One reason people have such a hard time believing evolution is progressive is that many primitive organisms like cockroaches and crocodiles, have survived for millions of years so from an evolutionary perspective, aren’t they the superior ones? The Earth is full of simple organisms that have always been simple and always will be simple. They were here long before we arrived and will be here long after we’re gone. So how does it make sense to say evolution drives life towards complexity?
In thinking about this question, I was reminded of a concept in business called “first mover advantage”. The idea being that if you’re the first to enter a competitive landscape, you don’t have to necessarily be the best because you can corner the market before superior competitors get a chance to emerge and you can exploit all the low hanging fruit.
So I think what probably happened in Earth’s history is a lot of really simple organisms lucked into certain ecological niches and specialized in them early. One such ecological niche might being an insect that can eat anything, or being a crocodile that can live in shallow water, thus having easy access to both water and land and all the prey that comes there to drink. Good work if you can get it, and thus animals that were lucky enough to get it, pretty much stopped evolving millions of years ago. Sure evolution tinkered with their phenotypes here and there, but their body plan remained essentially the same.
So people love to think they’re being provocative by saying, “oh cockroaches have survived for millions of years; they’re so adaptable!” But are they though? There’s a difference between being adaptable and adapted. Cockroaches and crocodiles are extremely well adapted to life on earth because first mover advantage allowed them to get some of the best ecological niches, but they’re not adaptable because they never change that niche. It’s so good they don’t need to.
By contrast our ancestors never found that one great niche so we kept on evolving. We never found a lasting adaptive niche so we evolved the ability to adapt. to whatever niche we were in, from the Sahara desert to the arctic tundra, and hopefully one day, other planets.
So yes evolution is progressive, but only if you actually evolve. Many, perhaps most; have stopped evolving millions of years ago.
Pumpkin Person 
Economist Paul Krugman details how Republicans are still waging war on Social Security (msn.com)
When i was a liberal I loved Paul krugman. And here he is talking sense again.
Upper class people don’t watch slasher horror flicks puppy. Even your taste in horror is weird. I enjoyed hardcore horror with aliens and monsters and satanic beings. You watch the teen romance/’slasher’ category of horror. Your probably loved Scream and ‘i know what you did last summer’.
A horror movie I liked from the 2000s was Jeepers Creepers. That was great.
I liked it when I watched as a kid but later I read that the reviews were not great. I haven’t rewatched it but generally horror movies get bad reviews anyway.
Either way it is probably worth a watch if you are a kid.
Your probably loved Scream and ‘i know what you did last summer’.
No I’m more a fan of old school 80s slashers, not the self-aware late 90s genre. I also didn’t like that Scream took place in California. Horror should take place in the midwest or Canada.
Stephen King is the master of horror. Christine and that movie with the evil clown. I mean those are basically the top 5 or top 10 horros of all time. Puppy probably doesn’t even know who stephen king is. He probably thinks hes an economist.
I did a whole article on Stephen King for Halloween. You commented on it. You forgot already. Early onset dementia?
Have u seen Exorcist? I watched that and found it very concerning, even as a kid. If I watched it now with fresh eyes i’d get a panic attack probably.
my mother found it very disturbing. i thought it was overrated but so many people praise it that i question my judgement and may rewatch it.
RR, explain why anyone besides you would view your ideas as being distinct from blank slatism. Explain why functionally, you are not a blank slatist.
Can you define the phrase and then name and quote three “blank slatists” then explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”?
Post this one PP.
Question—is the claim that so-called instincts are experience-dependent “blank slatism”? I’ve been asking the aforementioned question for literally 4 years and I’ve never gotten a response.
RR I’m asking the questions here. That’s why I asked the question.
You don’t believe in measurable intelligence differences, you think the developmental system is highly adaptable to basically any end, and you don’t think organisms are adapted to their environments in any selected way. You think instincts depend on experience completely, but also that every aspect of the organism, both material and mental is moldable anyway and that anything that is inherited is relatively unimportant and fairly easily altered, but even if it weren’t moldable, differences in our minds and phenotypes have no important implications for fitness and are immeasurable in any utility-related way.
Yes the claim that instincts are experience-dependent is blank slatism. That’s literally the definition of it.
But again, what’s the difference between you and any random person labeled a blank slatist, except you have a more specific (analytically, not necessarily in a relevant way) definition?
“you don’t believe in measurable [psychological] differences”
Right, because of my priors on the definition of “measurement.”
“you think the developmental system is highly adaptable basically to any end”
Can you elaborate more on this for me? There are numerous failsafes in the developmental system that make any sudden changes able to be taken care of by the system’s physiology (which necessarily is adaptive to environmental cues).
“You think instincts depend on experience completely…the claim that instincts are experience-dependent is blank slatism. That’s literally the definition of it.”
