Always fun when an evolutionary biologist is like "No we actually can fit everything into neat human categories with no outliers or anything. Because statistics."
Especially one as supposedly rational and scientific as Richard Dawkins, completely unaware that he's in his feelings and afraid of having to acknowledge that something he takes for granted is complicated, actually.
Anyone have anything on dawkins talking about species? I'd love to hear his take, and see which school of thought in the philosophy of science he leans towards.
Obviously it's NOT the one where it's argued that the species designation is best understood through parsimony, it has to be that there is a viable offspring (and all this only words for sexually reproducing organisms, which is... hmm a rather small minority!) wait no, ok the offspring needs to be able to have offspring, wait no that doesn't work OK at least second generation progeny need to be able to reproduce!!
Ask him to point to a species, he operates as a rationalist and leans on empiricism. He'll point to a member of a population, or a subpopulation, and never a species. His rationalism is a vulgar rationalism which operates on rudimentary syllogistic logic (ask 'em to solve a paradox or contradiction without dialectics, and with his true false cartesian logic) which really is idealism. Comrades will probably know this, but for further reading Lenin gives a thorough rebuke in his Materialism and Empirio-criticism, really get to see Lenin the philosopher in full force.
He, Pinker, Dennett, and Harris are sophists. Peddling their 'knowledge' to the highest bidder. Whatever respectable scientific work they did was during a different era. Without the opulence afforded to members of the imperial core they would have nothing.
Always fun when an evolutionary biologist is like "No we actually can fit everything into neat human categories with no outliers or anything. Because statistics."
Especially one as supposedly rational and scientific as Richard Dawkins, completely unaware that he's in his feelings and afraid of having to acknowledge that something he takes for granted is complicated, actually.
Can't believe South Park predicted his future.
YEAH! POUND MY MONKEY HOLE, RICHARD!!!
Anyone have anything on dawkins talking about species? I'd love to hear his take, and see which school of thought in the philosophy of science he leans towards.
Obviously it's NOT the one where it's argued that the species designation is best understood through parsimony, it has to be that there is a viable offspring (and all this only words for sexually reproducing organisms, which is... hmm a rather small minority!) wait no, ok the offspring needs to be able to have offspring, wait no that doesn't work OK at least second generation progeny need to be able to reproduce!!
Ask him to point to a species, he operates as a rationalist and leans on empiricism. He'll point to a member of a population, or a subpopulation, and never a species. His rationalism is a vulgar rationalism which operates on rudimentary syllogistic logic (ask 'em to solve a paradox or contradiction without dialectics, and with his true false cartesian logic) which really is idealism. Comrades will probably know this, but for further reading Lenin gives a thorough rebuke in his Materialism and Empirio-criticism, really get to see Lenin the philosopher in full force.
He, Pinker, Dennett, and Harris are sophists. Peddling their 'knowledge' to the highest bidder. Whatever respectable scientific work they did was during a different era. Without the opulence afforded to members of the imperial core they would have nothing.