.

She still does, followed immediately by a reference to the somewhat less ironically framed "philosophical musings" of The Berenstain Bears! No age group is safe.

[_Gadianton]

(i.e. adherents to “scientism”) believe that since the human brain is subject to cognitive biases that it is impossible to think well, and thus all ideas are necessarily invalid. Yet, he thinks that when making these claims, scientists aren’t self-aware enough to know that they themselves might be subject to these same cognitive biases?

It is now being claimed in certain quarters that he is being misrepresented to say that all memes are bad ideas when he did not say that.

I'm not sure what he's driving at, but in the spirit of the season, I'll play devil's advocate to the degree this objection appears relevant:

Calling an idea a “meme” in no way implies that the idea is good or bad, inisghtful or a lie, a fascinating insight into the truth, or a totally irrational superstition.

So, the concept of a meme is itself a meme.

Suppose that ice cream were the healthiest food on the planet, cleans out the blood stream, burns fat, and grows muscle to the right proportion. If that were the case, few if any people could be considered health nuts, and there is no way society could be described as a society of health nuts. Irrespective of the fact that ice cream makes you healthy, it's consumed because it tastes good. The point would be that if memes, and let's just say the doctrines of naturalism (if memes themselves), were to win over religion in the long run, they win irrespective of whether or not they are true. That is almost consistent with the Mary Midgley article; she gets a C+. To make the situation even worse, and this is something no apologist has ever had the vision to think of, IF there are a such thing as memes, then it's likely impossible for naturalism to win at a society level unless it also is a meme. That wouldn't undermine naturalism as true, but it would undermine the broad notion that a Star Trek society of rational people who have conscientiously rejected God is possible.

I'm in the clear since I've never argued atheism will make society better or worse, or is accepted as a matter of rationality. I've only argued that it just happens to be true.

My response is that something like a meme has to be true, and is necessary for the fabric of society. You can't bring LHC level introspection to every decision in life for every person individually. If you were to have everyone make a list of the Ten Commandments, the only one everyone would remember for sure is "thou shalt not kill". Evolution might win through some false ideas over time, but now as a society get to experiment with memes in the short run through mass communication and social media. All bets are off.

[_Doctor Steuss]

And a plagiarist, once again. I reviewed Pearcey's chapter, Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears, and once again, virtually every single sentence DCP posts is straight out of Pearcey's work. This time, Peterson can't hide behind forgetfulness, or accidental error, because he said this in the comments:

Curious, too, that they both read as if I had quoted nobody OTHER than Pearcey in support of my doubts -- whereas I actually cited the distinguished philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Mary Midgley . . . as well as Mr. Charles Darwin himself....
Finally, IS Nancy Pearcey a young-Earth creationist who believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? It's certainly possible; I know little about her

DCP quotes all of those people because he plagiarizes Pearcey as she quotes all of those people as well. For example:

Daniel Dennett’s trademark slogan is that Darwinism is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept” in religion and morality, and puts our views of the social order in an entirely different light

which he took straight from Pearcey:

Dennett's trademark metaphor is that Darwinism is "universal acid, ' that "eats through just about every traditional concept" of religion or morality or social order.

Changing "metaphor" to "slogan" doesn't hide the plagiarism, Dan.

Great googely-moogely.

[_Analytics]

(i.e. adherents to “scientism”) believe that since the human brain is subject to cognitive biases that it is impossible to think well, and thus all ideas are necessarily invalid. Yet, he thinks that when making these claims, scientists aren’t self-aware enough to know that they themselves might be subject to these same cognitive biases?

It is now being claimed in certain quarters that he is being misrepresented to say that all memes are bad ideas when he did not say that.