I mean, it’s been shown that so-called species-typical instincts/behaviors develop, and also (by developmental psychologists, eg Lehrman, Oyama, Gottlieb) that all so-called “instincts” are learned, therefore refuting Lorenz’s nativism is false. That’s basically the crux of DST/systems biology, that more than genes are inherited (like non-genetic factors and more critically environments).
Species-typical behaviors can begin as subtle predispositions in cognitive processing or behavior. They also develop under the guidance of species-typical experiences occurring within reliable ecological contexts. Those experiences and ecological contexts, together comprising what has been called an ontogenetic niche, are inherited along with parental genes. Stated more succinctly, environments are inherited—a notion that shakes the nature-nurture dichotomy to its core. That core is shaken still further by studies demonstrating how even our most ancient and basic appetites, such as that for water, are learned. Our natures are acquired.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182125/
I think that the “more specific (analytically) definition” is valid to set me a part from other’s you call “blank slatists”, since my views are much more nuanced with clear empirical support.
“the underlying structures must be in place”
How novel, without eyes or a brain or physiology learning can’t take place. How nuanced do you think my view on development really is? The rejection of genetic determinism and so-called “instincts” is the only logical position to take knowing that so-called “natures” develop due to the construction of species-specific niches over time. Remember, we are born into cultural and linguistic environments straight from birth.
So animals are born “into cultural and linguistic environments straight from birth”. Animals go to school and learn to behave a certain way. Beavers go to building a dam school.
You are without doubt the lowerst IQ commenter here. Worse than loaded.
Stick to talking about horror movies and Jews, because you obviously can’t talk to me about what I talk about.
I just proved you wrong by mentioning animals.
No you didn’t. If you knew how to read, you’d see that.
Question—is the claim that so-called instincts are experience-dependent “blank slatism”? I’ve been asking the aforementioned question for literally 4 years and I’ve never gotten a response.
>Question—is the claim that so-called instincts are experience-dependent “blank slatism”?
The underlying structures must be in place or experiences cannot embed themselves in them.
AK: You are putting the cart before the horse.
RR: But other things can pull a cart.
AK: Yeah but there still needs to be something to pull the cart.
RR: Yeah but anything could pull the cart. Therefore the idea that the horse is pulling the cart is incorrect.
AK: So what is pulling the cart?
RR: Gravity and friction is also necessary for the cart pulling.
AK: So what if the horse stopped moving?
RR: The cart wouldn’t move. But we still can’t say that the horse is necessary for cart-pulling, because the universe would be different and there’s no telling what would be the case.
AK: So is it the case that the horse is pulling the cart and that’s why it is moving?
RR: Yes but we also can’t say that if there were no horse, it wouldn’t be moving.
AK: But then something else would need to take place of the horse.
RR: That doesn’t follow because we have no idea what the universe would be like if there in fact no horse there. Laws of physics cannot be used to ground counterfactuals about events in history, because they don’t access to the causes of those events, just the correlations.
AK: Didn’t you say your theories have more explanatory power than my theory that the horse is pulling the cart?
RR: Yes, DST explains a lot. It is the case that the horse is pulling the cart, because if there no horse pulling the cart, then a horse wouldn’t be pulling a cart.
But have you read CartAndHorseInMutuallyRelatedMotionstein et al? Surprise, surprise, you haven’t.
Peeps, which in your opinion is a better indicate of intelligence…math ability or physics ability?
Probably physics. More important.
i think its math.
I think the time has come where we have acquired the ability to diagnose autism and autism spectrum disorders using MRI machines:
https://scitechdaily.com/pioneering-ai-technology-diagnoses-autism-in-children-under-two-with-98-5-accuracy/
https://scitechdaily.com/brain-imaging-redefined-nexgen-7t-mri-achieves-10x-better-resolution/
If the MRI technology mentioned in the second link is used along with the A.I and algorithms mentioned in the first, I think 100% diagnosis of autism using MRIs is possible.
I didn’t even think about how AI could shape MRI. It’s definitely going to revolutionize the field.
What do you think of nightmare on elm street. That was fantastic. Probably the best 80s slasher flick.
not a fan. The best 80s slasher was the original F13.
So basically you don’t like any horror movies except the slasher flicks from the 80s?
Well for me, my personal favourites as a kid were the hellraiser movies. Or the poltergeist movies. They were so great.
(Broke) Religious: God designed animals and that’s why they are adapted to their environments.
(Woke) Atheist: Organisms are naturally adapted to their environments because those who were least adapted died off.
(Bespoke) RR: Nothing was designed. There is no such as adaptation. (except for specific processes that allow the organism to adapt to the environment due to cues, which have no natural or intentional explanation or design).
Just stop using the word “designed”, and adaptation is empirically empty. The “Woke” part is, again, a tautology as I’ve said before. Have you read what I wrote on the mechanisms of speciation and trait fixation or not?
