Two bads do not make one good

[Matteo Martini]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Oliver and Ion, on the other side, are claiming that Bush is bad, so, therefore, Iran' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Almost everybody here seems to get that both Bush and Iran can be wrong.
The only person I have seen not to get into this problem, seems to be Kevin Lowe.

[Oliver]

That's pretty easy to answer on behalf the Bushies:

If I would live in Cuba, I would also argue on behalf Cuba.
Unfortunately, I don't live in Cuba, America nor in Iran. ;)

[brodski]

Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts will.

[Matteo Martini]

That's pretty easy to answer on behalf the Bushies:

If I would live in Cuba, I would also argue on behalf Cuba.
Unfortunately, I don't live in Cuba, America nor in Iran. ;)

??

Do you have to live in the US to argue pro or con the Bushes??

[Oliver]

??

Do you have to live in the US to argue pro or con the Bushes??


No, but it is more likely that Americans will defend America. Just like Iranians will defend Irania. :p

It's called "Patriotism".

[Matteo Martini]

No, but it is more likely that Americans will defend America. Just like Iranians will defend Irania. :p

It's called "Patriotism".

So, you are staunchly defending Germany?

[Oliver]

So, you are staunchly defending Germany?


No, I'm not patriotic at all.

[Tricky]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
Also known as "False Dichotomy", but I dont' believe that all of those people you are listing are really the way you portray them. But because this is, more or less, a debate, it is incumbent upon a poster to take and defend a position. I have seen people shift their position, but it is subtle and doesn't happen in a single post. Also, there is a whole range of differences between the positions of those posters you mention, not a dividing line.

To say "two bads" is to fall prey to the same sort of false dichotomy that you decry. Things aren't purely "bad" or "good".

However, I agree that there are a number of extremists here. Sometimes I'm one of them, depending on the issue. Certain things we feel strongly about and defend with more vehemance than others. These are often called "hot-button" issues. If you look closely though, I find you can usually detect as much reason as there is emotion in the positions people take. I don't always agree with that reason (and will say so), but I think it is important to acknowledge that these are more than "knee-jerk" response.

[skeptifem]

i honestly do not know enough to have an opinion on this particular subject but i think sometimes two bads do make one good. not often, but i think it happens.

[Wolfman]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Oliver and Ion, on the other side, are claiming that Bush is bad, so, therefore, Iran' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Almost everybody here seems to get that both Bush and Iran can be wrong.
The only person I have seen not to get into this problem, seems to be Kevin Lowe.
Personally, my own opinion would be pretty much the same as yours; that both Bush and Saddam were wrong, that both should be opposed. And I've faced similar problems...people whom, if I criticize Bush, assume I must support Saddam (or other similar people); and if I criticize Saddam, I must support Bush. The false dichotomy that supporting one implicitly means opposing the other, and vice versa.

I cannot comment on the specific people that you mentioned above, but I find this a common enough problem.

[slingblade]

No, but it is more likely that Americans will defend America. Just like Iranians will defend Irania. :p

It's called "Patriotism".

Patriotism strikes me as quite woo-like. It's akin to loving the boy or girl next door, for the sole reason that s/he lives next door.

[TragicMonkey]

Patriotism strikes me as quite woo-like. It's akin to loving the boy or girl next door, for the sole reason that s/he lives next door.

Well, you can't deny that the boy or girl next door is conveniently located. If you wish to save on travel time and gas, you might date the boy or girl next door even if he or she is only a 7, as opposed to the 9 the next town over. Especially if you have to cross a bridge tunnel to get there, those things are horribly crowded all the time.

Likewise, if you feel you must be patriotic about something, the country you're in is conveniently close. It might only be a 7, as opposed to the 9 in the other hemisphere...

[Tricky]

Patriotism strikes me as quite woo-like. It's akin to loving the boy or girl next door, for the sole reason that s/he lives next door.
Yes, but according to The Selfish Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene), it is quite natural, perhaps even instinctive to care more about people the more they are like you. It has to do with instilling in an organism the desire to protect and defend those most likely to be in one's own gene pool.

