Two bads do not make one good

Matteo Martini · 12th August 2007, 02:11 AM

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 · 12th August 2007, 03:02 AM

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 · 12th August 2007, 03:08 AM

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

Matteo Martini · 12th August 2007, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

??

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

Oliver · 12th August 2007, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

??

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.

It's called "Patriotism".

Matteo Martini · 12th August 2007, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

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

It's called "Patriotism".

So, you are staunchly defending Germany?

Oliver · 12th August 2007, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

So, you are staunchly defending Germany?

No, I'm not patriotic at all.

Tricky · 12th August 2007, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by 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 ".

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 · 12th August 2007, 06:46 AM

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 · 12th August 2007, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 12th August 2007, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

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

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 · 12th August 2007, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

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 · 12th August 2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

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, 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 · 12th August 2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

No, I'm not patriotic at all.

So, why are you assuming other people are?

Matteo Martini · 12th August 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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 · 12th August 2007, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Yes, but according to 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 · 12th August 2007, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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 · 12th August 2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 12th August 2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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 · 12th August 2007, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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 · 12th August 2007, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

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 · 12th August 2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Darth Rotor · 12th August 2007, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

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 · 12th August 2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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 · 13th August 2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

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 · 13th August 2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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 · 13th August 2007, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

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 · 14th August 2007, 09:02 AM

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 · 14th August 2007, 09:06 AM

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 · 14th August 2007, 09:10 AM

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 · 14th August 2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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 · 14th August 2007, 01:55 PM

Get a room in the science forum you two.

Tailgater · 14th August 2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 14th August 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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

) so considers himself to be right or at least of clearer mind.

Oliver · 14th August 2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tailgater

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

) so considers himself to be right or at least of clearer mind.

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

Matteo Martini · 14th August 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

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 · 14th August 2007, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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

I doubt that:

BBC - Horizon - A War On Science (God vs Science) [2006]

Tricky · 14th August 2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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 · 14th August 2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

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 · 14th August 2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

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....

12th August 2007, 02:11 AM	#1
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Two bads do not make one good 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.
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 03:02 AM	#2
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	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.
	__________________

12th August 2007, 03:08 AM	#3
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,074	Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts will.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,074

12th August 2007, 04:41 AM	#4
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by 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. ?? Do you have to live in the US to argue pro or con the Bushes??
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 04:43 AM	#5
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini ?? 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. It's called "Patriotism".
	__________________

12th August 2007, 05:06 AM	#6
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Oliver No, but it is more likely that Americans will defend America. Just like Iranians will defend Irania. It's called "Patriotism". So, you are staunchly defending Germany?
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 05:23 AM	#7
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini So, you are staunchly defending Germany? No, I'm not patriotic at all.
	__________________

12th August 2007, 06:24 AM	#8
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by 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 ". 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.

12th August 2007, 06:46 AM	#9
skeptifem is not beauty 2K compliant Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,259	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.
	__________________

12th August 2007, 06:54 AM	#10
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

12th August 2007, 07:41 AM	#11
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Oliver No, but it is more likely that Americans will defend America. Just like Iranians will defend Irania. 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.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

12th August 2007, 07:49 AM	#12
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,068	Originally Posted by slingblade 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...
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

12th August 2007, 08:29 AM	#13
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by slingblade 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, 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.

12th August 2007, 08:44 AM	#14
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Oliver No, I'm not patriotic at all. So, why are you assuming other people are?
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 08:46 AM	#15
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Wolfman 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 Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 08:48 AM	#16
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Tricky Yes, but according to 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..
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 09:21 AM	#17
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini 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?

12th August 2007, 09:52 AM	#18
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by 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. 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
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 12th August 2007 at 09:54 AM.

12th August 2007, 10:07 AM	#19
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 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
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 10:11 AM	#20
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini 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
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

12th August 2007, 10:16 AM	#21
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Tricky 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
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

12th August 2007, 12:13 PM	#22
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	Originally Posted by 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. Just a friendly note - you should be very glad you don't live in Cuba or Iran.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911

12th August 2007, 12:58 PM	#23
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by fuelair 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
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

12th August 2007, 01:06 PM	#24
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini 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?

13th August 2007, 05:12 PM	#25
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Tricky 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
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

13th August 2007, 06:01 PM	#26
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini 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.

13th August 2007, 07:52 PM	#27
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Originally Posted by Tricky 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
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

14th August 2007, 09:02 AM	#28
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	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.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th August 2007, 09:06 AM	#29
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	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.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th August 2007, 09:10 AM	#30
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	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...)
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th August 2007, 01:46 PM	#31
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini 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.

14th August 2007, 01:55 PM	#32
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Get a room in the science forum you two.
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

14th August 2007, 02:09 PM	#33
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Originally Posted by 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. 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 Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

14th August 2007, 02:24 PM	#34
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini 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 ) so considers himself to be right or at least of clearer mind.
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

14th August 2007, 05:40 PM	#35
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Tailgater 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 ) so considers himself to be right or at least of clearer mind. Basically that's true - and every fundie on earth will agree with me.
	__________________