Because if you don’t believe that organisms are adapted, AKA have the appearance of being designed, you don’t need natural selection in the first place. So there is no need to discuss this further with you if you don’t even believe in the concept of adaptation.
I swear to god it’s like talking to a brick wall.
(What you’ve done and apparently Fodor has done is tricked yourself into thinking you’ve figured out that “natural selection” is supposed to mean “intentional selection” and therefore it is impossible and so a bunch of other mechanisms must explain evolution, and that by showing that any adaptive explanation is a “just-so story” you’ve shown that natural selection is actually not a mechanism, without realizing the whole point of NS is that it combines various mechanisms to get the result of adaptation and apparent selection, so OF COURSE every specific occurence of adaptation will be explainable as a “JUST-SO STORY”…. as reality is a series of ACTUALLY OCCURING EVENTS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE OF, hence every actual event in reality will be UNIQUE and every organism or trait will be EXACTLY as fit as that UNIQUE moment, so we can’t compare the fitness of traits because they all ACTUALLY happen in UNIQUE singular events. Wow, I’m so glad years of study have been used on this GREAT EXPLANATION!
This is just like saying there is no such thing as intelligence differences, just knowledge differences, because EVERY INSTANCE of intelligence or knowledge is UNIQUE because it has a unique place, time, and context. Therefore we can never compare anything at all because of all the UNIQUENESS and IMMEASURABILITY of UNIQUE events!)
This reminds me, I shouldn’t be talking to you or anyone else for that matter because clearly every use of language and words is unique and no use of language can impart more greater meaning or utility to someone else or match the topic they are speaking about, because everything is COMPLETELY UNIQUE! So if you actually think you understand anything I’m saying, you are clearly mistaken because every usage is unique and incomparable. (not that you just understood that sentence).
BTW RR, that’s called a reductio ad absurdum. I checked my definitions to make sure because you might ask (even though are definitions will always be different because single moment and thought is completely unique and incomparable).
“Reductio Ad Absurdum” is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.”
“a bunch of other mechanisms must explain evolution”
Well yea, that’s the point, since if NS isn’t a mechanism that explains evolution then necessarily there are other mechanisms of speciation and trait fixation.
And no, NS is supposed to be the mechanism that explains speciation and trait fixation, there are literally countless claims like that in the literature.
What do you think a just-so story is?
What’s the reductio there? If it’s what I’m thinking it is, that’s not a reductio.
“And no, NS is supposed to be the mechanism that explains speciation and trait fixation, there are literally countless claims like that in the literature.”
It doesn’t explain speciation because it doesn’t give a specific mechanism for speciation, obviously. That is provided by mutations, epigenetic triggers, genetic drift, or whatever. It just explains that at a certain point it is to be expected that species continuously adapt to different niches and such due to fitness competition and will branch off.
“Well yea, that’s the point, since if NS isn’t a mechanism that explains evolution then necessarily there are other mechanisms of speciation and trait fixation.”
The point is you have a fundamentally different view of reality than people who believe in NS because you think adaptation cannot occur because every event is unique so there is nothing to actually adapt to over time. Whereas NS posits that there are consistencies over time and organisms evolve to adapt to those, even if every moment in time is in unique.
They don’t change their theory to suit a convoluted postmodernist argument about the uniqueness of every moment that completely denies any absolute notion of adaptation, that masquerades itself as an attack on the feasability of NS as a explanation for evolution and apparent adaptation.
What are you talking about? There are countless claims in the literature that natural selection is the mechanism that explains speciation and trait fixation. What is supposed to explain adaptations is natural selection. That’s, again, a main claim in the literature and I can provide numerous quotes in the literature of that claim. (As I have for the claim that natural selection is a mechanism and that it is the mechanism of speciation, which Darwin said as well).
How is Fodor’s argument “post modernist”? The fact of the matter is, in part 1 of the book they proposed actual mechanisms and in part 2 destroyed the claim that selection is a mechanism of evolution. It’s so bad that even their opponents hardly understood the argument, as they showed in Replies to Critics.
“What are you talking about? There are countless claims in the literature that natural selection is the mechanism that explains speciation and trait fixation. What is supposed to explain adaptations is natural selection.”
No. Natural selection doesn’t make any claims about how variation gets here in the first place. That wouldn’t make any sense given that it’s about SELECTION, not generation.
“How is Fodor’s argument “post modernist”? ”
Because he denies any consistency in reality that organisms can adapt to. He denies there are laws that explain consistency in reality even though there are laws of physics, which is obviously what TNS takes as the laws that explain adaptation. Instead of admitting that physical laws are consistent over time, he is effectively arguing that every moment is different (as you’ve said, all fitness is contextual and without the animal, the niche isn’t there so environment and organism are mutually necessary) so there is nothing to be actually adapted to. It’s post-modernism. It’s complete relativism. It’s the denial of anything permanent, fixed, or absolute, just applied in a way that seems to target NS.