Hell, I'm from Alabama and I don't like or agree with much of anything that goes on there, but still I cheer for Alabamians (especially their football teams) when they do well. I can't help it.

[Matteo Martini]

No, I'm not patriotic at all.

So, why are you assuming other people are?

[Matteo Martini]

And I've faced similar problems...people whom, if I criticize Bush, assume I must support Saddam (or other similar people); and if I criticize Saddam, I must support Bush. The false dichotomy that supporting one implicitly means opposing the other, and vice versa.


Exactly my point.

It happened to me right in this forum..

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, but according to The Selfish Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene), it is quite natural, perhaps even instinctive to care more about people the more they are like you. It has to do with instilling in an organism the desire to protect and defend those most likely to be in one's own gene pool.

Hell, I'm from Alabama and I don't like or agree with much of anything that goes on there, but still I cheer for Alabamians (especially their football teams) when they do well. I can't help it.

I do not know, but I do not think that the " Selfish Gene " has anything to do with science..

[Tricky]

I do not know, but I do not think that the " Selfish Gene " has anything to do with science..
Well, my father-in-law, a biology professor at the University of Houston, had it as required reading for his genetics class. You are, however, entitled to your opinion, but that opinion would be better substantiated if you had read the book.

Why don't you think it has anything to do with science?

[Darth Rotor]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Oliver and Ion, on the other side, are claiming that Bush is bad, so, therefore, Iran' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Almost everybody here seems to get that both Bush and Iran can be wrong.
The only person I have seen not to get into this problem, seems to be Kevin Lowe.
I asked you once before to retract that falsehood. I do not ascribe to that position. I ask you again to retract the accusation that I take such an idiotic and simplistic position. The problem is yours, Matteo, and either your weak grasp of English, understandable, of your emotional response to being contradicted or disagreed with, or of the complexities of the issues at hand.

This statement is more than a broad brush, more than an opinion, as you claimed last when I confronted you about this, politely.

This is a blatant mischaracterization of another's position. You have done this before. I think you ought to stop doing it, at all, if you want anything remotely resembling courtesy and respect as a response to you.

I'm not that stupid, to think in such simplistic and irrational terms. I'd like to think you aren't either. Am I right or wrong about that last?

Your response will be my guide.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

I asked you once before to retract that falsehood. I do not ascribe to that position. I ask you again to retract the accusation that I take such an idiotic and simplistic position.

I had this impression from a lot of the comments you posted.
If I got it wrong, I retract

[Darth Rotor]

I had this impression from a lot of the comments you posted.
If I got it wrong, I retract
You did indeed get it wrong, and I accept your retraction.

Grazie mille.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Well, my father-in-law, a biology professor at the University of Houston, had it as required reading for his genetics class. You are, however, entitled to your opinion, but that opinion would be better substantiated if you had read the book.

Why don't you think it has anything to do with science?

The Selfish Gene, AKA the theory proposed by Dawkins has little to do with science, and a lot with philosophy

[fuelair]

That's pretty easy to answer on behalf the Bushies:

If I would live in Cuba, I would also argue on behalf Cuba.
Unfortunately, I don't live in Cuba, America nor in Iran. ;)Just a friendly note - you should be very glad you don't live in Cuba or Iran.

[Darth Rotor]

Just a friendly note - you should be very glad you don't live in Cuba or Iran.
He might not like it in America either. One never know until one tries. ;)

DR

[Tricky]

The Selfish Gene, AKA the theory proposed by Dawkins has little to do with science, and a lot with philosophy
It has a great deal to do with science. It incorporates much of what had been learned about genetics in the recent years before its publication. You can disagree with the conclusions if you like, but it is incorrect to simply state that they are not science. My summary of it here may sound philosophical, but it is a gross oversimplification of the data that Dawkins covers in the book. Again I must ask, on what basis do you say that it is not scientific?

[Matteo Martini]

It has a great deal to do with science. It incorporates much of what had been learned about genetics in the recent years before its publication. You can disagree with the conclusions if you like, but it is incorrect to simply state that they are not science. My summary of it here may sound philosophical, but it is a gross oversimplification of the data that Dawkins covers in the book. Again I must ask, on what basis do you say that it is not scientific?

