Social darwinism is strange. If these are actually the most intellectually "fit" concepts, why are they unpopular, not only among the relevant specialties they claim dominion over but among biologists as well? Oh, right, it's the Cathedral, suppressing the truth like the Masons.
-
-
Replying to @anti_minotaur @NegarestaniReza and
You're misunderstanding. Whatever concepts are good at spreading will spread. 'Good at spreading' doesn't necessarily mean true, it only requires getting the limbic juices flowing in the
brain.3 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @anti_minotaur and
Would you be tell me then why the concept of geocentricism was put aside? What did exactly happen to those old world concepts?
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @higherOrderNet and
This overextension of Darwinism is the actual betrayal of Darwin. It has zero explanatory value. How can you describe or explain anything objectively if every concept is gauged by its spreading factor? Concepts are inferences, that's why some of them get repaired or replaced.
4 replies 1 retweet 32 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @higherOrderNet and
we're never going to agree.
4 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @NegarestaniReza and
Of course. Vulgar scientism isn't fit for the environment of intelligence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anti_minotaur @NegarestaniReza and
no, it just seems obvious to me that major changes in religious behaviour - and social institutions in general - have as underlying causes changes in population behaviour, driven by a new combination of environmental selective pressures and consequent adaptive mutations.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @anti_minotaur and
but Reza seems to think that reason is, at least, partially independent from such dynamics and ultimately free itself completely.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @anti_minotaur and
You seem to be eliding the distinction between two different categories and their corresponding dynamic facets: reason as a faculty (like the capacity for reasoning, etc) and reason as a constitutive factor irreducible to reason as a faculty.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @anti_minotaur and
never even heard of such distinction. feel free to go on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
My dear good sir, this is exactly the linchpin of the controversy between Kant and later German Idealists, including Hegel and Fichte. Reason as a faculty and reason as constitutive factor for all sciences.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.