“The fact of the matter is, in part 1 of the book they proposed actual mechanisms and in part 2 destroyed the claim that selection is a mechanism of evolution. It’s so bad that even their opponents hardly understood the argument, as they showed in Replies to Critics.”
Because most people aren’t autistic post modernists and don’t think someone is going to try to “destroy “their argument by denying laws that they already assume are there due to the predictive nature of reality.
The fact that no one understands Fodor, or you here, and your proposed explanations of adaptation ignore the adaptation part or don’t explain it (how did epigenetics and directed mutation become a mechanism in the first place? Where did they get their improbable level of adaptability?) should be a sign of something you are misunderstanding about others views, and not vice versa. Jesus, have some humility.
Your proposed mechanisms don’t explain anything, because 1. you deny there is anything to explain about life and 2. you don’t explain the mechanisms themselves.
Trait fixation and variation could arise by different mechanisms, which is consistent with TNS. However, if you deny there is anything improbable about life or adaptation (or the mechanisms that make adaptation smooth and directed), and think you’ve somehow argued against TNS, you are mistaken because we don’t even have the same core beliefs about reality. Hence, nihilism, post-modernism, anal retentive philosophy, etc.
“No. Natural selection doesn’t make any claims about how variation gets here in the first place.”
I know it doesn’t. My claim was specific, and I have receipts.
“He denies there are laws that explain consistency in reality even though there are laws of physics, which is obviously what TNS takes as the laws that explain adaptation.”
OK. So which law of physic(s) is the law of selection that Fodor, as he articulated, is looking for that would be a general law that explains and predicts what I wrote to PP about Fodor’s nomological deductivism? What even is a law of selection?
I mean, it’s pretty simple. Articulate the law of selection that explains trait fixation that holds across all ecologies.
“Trait fixation and variation could arise by different mechanisms, which is consistent with TNS.”
The ToNS is supposed to be the mechanism that explains trait fixation and speciation, and again, I have receipts. That’s what’s being argued against. When it comes to T1 and T2, the same story justifies both answers as to which trait is selected, so the ToNS doesn’t explain which trait moved to fixation and if it doesn’t explain it then it doesn’t predict it. It’s that simple.
Pumpkin Person said: I could be wrong, but I don’t think Fodor’s point is that natural selection can’t distinguish correlated traits, his point is that traits themselves are subjective and so no objective process can “select” them. Traits don’t exist outside our minds because they’re semantic categories, thus only minds can select them.
–
You are so right pp, counterfactuals only exist in the imagination so unless we define objective reality as those things that actually happened we can define Natural selection as subjective, and thus counterfactuals can be in place to tell us Natural Selection did not happen the way it did because it could be different in a different reality. In essence, Natural Selection has free will according to Fodor and Fodor rejects free will as a mechanism.
Everyone here except RaceRealist says Natural Selection has no free will.
If Natural Selection has no free will it is immune to Fodor’s argument.
“Natural Selection has free will according to Fodor and Fodor rejects free will as a mechanism.
Everyone here except RaceRealist says Natural Selection has no free will.
If Natural Selection has no free will it is immune to Fodor’s argument.”
Haha what is this nonsense? Natural selection isn’t immune to Fodor’s argument, if it weren’t articulated as an intensional biological explanation it wouldn’t be.
Natural Selection is not intentional like everyone keeps saying to you rr. It just follows the laws of physics with no mind involved. That is what Darwin means by “Natural”.
Which laws of physics would be laws of selection-for trait fixation? The only two ways for NS to do what it’s proponents claim it does is if there were an agent doing the selecting (there isn’t) or nomological laws since laws can support counterfactuals.
Cat, This may not be related to the point y’all are making i dont know as i have not been following these conversations here:
Without taking sides towards RR or towards the rest of you,
Mind is not involved but natural selection and/or evolution is ‘intelligent’. Example: Dinosaurs were adapted to then conditions. Then conditions had more oxygen in the atmosphere and dinosaurs had relatively bigger lungs. We would not have survived then nor dinosaurs now.
So in a way…evolution is ‘intelligent design’. Not saying it is intelligent design like mentioned in the bible that the world/universe was created in 7 days or something or eve created from adam’s rib. We evolved from single celled organisms like science says…over billions of years. But THAT is intelligent design. There is nothing unintelligent about evolution and/or natural selection.
Name, you are right. It can be viewed as intentional if you consider the laws of physics as intentions. Effectively, they are same from an “event causation” point of view, as people cause (select) specific physical events with their intentions, and nature causes (selects) physical events with its laws.
RR (according to my understanding) just denies that there is even something to explain about the process of adaptation that makes it seem “intentional”, which is a misapprehension of TNS, which explains why the physical laws can be considered as intentions in the way I mentioned (the physical events they cause or describe are those that are “selected” against everything else).