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that an empirical hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if an observation could be made that might contradict it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Tricky]

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that an empirical hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if an observation could be made that might contradict it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Yes, and The Selfish Gene contains a number of things that have been empirically tested and even more that could be. I get the distinct impression that you haven't read it. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Much of his writing is challenging for a person without a biology background to comprehend.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, and The Selfish Gene contains a number of things that have been empirically tested and even more that could be. I get the distinct impression that you haven't read it. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Much of his writing is challenging for a person without a biology background to comprehend.

I read part of the book, maybe I did not understand it completely, this is why I wrote " I do not know ", up there.
But, I do not think something like this can be called " falsifiable ":

Dawkins proposes that genes that help the organism, which they happen to be in, to survive and reproduce tend to also improve their own chances of being passed on, so – most of the time – "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism. An example of this might be a gene that protects the organism against a disease, which helps the gene spread and also helps the organism. There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

[Beerina]

It's ironic but your spider example supports "selfish gene" as a concept.

The male spider, as an organism, has a poor genetic code if it drives him to mate, then get eaten. However, from his gene's point of view, bingo! The gene mated, got passed on (hooray!) then sacrificed it's now useless vehicle to further the child generation.

There's one pressure, genetically, to drive the organism to live to be older and older, so it can pass on more copies of itself. There's another pressure to die and get out of the way of the younger generation, so the sex-based reshuffling of genes can scour the gradient descent landscape all that much faster.

[Beerina]

There's even two different things there -- the reshuffling mechanism, and the sexual crossover mixing, which probably did not evolve simultaneously, which would be my prediction.

[Beerina]

Reshuffling prolly came first, as cells dividing, then growing back to full size, then dividing again figured out how to re-mix their genes a little bit -- not too much now! Just a little, and in just the right, useful ways. Later on two cells slammed together accidentally, both just at that moment, and intermixxed. Eventually two would happen to do it "right", and in such a way as to also co-evolve a chance to do it again (who knows how many times it happened accidentally in the right way, but the children never "slammed" into other children to do it again...)

[Tricky]

I read part of the book, maybe I did not understand it completely, this is why I wrote " I do not know ", up there.
But, I do not think something like this can be called " falsifiable ":

Dawkins proposes that genes that help the organism, which they happen to be in, to survive and reproduce tend to also improve their own chances of being passed on, so – most of the time – "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism. An example of this might be a gene that protects the organism against a disease, which helps the gene spread and also helps the organism. There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
Yeah, that's a summary in wikipedia, but there is much more. But even the example you gave is eminently falsifiable, if you assume that in the future we will have the ability for precise gene manipulation. You simply isolate and excise the gene and observe if it affects both lifespan and mating success. Granted, this is not an easy thing to do, but it is certainly a falsifiable claim. It is definitely scientific.

[Tailgater]

Get a room in the science forum you two.:p

[Tailgater]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Oliver and Ion, on the other side, are claiming that Bush is bad, so, therefore, Iran' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Almost everybody here seems to get that both Bush and Iran can be wrong.
The only person I have seen not to get into this problem, seems to be Kevin Lowe.

Do you have examples of any of these posters claiming one is right because the other is wrong? You have made a pretty absolute claim.

[Tailgater]

So, why are you assuming other people are?

Because if you disagree with Oliver, it is due to being patriotic. Patriotism clouds your thoughts. Oliver is self-described as not patriotic (or political:rolleyes: ) so considers himself to be right or at least of clearer mind.:D

[Oliver]

Because if you disagree with Oliver, it is due to being patriotic. Patriotism clouds your thoughts. Oliver is self-described as not patriotic (or political:rolleyes: ) so considers himself to be right or at least of clearer mind.:D


Basically that's true - and every fundie on earth will agree with me. :D

[Matteo Martini]

Yeah, that's a summary in wikipedia, but there is much more. But even the example you gave is eminently falsifiable, if you assume that in the future we will have the ability for precise gene manipulation. You simply isolate and excise the gene and observe if it affects both lifespan and mating success. Granted, this is not an easy thing to do, but it is certainly a falsifiable claim. It is definitely scientific.