He said,

Unfortunately, the complainant’s triumphant observation has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I actually was making.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... esWPuTU.99

The absolutely most predictable thing on the internet is this blogger saying, "that wasn't what I was saying," blaming the lack of communication on the reader, and then not even attempting to clarify his point. Now, it is possible that I misunderstood the point that he wanted to make. But at least he should consider the possibility that he didn't express himself clearly. In any case, here is what he actually said:

It would seem, for example, that evolutionary psychology’s insistence that ideas are the products of evolution, “chosen” for their utility in the battle to survive and replicate, is self-refuting.  For included among those ideas, obviously, is evolutionary psychology itself.  If ideas are nothing more than tactical tools for survival, it is unclear how they can be judged to be objectively true or false. 
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ysuzi0P.99

Evolutionary psychology simply does not "insist that ideas are the product of evolution, 'chosen' for their utility in the battle to survive and replicate." Nor does it claim that ideas are "nothing more than tactical tools for survival." Those claims are the basis of his argument, and they are a straw man.

What is true is that both genes and memes are subject to evolutionary pressure. But that doesn't imply that recognizing this fact is somehow a self-refuting idea.

I've carefully read this blog entry. If the author thinks I'm misunderstanding something, I would implore him to clarify his point. Until he does so, I'm sticking by my preliminary conclusion--this particular blog entry is attacking a straw man and is not well thought out.

[_Analytics]

(i.e. adherents to “scientism”) believe that since the human brain is subject to cognitive biases that it is impossible to think well, and thus all ideas are necessarily invalid. Yet, he thinks that when making these claims, scientists aren’t self-aware enough to know that they themselves might be subject to these same cognitive biases?

It is now being claimed in certain quarters that he is being misrepresented to say that all memes are bad ideas when he did not say that.

I'm not sure what he's driving at, but in the spirit of the season, I'll play devil's advocate to the degree this objection appears relevant:

Calling an idea a “meme” in no way implies that the idea is good or bad, inisghtful or a lie, a fascinating insight into the truth, or a totally irrational superstition.

So, the concept of a meme is itself a meme.

Suppose that ice cream were the healthiest food on the planet, cleans out the blood stream, burns fat, and grows muscle to the right proportion. If that were the case, few if any people could be considered health nuts, and there is no way society could be described as a society of health nuts. Irrespective of the fact that ice cream makes you healthy, it's consumed because it tastes good. The point would be that if memes, and let's just say the doctrines of naturalism (if memes themselves), were to win over religion in the long run, they win irrespective of whether or not they are true. That is almost consistent with the Mary Midgley article; she gets a C+. To make the situation even worse, and this is something no apologist has ever had the vision to think of, IF there are a such thing as memes, then it's likely impossible for naturalism to win at a society level unless it also is a meme. That wouldn't undermine naturalism as true, but it would undermine the broad notion that a Star Trek society of rational people who have conscientiously rejected God is possible.

I'm in the clear since I've never argued atheism will make society better or worse, or is accepted as a matter of rationality. I've only argued that it just happens to be true.

My response is that something like a meme has to be true, and is necessary for the fabric of society. You can't bring LHC level introspection to every decision in life for every person individually. If you were to have everyone make a list of the Ten Commandments, the only one everyone would remember for sure is "thou shalt not kill". Evolution might win through some false ideas over time, but now as a society get to experiment with memes in the short run through mass communication and social media. All bets are off.

Interesting analogy. In this wonderful, fictitious world, do people eat ice cream because they like it, or because it is healthy? If somebody were to claim the only reason he ate ice cream was for its health benefits we might question his level of self-awareness. I'll grant that. But the cutting-off-the-branch-on-which-you-sit with a self-refuting idea doesn't seem to lend itself to this analogy very well, as far as I can tell.

[_Tom]

Peterson (following Pearcey) writes:

As Mary Midgley points out, if we accept the concept of memes as Dawkins and his co-believers seek to propagate it, we must conclude that the only reason they “campaign so ardently for neo-Darwinism must be that a neo-Darwinist meme . . . has infested their brains, forcing them to act in this way.” After all, she says, “if you propose the method seriously you must apply it consistently.”

Darwin himself recognized and was troubled by this. “With me,” he wrote, “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.” He was right to be concerned. Consistent materialism seems to saw off the branch upon which the materialist sits while thinking.