It’s all so tiresome.
Laws of selection should not just describe outcomes but also provide underlying causal mechanisms. Your analogy falls short of meeting Fodor’s challenge. The notion it intentions implies purpose and foresight, concepts that aren’t inherent in NS. It needs to make general predictions and as I’ve already shown, it can’t because it doesn’t explain the trait so it doesn’t predict it. Selection can’t be contingent on counterfactual outcomes so that’s why selectionism is false.
Great points. Exactly. RR’s argument against NS rests on the fact that there is no other reality so everything is exactly as fit as it actually is and that only an intentional agent can actually compare two different cases and say which is more fit (even though this directly contradicts his argument that all knowledge is contextual by giving intentional agents the ability to compare two things in a fair AKA bias or context-free relation)
And the point is there’s either a mind doing the selecting (an agent) which is preposterous, or nomological laws which would be sensitive to causes vs correlates of causes because laws can support counterfactuals. There aren’t any, since as I’ve argued to PP earlier today, fitness in ecologies is massively context-dependent and Fodor is a nomological deductivist, and is looking for specific types of predictions and explanations. So if either of you two are up to it, go ahead and take your shot at an explanation on what I wrote that Fodor is looking for.
>laws can support counterfactuals.
no, that is only true if hard determinism is false. And nature has no mind to make hard determinism false in certain world views i.e. atheism.
Amazin’. What point of “there’s no point in arguing with someone who doesn’t believe there is actually something that needs explaining in the apparent adaptation of life” do I need to repeat?
If you think organisms are barely adapted at all and can be explained by epigenetics or directed mutations, etc., (which themselves are not explained by you, but whatever) and you think we just make up stories about why traits came about which we cannot prove because we don’t have other realities to compare it to, then of course there is nothing to explain, and hence nothing to argue about.
“>laws can support counterfactuals.
no, that is only true if hard determinism is false.”
What’s the argument for this claim?
Lurker, I mean you’re the one who said it’s either intelligent design (goddidit) or natural selection, and I’ve explained natural mechanisms that explain what needs to be explained without reliance on selection.
To whoever is interested:
https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/millions-of-new-materials-discovered-with-deep-learning/
The reply threads are getting too long and separated:
Anyway, RR:
“The theory isn’t sensitive to counterfactuals and can’t distinguish between causes and correlates of causes, and there is a fact of the matter about which traits cause fitness, ”
The theory is sensitive to counterfactuals because it is built into multiple variations in similar situations testing which one survives and doesn’t.
If you want to get post-modernist and analytical and state that there are no such situations in the environment because every moment is different, that’s your perogative, but it doesn’t disprove NS,.
“the fact is that since the ToNS doesn’t have access to the cause and only the correlation, so the ToNS can’t distinguish causally active traits from traits that aren’t. Fodor’s argument is sound.”
The fact is that you are on the autism spectrum and don’t know how to argue according to the understanding of other people and beat at a brick wall stating the same things as if this will change anyone’s mind. There is nothing to be ashamed, just realize it and minimize the problems caused.
“Laws of selection should not just describe outcomes but also provide underlying causal mechanisms. ”
No, because “underlying causal mechanisms” are not required for physical laws, and natural selection is a consequence of physical laws in combination with an actual environment the laws apply to.
“Your analogy falls short of meeting Fodor’s challenge. The notion it intentions implies purpose and foresight, concepts that aren’t inherent in NS. ”
Intentional causation and physical law causation are effectively the same in terms of physical effects. Not hard to understand at all really.
“It needs to make general predictions and as I’ve already shown, it can’t because it doesn’t explain the trait so it doesn’t predict it. Selection can’t be contingent on counterfactual outcomes so that’s why selectionism is false.”
So we are stuck between NS which you’ve ruled out because we can’t perfectly predict biological evolution and non-explanations like epigenetics and directed mutation, which don’t bother explaining where fitness comes from. So fitness is explained away. Wow, how useful, and definitely worth arguing with people for years about.
“I know it doesn’t. My claim was specific, and I have receipts.”
You don’t have receipts, you have post-modernist verbal manipulations.
Natural selection explains the improbability of fitness. Nothing you’ve argued about goes against that, except denying fitness completely, or pretending you can get fitness without natural selection or intended selection.
“OK. So which law of physic(s) is the law of selection that Fodor, as he articulated, is looking for that would be a general law that explains and predicts what I wrote to PP about Fodor’s nomological deductivism? What even is a law of selection?”
I mean, it’s pretty simple. Articulate the law of selection that explains trait fixation that holds across all ecologies.”
DURRR it’s so SIMPLE! Just completely predict every single possible evolutionary state up to every single quantum particle! If you can’t, obviously we can never say that one organism is adapted to some environment due to being fitter than other competing organisms for that environment!