So, Dawkin` s theory will become ( maybe ) scientific, in the future.

[Oliver]

So, Dawkin` s theory will become ( maybe ) scientific, in the future.


I doubt that:

BBC - Horizon - A War On Science (God vs Science) [2006] (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6485580088897217945&esrc=sr8&ev=v&q=%22BBC%2BHorizon%22%2Bduration%3Along&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D-6485580088897217945&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6485580088897217945%26q%3D%2522BBC%2BHorizon%2522% 2Bduration%253Along%26total%3D110%26start%3D0%26nu m%3D10%26so%3D2%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D7&usg=AL29H230FCnurQwHaF5x5cpNVu4MRQpKCw)

[Tricky]

So, Dawkin` s theory will become ( maybe ) scientific, in the future.
No, it is scientific now. It is falsifiable.

Say, for example, you proposed that the corona of Sirius Major contained gold in gasseous form. You can't go to Sirius Major (at this time) to test it, but the theory is still falsifiable (by sampling the corona of SM). That means that this is a scientific proposition. It could be wrong, but the scientific method is employed.

I'm not saying Dawkins is right, I'm just saying his writing is scientific. Heck, even Kevin Trudeau's proposals are scientific because they make testable statements. Of course, he's wrong (as tests have shown) but that doesn't mean his original statements weren't scientific.

[Matteo Martini]

No, it is scientific now. It is falsifiable.


How can you falsify if a gene behaves " selfishly "?
Please, provide a concrete example how can you falsify the behaviour of a gene.
I can not think about any..

[Ziggurat]

The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.

I find it interesting that what you choose to compare is Iran, an entire nation, and Bush, a single individual. Considering that Bush is an elected official of a democracy, whereas Iran is controlled by a religious dictatorship, the reverse (Khamenei vs. the US) would be logically much more sensible. The way a question is framed can have a lot to do with the answer people arrive at, and it looks to me like you've accepted a particular framing without really giving it much thought at all. Since we're on the topic of our opinions about other posters....

[Oliver]

How can you falsify if a gene behaves " selfishly "?
Please, provide a concrete example how can you falsify the behaviour of a gene.
I can not think about any..


Look, Matteo - it's pretty easy:

If someone is Gay, Psychotic, Pedophile, then they are straightway abnormal and disgusting. Well, at least if you read worship the parts in the Bible that refer to these examples.

Unfortunately the opposite is true: If someone is Gay, Psychotic or Pedophile, than God made an error. And this means that God isn't perfect either.

Now if God is erroneous, too - the Bible pretty much is erroneous as well - written by erroneous Humans who wrote about an erroneous God. ;)

[Matteo Martini]

Look, Matteo - it's pretty easy:

If someone is Gay, Psychotic, Pedophile, then they are straightway abnormal and disgusting. Well, at least if you read worship the parts in the Bible that refer to these examples.

Unfortunately the opposite is true: If someone is Gay, Psychotic or Pedophile, than God made an error. And this means that God isn't perfect either.

Now if God is erroneous, too - the Bible pretty much is erroneous as well - written by erroneous Humans who wrote about an erroneous God. ;)

I am reading and re-reading this passage, but, not getting the meaning.
I offer my apologizes..

[Oliver]

Just a friendly note - you should be very glad you don't live in Cuba or Iran.


Why not? :confused:

At least they have universal health care and no ******-words. :p

[Oliver]

I am reading and re-reading this passage, but, not getting the meaning.
I offer my apologizes..


No, no - I have to apologize. I suspected that it might have religious reasons for you to argue on behalf Dawkin's "philosophy". After re-reading the passages of your conversation with Tricky, I guess I was wrong.

Anyway: To talk about your personal believes regarding God, would be pretty off-topic. My rather confusing, last reply was just an anecdote. Just ignore it. :)

[Tricky]

How can you falsify if a gene behaves " selfishly "?
That is the title of the book, Matteo, and it was meant to be "catchy". Perhaps he should have put "selfish" in quotes. The idea is that gene "behavior" mimics what anthropocentric humans might call "selfish" behavior. Inside the book, Dawkins scientifically explains why (according to his studies) this is so.

