What creates inflation?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What creates inflation?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Science Fan wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:10 pm In looking at a comment addressed to vege, it appears that vege is denying the science I relied upon in an earlier comment. I don't read vege's comments directly, because I have vege blocked, but I can see vege's comments when another user references them.

I stand by the science I referenced, and if one steps back for a moment and looks at vege's reaction in denying the science, one can see that my claims are valid and actually explain vege's conduct. Since I came here, vege has personally insulted me over and over again, which is why I blocked vege. But, for whatever reason, however, vege identifies herself politically and ideologically with social groups, she has me in the enemy group. So, what does biological science tell us how vege will respond to any comment of mine that references evolutionary biology? Since she has me in the out-group, she will make an argument against me, even if that means denying the basic science I referenced. In fact, I'm willing to bet money that vege and Harbal and others who hate me, will often write comments against me, regardless of the actual merits regarding the content of my comments, merely because they are evolved social primates who behave in a predictable manner --- they will act with hostility towards me because they see me as belonging to the out-group. It's ironic that their very conduct provides support for my position.

Evolutionary biology, as I earlier referenced, tells us that we do not think rationally, but rather, our ability to reason evolved to provide justifications for our positions within social groups and also to undermine arguments by others. This is why Trump supporters come up with arguments that trivialize problems Trump faces, and why those who identify as anti-Trumpers will argue that the evidence against Trump is more damaging than it is.

Or, take an example among a well-known scientist, to see how powerful the evolutionary biology is on human nature. Neil deGrasse Tyson seems like a reasonable guy, and he is on public record stating scientists welcome evidence that proves them wrong, because they are happier getting closer to the truth. Note, that he says scientists personally act this way, not just that this is an ideal that scientists should strive for but fail to live up to. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Carl Sagan, and many others have said the same thing. Why? Because they all identify as scientists, so evolutionary biology tells us that they will use their ability to reason to make themselves look better than they are.

The evidence tells us that there is a lot of scientific fraud currently taking place. We also have numerous historical examples of top scientists sticking to a debunked theory. Take the Nobel-prize winner in chemistry, Linus Pauling, and his claims regarding vitamin C? No matter how much evidence was presented to Pauling, he refused to believe that vitamin C was ineffective in fighting such things as cancer. Even when he was diagnosed with cancer, he claimed he would have gotten the cancer a lot earlier, but for the vitamin C he was taking like crazy.

So, even when scientists engage in behavior that is irrational, but perfectly predicted by evolutionary biology, shouldn't people at least be willing to accept that evolutionary biology may have something relevant to tell us about how humans actually think and why they make the arguments they do?
Here's an update for you SF:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59439 ... 5cd5ba690a

PhilX
Post Reply