“The ToNS is supposed to be the mechanism that explains trait fixation and speciation, and again, I have receipts.”
Like I said, you have a different worldview. Your assumptions are that because every moment is different and a different context, fitness does not exist except as a tautology which applies equally to every situation, therefore, NS is not a mechanism of evolution, because fitness is only attached to moments which are completely unique and hence, there is no absolute context to compare the relative fitness of organisms to.
“That’s what’s being argued against. When it comes to T1 and T2, the same story justifies both answers as to which trait is selected, so the ToNS doesn’t explain which trait moved to fixation and if it doesn’t explain it then it doesn’t predict it. It’s that simple.”
Except the same story doesn’t justify both answers. It’s that simple.
No one states that fingers were evolved to type on keyboards, even though that coextensive trait adds fitness.
“The theory is sensitive to counterfactuals”
“No, because “underlying causal mechanisms” are not required for physical laws, and natural selection is a consequence of physical laws in combination with an actual environment the laws apply to.”
This is nonsense. Nomological laws support counterfactuals. In a reply to PP yesterday, I explained Fodor’s nomological deductivism and how and why the theory needs to explain and predict.
“Intentional causation and physical law causation are effectively the same in terms of physical effects. Not hard to understand at all really.”
There’s no intention though.
The fact of the matter is, you have answered: “It needs to make general predictions and as I’ve already shown, it can’t because it doesn’t explain the trait so it doesn’t predict it. Selection can’t be contingent on counterfactual outcomes so that’s why selectionism is false”. My explanations, again, are valid.
“You don’t have receipts”
Huh? Are you saying that people don’t say the natural selection explains speciation or that it’s not a mechanism? A simply Scholar search will show that you’re wrong.
“DURRR it’s so SIMPLE!”
Can you provide the type of general law that Fodor is looking for or not?
“Except the same story doesn’t justify both answers. It’s that simple.”
Because T1 and T2 are correlated, yea they do.
So just answer the questions I’ve posed.
“DURRR it’s so SIMPLE! Just completely predict every single possible evolutionary state up to every single quantum particle! If you can’t, obviously we can never say that one organism is adapted to some environment due to being fitter than other competing organisms for that environment!”
So we can create and verify adaptation stories. The problem is that NS can’t, so it isn’t a bona fide scientific theory like most theories. So RR is correct in this regard, but after that, I just ignore him because who gives a fuck?
I agree, it truly is pointless (at least in terms of convincing RR).
What’s the argument that selectionist/adaptationist hypotheses aren’t ad hoc? They “predict” what they purport to explain and don’t generate any testable novel predictions, the hallmark of a scientific discipline. For them to not be just-so stories, they would need to be independently testable. So specify an observation that would be expected on the assumption that a trait is an adaptation that wouldn’t be expected on the assumption that it’s a byproduct, fixed by drift, etc. If you can’t, then you can’t justify the claim that they’re not just-so stories—so, most importantly, EP fails.
Here are the arguments.
FYI, Lurker, he has been given multiple articles over the years demonstrating our predictive capabilities when formulating selection histories. You’d figure a “voracious reader” would’ve read them when presented.
Also, he’s contradicting himself again.
Also, Convergent Evolution, for the third time.
I know what you have in mind and they are novel predictions but not predictions of natural selection not predictions of adaptation hypotheses, re EP. The point is, as I’m sure you know, is that EP hypotheses are inherently ad hoc since they don’t generate predictions that are independently verified of the data that the hypothesis purports to explain. There are other issues, like the matching problem, but I thibj that this is the most devestating for EP and adaptationist hypotheses all together.
The just-so story critique challenges adaptation hypotheses by asserting that they can be constructed post hoc to fit observed traits without providing specific predictions that can be tested against new evidence. So they’re just-so stories when they lack clear and testable predictions about a trait’s function. Explaining how a trait can be beneficial doesn’t make it an empirical science since one can construct a plausible story for any trait. So Fodor is questioning whether natural selection can make this distinction effectively (it can’t). The just-so story critique stresses the importance of adaptationist hypotheses making novel predictions that can be empirically tested and doesn’t negate the fact that humans can intuitively understand or hypothesize about the nature of adaptative traits, only that there needs to be novel predictions of previously unknown facts that weren’t used in the construction of the hypothesis and that there need to be hallmarks of adaptation that are expected on an adaptationist claim that aren’t expected on a byproduct claim and vice versa.
I agree that NS clearly does not work in the way physical laws do. It is not “deductive” because that obviously requires mapping out of every possible ecology and every possible evolutionary state.