Please, provide a concrete example how can you falsify the behaviour of a gene.
I can not think about any..
I just gave you one. Excise the gene (we can do this crudely even now) and see if it affects the organism in the way you had predicted. You are aware, are you not, that there are many genetically modified species of plants and even animals that we have created by just such techniques?

[Vorticity]

Two bads do not make one good

Well, I suppose it depends. Do the two bads add or multiply?

[Matteo Martini]

That is the title of the book, Matteo, and it was meant to be "catchy". Perhaps he should have put "selfish" in quotes. The idea is that gene "behavior" mimics what anthropocentric humans might call "selfish" behavior. Inside the book, Dawkins scientifically explains why (according to his studies) this is so.


I just gave you one. Excise the gene (we can do this crudely even now) and see if it affects the organism in the way you had predicted. You are aware, are you not, that there are many genetically modified species of plants and even animals that we have created by just such techniques?

Yes.
But, how can you prove that the aim of the gene, is to reproduce itself, in subsequent generations, without taking into account the organism` s own goals?
This is kind of a philosophical concept, IMHO

[Tricky]

Yes.
But, how can you prove that the aim of the gene, is to reproduce itself, in subsequent generations, without taking into account the organism`s own goals?
I would say that only organisms with highly advanced nervous systems could have anything that could reasonably be called "goals". We humans often speak of "goals" because that helps us understand cause and effect, but that doesn't mean that the effect is "sought after". It is a result, but not a planned result.

One way to envision evolution, both biologic and non-biologic is this little catch phrase: "That which is stable remans". If certain chemical compounds find ways to be stable or leave copies of themselves, they stick around. If they don't, they leave. Because conditions change all the time, (especially on earth) the factors for "what remans stable" also change, so DNA combination that can weather these changes stick around. This can be shown empiracally.

To our anthropocentric mind, this might appear to be "selfish" on the part of the stable DNA combinations. Of course, that is just us overlying our human framework of thought on the situation. They are simply reacting to natural laws. It has nothing to do with consciousness on the part of the gene.

Philosophers can (and do) try to find "meaning" for scientific observations apart from things that can be falsified. This is unavoidable. It does not, however, negate the fact that the observations and empirical studies that prompted this "philosophy" were in fact scientific.

What, after all, is religion but an attempt to find a human-framework kind of meaning behind the observed workings of the world? So if you read Dawkins and emerge with some sort of non-empirical philosophy, I suppose that is not a big surprise.

Tiger got to hunt
Bird got to fly
Man got to ask himself
"Why why why?"

Tiger got to sleep
Bird got to land
Man got to tell himself
He understand.
----Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

[RandFan]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned. Do me one great big favor, will you? If you are going to make claims about me would you quote me to demonstrate what you are saying? Would that be ok? I'm getting a bit tired of this.

At to your post, BS. I rant on and on against false dichotomies. I don't hold the rediculous straw man that you attribut to me.

Matteo. Please stop.

[RandFan]

Reading the forum, in the last months, I have come to the conclusion that many people here ( Oliver, Ion, Darth Rotor, Ziggurat, RandFan among the others ), are in my personal opinion taken into what we could call the " delusion of the two alternatives ".
The majority of the people, here ( RandFan, Darth Rotor, etc. ) are claiming that Iran is bad, so, therefore, Bush' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Oliver and Ion, on the other side, are claiming that Bush is bad, so, therefore, Iran' s behaviour can, somehow, be condoned.
Almost everybody here seems to get that both Bush and Iran can be wrong.
The only person I have seen not to get into this problem, seems to be Kevin Lowe.FTR, without speaking to anyone in particular I do actually agree that many people do subscribe to false dichotomies.

[Matteo Martini]

I would say that only organisms with highly advanced nervous systems could have anything that could reasonably be called "goals". We humans often speak of "goals" because that helps us understand cause and effect, but that doesn't mean that the effect is "sought after". It is a result, but not a planned result.


Agreed with that.
This is why I had some problems calling Dawkins` s theories as " scientific ".
Anyway, I may be wrong.