Here is Charles Darwin's remark in context (the comment below preceded by an asterisk was written by Charles Darwin's son, Francis Darwin):

C. Darwin to W. Graham.

Down, July 3rd, 1881.

DEAR SIR,

I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably written 'Creed of Science,' though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation—and no doubt of the conservation of energy—of the atomic theory, &c. &c., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of con-

[page] 316

sciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.* But then 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. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think, second, third, and fourth rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your work which have

* The Duke of Argyll ('Good Words,' Ap. 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. "… in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' and upon 'The Earthworms,' and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times," and he shook his head vaguely, adding, "it seems to go away.'"

[page] 317

much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused.

I beg leave to remain,

Dear Sir,

Yours faithfully and obliged,

CHARLES DARWIN.

In "Plantinga's Case against Naturalistic Epistemology," Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep. 1996), pp. 436-37, E. Fales addressed the context of Darwin's remark. The following passage is part of Fales' discussion of whether the reliability of human cognitive faculties is improbable given Neo-Darwinism.

A central point for [Alvin] Plantinga . . . is that natural selection does not directly favor true belief. Rather, it favors appropriate action. Since true beliefs need not engender successful action, nor false beliefs be fatal, naturalists need to show that, on average, reliable belief-forming mechanisms confer an advantage over various alternative possibilities. Indeed, Plantinga is able to haul out a passage in a letter of Darwin's to W. Graham that supposedly reflects this worry:6

With me the horrid doubt arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which have been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if indeed there are any convictions in such a mind?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Darwin 1881, V. 1, p. 281. Plantinga quite unfairly omits mention of the context of this passing remark of Darwin's, which occurs under the heading 'Religion'. Darwin is commenting on a book by Graham which presents a version of the Argument from Design that infers the existence of a creator from the existence of laws of nature. Darwin responds that he "cannot see this," nevertheless, after offering an objection, he says, "But I have no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt, etc." (A footnote here records Darwin's reaction to a similar suggestion made by the Duke of Argyle that biological intricacies must be the product of a mind. Darwin replied, "Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times it seems to go away."[)]

The context makes it quite clear that the kind of 'convictions' Darwin has in mind are general theoretical hunches supported by intuitions of some sort, rather than conclusions clearly reasoned from evidence. His references to the "convictions" of monkeys is therefore best seen as irony. There is no support here for the view that Darwin suspected our cognitive faculties (or those of our simian forebears) of gross unreliability when engaged in their customary activities. Even a cursory examination of Darwin's The Descent of Man shows the reverse to be true.

[_Gadianton]

Interesting Tom.

I have to wonder about a blog that argues, per Plantinga, that our faculties are reliable, but science is unreliable.

[_MsJack]

And a plagiarist, once again. I reviewed Pearcey's chapter, Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears, and once again, virtually every single sentence DCP posts is straight out of Pearcey's work. This time, Peterson can't hide behind forgetfulness, or accidental error, because he said this in the comments:

Curious, too, that they both read as if I had quoted nobody OTHER than Pearcey in support of my doubts -- whereas I actually cited the distinguished philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Mary Midgley . . . as well as Mr. Charles Darwin himself....
Finally, IS Nancy Pearcey a young-Earth creationist who believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? It's certainly possible; I know little about her

DCP quotes all of those people because he plagiarizes Pearcey as she quotes all of those people as well. For example:

Daniel Dennett’s trademark slogan is that Darwinism is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept” in religion and morality, and puts our views of the social order in an entirely different light

which he took straight from Pearcey:

Dennett's trademark metaphor is that Darwinism is "universal acid, ' that "eats through just about every traditional concept" of religion or morality or social order.

Changing "metaphor" to "slogan" doesn't hide the plagiarism, Dan.

Great googely-moogely.

That about sums it up.

[_EAllusion]

That about sums it up.

Plagiarizing Nancy Pearcey is like copying off the dumbest kid in class for a test. Well, second dumbest at any rate.