Regardless, it is tautologically true in the same way that stating it is like that if I put a bucket on the ground, and it rains, the water is very likely to collect in that bucket due to the fact that the ground absorbs the rain but the bucket won’t. Yes, it depends on the rest of the features of the land, and the rain’s direction, etc., but if I come back a day later, and see no rain on the ground, but see some in the bucket, I know the bucket had something to do with it, and was connected with the laws of physics and the environment. No one would say “there is no mechanism” to make the claim that the bucket collected more water. The fact that the bucket also allows other material in or has other uses does not mean we can’t draw the conclusion that it has utility in collecting water compared to the flat ground around it.
It’s just false to state that NS can’t be a mechanism because we don’t have a completely predictive and deductive theory for it. The only reason we can state using empirical science that we drawn a causal connection is we believe that the laws of physics are deterministic, because they predict nearly perfectly. However, even they don’t predict perfectly because of quantum uncertainty. Plus, the problem of induction when it comes to any empirical observation being generalized as causally linked.
Whatever, most of us understand that. It doesn’t disprove NS being a mechanism anymore than one could disprove the bucket collects water because of it’s shape and material.
What do you think I mean by “nomological deductivism”? It’s simple, just explain what I asked about predictivity and explanatory power that holds across all ecologies. For the 10th time, NS isn’t a mechanism that explains speciation and the proliferation of traits in biological populations.
Why do you ask me to define your beliefs or Fodor’s? I just explained how NS is different from physical laws. It’s “nomological” or consistent (aka a “law”) if certain conditions hold true, such as heritability of traits, the possibility of new variations over similar environments, and the possibility of death. You can “deduce” predictions from those conditions.
All I’m doing here is explaining that NS is a mechanism for selection. NS is a mechanism where regular “nomologically deductive” aka physical laws exist. It explains adaptation over time, and creation of adaptive structures such as directed mutations and epigenetic feedback systems. If you want to deny that there is any adaptation going on that needs to be explained (including of how the supposedly “non-NS” adaptive feedback systems go there) that’s your perogerative but it doesn’t show that NS is not a mechanism that explains trait fixation.
For the 10th time, I’ve just explained how it explains speciation and the proliferation of traits in biological populations. It doesn’t explain the generation of change, it explains why beneficial changes are so ubiquitous.
Why the hell do you even argue with people when you don’t listen to them. Autism?
And if you admit that experiments that show what trait is fit and decouple correlated traits is nomologically deductive (predictive), then you have to admit that NS is also predictive, it is simply a lot more chaotic. There is nothing physically different about a lab experiment and survival of the fittest in a consistent environment.
“(including of how the supposedly “non-NS” adaptive feedback systems got here*) that’s your prerogative* but it doesn’t show that NS is not a mechanism that explains trait fixation. ”
Lol
No, Fodor’s critique is about the lack of broad, generalizable laws that can explain trait fixation across diverse ecological scenarios/contexts. Trait heritability, new variations, and death aren’t nomological laws. All I’m saying is that NS can’t be the mechanism of speciation and trait fixation since it can’t decouple the correlated traits. I do admit that experiments can decouple the correlated traits, but Fodor’s argument isn’t epistemic, it’s a priori (conceptual), so that doesn’t matter for Fodor’s attack on natural selection (neo-Darwinism). I’ll just repaste my reply to PP here and ask you to answer it.
“Because Fodor is a scientific realist, meaning that for a theory to be considered genuinely explanatory, it should not only offer general principles or laws but should also be capable of making general predictions of specific phenomena. He is a nomological deductivist, which means that he thinks that scientific explanations involve deducing specific empirical consequences from general laws. So for a scientific theory to be considered genuinely explanatory, it should not only offer general principles or laws but should also be capable of making general predictions of specific phenomena from those principles. And a scientific theory should account for and predict specific phenomena, so if a theory lacks the power to generate specific predictions, then it’s not really empirically adequate. So here we can see that since using the ToNS T1 and T2 are both selected, then it doesn’t predict which of the traits would move to fixation, so it’s not empirically adequate. Finally, Fodor is concerned with distinguishing explanations from descriptions. So laws that lead to specific predictions allow for testing the theory’s explanatory power against empirical evidence. Thus, if a theory merely describes observed phenomena without making any specific predictions, then it lacks the depth and testability which is expected of scientific explanation.”
Gravity is a dumb theory cause it can only tell us what goes up must go down, it can’t predict whether I’ll throw a ball in the air of a book across the room. Fodor is the smartest person to ever live. #thinklikeRR
Gravity is the cause of falling bodies. Read Replies to Critics because Jerry Coyne made the same argument and Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini responded to them.
Gravity doesn’t predict human actions. Novel. The issue is, the theory of natural selection makes no predictions of trait fixation since it can’t explain the trait that is fixated. The issue is stated above, and I don’t think you nor lurker has a response to it that would satisfy what Fodor a looking for. I’ve explained his views and what he’s looking for as regard “laws”, so you need to explain what the law of selection is without equivocating on “law.”
I think privately, Fodor must really think blacks are very dumb to be coming up with weird bullshit like this.
Oh go to hell. His theory has nothing to do with blacks.
You have ‘mind blindness’ puppy. Fodor ‘contributed’ his theories while thinking about how bad it would be for blacks to be bullied about being stupid. The whole reason anyone rejects evolution today is either (a) religion or (b) wokeness/cultural marxism.
Wokeness is basically about worshipping blacks.
No I see minds correctly . Fodor did not create his theory as part of some 4D chess strategy that feared that evolution could be used against blacks which would then cause people to turn against Jews. Only a mentally retarded psychotic could think that
Some Jewish conspiracy theories are true. Others are paranoid nonsense. The problem is you’re too dumb to tell the difference
If fodor did have an ethnic motivation it was much more likely to be devaluing a gentile genius (Darwin) than about helping blacks (most evolutionary biologists are woke as hell btw)
“Gravity is the cause of falling bodies. Read Replies to Critics because Jerry Coyne made the same argument and Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini responded to them.
Gravity doesn’t predict human actions. Novel. The issue is, the theory of natural selection makes no predictions of trait fixation since it can’t explain the trait that is fixated. The issue is stated above, and I don’t think you nor lurker has a response to it that would satisfy what Fodor a looking for. I’ve explained his views and what he’s looking for as regard “laws”, so you need to explain what the law of selection is without equivocating on “law.””
You rule out NS as a mechanism because you don’t like the type of explanatory mechanism it is. So what? Is the point to annoy some Darwinists you interpret or misinterpret as calling NS the exact same type of law as other physical laws?
Fodor responding to critics doesn’t mean he is correct. Whoopty doo.
Evolution through natural selection is an inevitable result of traits depending on survival to be passed on, and consistent environments to adapt to. If you created a simulation with physical laws and some set-up of matter (environment), natural selection would provide predictable results, because there’s no other “selection” possible except intentional selection which are not physical laws.
If you want to deny selection and adaptation, or heritability, or the consistency of environments, that is separate from showing NS is not a mechanism that directs evolution if those things are possible.
Also, “we don’t know what NS predicts in every case” =/= “NS predicts nothing and is not a mechanism.”
It’s not an explanatory mechanism because it can’t explain the trait that is selected-for so it doesn’t predict it. That’s what I “don’t like” about it, based on what I wrote above. End of story.
You could either explain how NS, not having access to the cause and only the correlation, could explain and therefore predict which trait moves to fixation. But it’s not possible, since there are no ex ante ceteris paribus generalizations, as Fodor successfully argued. End of story.
TP, Fodor didn’t “reject evolution”, he was an evolutionist. Denying that natural selection is a mechanism doesn’t entail that one denies the theory of evolution (that organisms change over time). Stick to talking about Jews, video games and horror movies and leave the tough discussions to the adults.
“You could either explain how NS, not having access to the cause and only the correlation, could explain and therefore predict which trait moves to fixation. But it’s not possible, since there are no ex ante ceteris paribus generalizations, as Fodor successfully argued. ”
Yes, there is no magic theory that completely predicts the future. Sorry.
Doesn’t mean that NS is not mechanism. (BTW there is no theory or explanatory mechanism about the state of reality that has access to the “cause” besides pure mathematics, that’s called the problem of induction… that’s why we need experimentation to show our theories are correct.)
Your alternative is to deny selection or explain adaptive mechanisms (epigenetics and directed mutation) but ignore explaining how the adaptive mechanisms came into place/developed without some sort of NS.
So yes your explanation works if you deny there is anything to explain about life except abiogenesis… and it doesn’t even disprove NS as a mechanism. It just means you can’t say X trait definitely exists because it was naturally selected. It could have been accident… OK. That explains so much about reality. Very helpful objections!
We might think something was an adaptation but find out it really wasn’t. So in most cases, adaptation probably doesn’t happen. = RR/Fodor logic.
In the end, what I’m saying about “natural selection” is correct. The issue is, Fodor’s proposal, challenges, and argument is valid and disproves natural selection as a mechanism (part II of the book) and they also proposed valid mechanisms of speciation and trait fixation (part I) of the book.
Have you ever heard of the theory of neutral evolution proposed by Kimura in the 60s? There’s some solid support—especially in recent years—for the theory
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/5/469/3746563
leave the tough discussions to the adults.
You are a fitness trainer with a sub 100 IQ lol.
Mothers, don’t let your naive Gentile children read post-modern analytic Jewish philosophers.
i think evolution is evolving itself 2 be progressive. progress is determined by how a certain circumstance leads 2 greater potential functionality of a species like how a niche will give insight in2 how placement of a species is so vital 2 its success.
i think once a species outgrows its niche and finds success outside of its niche we can call that progress. because a niche is what defines the species and then once it elevates past a niche or definition it can be very successful!