tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post4054491143767174043..comments2024-03-18T07:23:32.809-04:00Comments on Gurney Journey: Darwinian Theory of BeautyJames Gurneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-47632294357910870892011-03-19T17:04:06.819-04:002011-03-19T17:04:06.819-04:00Wooo. So I can attract a man by my artwork? Oh goo...Wooo. So I can attract a man by my artwork? Oh goodie... *waits hopefully*...<br /><br />*Still waiting...*Eiryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953258952593631698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-84954852166593385412010-11-29T16:43:07.191-05:002010-11-29T16:43:07.191-05:00@Thomas: Have you ever read The Alarming History o...@Thomas: Have you ever read The Alarming History of Medicine? It's not only a spectacular read, it's hilarious. Indeed, science has worked against horrific odds (and the Church -- many of our heroes were flayed, burned at the stake, banished, made to recant, confined, etc) in order to get where it is now, more than trebling human lifespans. <br /><br />Cognitive methodologies also had to evolve along with memes and knowledge. For example, it took an shockingly long time to get doctors to wash their hands between handling corpses and attending childbirths -- but as soon as they relented and started doing so, maternal and newborn deaths plummeted. (As a wit once said, "A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time.")<br /><br />Lay people tend to be very fickle and unreasonable in their expectations with respect to science. Scientists, however, are trained in caution, although acquisition of knowledge through this extremely powerful means is very stimulating and exciting indeed. <br /><br />Since science progresses through the work of intelligent, creative people, it naturally cannot turn its attention to everything at once. (And, as Einstein said, "As the diameter of light increases, so also does the circumference of darkness".) The visual arts will be examined. There have already been some interesting studies. For example, the visual memory of art students has declined by about 70% since the 1920s, as seen by regular testing over the years. <br /><br />Music is being examined quite avidly -- this may be because many scientists also play music.<br /><br />Any phenomenon can be examined; some more readily amenable than others. New methodologies are being developed all the time. Everything evolves. <br /><br />Poor Dutton. Apparently he's not even a scientist. Not sure how he got a slot at TED -- probably on the strength of his drawings, certainly not on the strength of his science. It was a bit of an embarrassment that he shouldn't have tarred Darwin with.<br /><br />(I keep wondering about the wear patterns on the stones that did show wear...)kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-8960636861341519002010-11-29T08:13:23.277-05:002010-11-29T08:13:23.277-05:00@kat
Sorry, I don't know how to reply. I would...@kat<br />Sorry, I don't know how to reply. I would have to defend him against what you imagine he says, while your arguments against him are pretty much what he says.<br />I didn't want to force him on you - it was just a suggestion.<br /><br />I agree that science has had a great positive impact on us. But it was often in history overestimated. Medicine is an example - until recent times it was actually harmful to go to a doctor.<br /><br />It's the case still in many areas. Art is one - I see science not having much of a hold. And Dutton's attempt is just another overconfident fail.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511101078287118422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-21794911214459817072010-11-28T21:10:07.379-05:002010-11-28T21:10:07.379-05:00@Thomas: Well, of course. His sounds a bit like a ...@Thomas: Well, of course. His sounds a bit like a straw man argument, though -- one of those items from the Department of the Blindingly Obvious. Anyone who's studied quantum mechanics knows that the weird, improbable and nonintuitive does happen -- and on a regular basis! And indeed, some experiments would require another entire universe to pull off in a rigorous fashion. But none of that detracts from the enormous impact science and the scientific method have had upon nearly everything in our lives and even in the way we think. It has become rather fashionable these days to try to spit at science for what it doesn't do or hasn't yet done, but that is a sad and self-defeating exercise.<br /><br />My utter disdain for economics comes from the complete failure from inception to incorporate nature into the calculations. This has resulted in 70% of wild nature being damaged or destroyed without most folks seeing the connection to consumptive human behavior. Thus, we have lost most of that which sustains us before most folks realized that was the real price they paid beyond the currency amount. Wild nature is far more valuable than the capitalist corporatist mindset can ever fathom. Nature is not an "external" -- it is the heart of the matter. <br /><br />I find this devastating both as a biologist and as an artist.<br /><br />This artwork expresses it perfectly:<br />http://one1more2time3.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/horst-haitzinger/kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-85287383612097654512010-11-28T16:15:20.351-05:002010-11-28T16:15:20.351-05:00@Kat "This is why I would be less impressed w...@Kat "This is why I would be less impressed with what an economist would say about science..."<br /><br />Heh, you're less impressed of what you imagine he has to say - not by what he actually says :)<br /><br />Anyways you are pretty much with him when you say there are limits of empiricism - they only thing you would have yet to agree to is that this applies not only to economics, but to pretty much everything in real life. And I would say especially for art.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511101078287118422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-16687661508293235402010-11-28T16:12:58.199-05:002010-11-28T16:12:58.199-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511101078287118422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-71007956042840018742010-11-28T15:23:20.802-05:002010-11-28T15:23:20.802-05:00@Thomas: In one of my previous comments, I exclude...@Thomas: In one of my previous comments, I excluded history as a form of knowledge vulnerable to the scientific method. This is why I would be less impressed with what an economist would say about science -- economy and finance are, to me, a form of history rather than science, dismal or not. How can one run proper experiments? Economics can be crudely modeled and examined, but if the 3 body problem hasn't even been solved, then it seems to me a weird form of voodoo to think there's a science that can accurately explain billions of irrational human beings running madly after lucre. <br /><br />I also regard the fixation on free markets and capitalism as a form of religion. Manna-ism, if you will. <br /><br />I tend to look at economics in an organismic sort of way: money is like the glucose in a body that at the moment is suffering from fatty liver and diabetes.kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-63870014353314820242010-11-28T05:57:08.828-05:002010-11-28T05:57:08.828-05:00@Kat: I don't see how your reply goes counter ...@Kat: I don't see how your reply goes counter to what I said. The definition of the scientific method is rather supporting that not all knowledge can be gathered by science.<br />Anything that happens only once for example. You cannot make predictions and experiments when there is no repetition. <br />All history is a field where there is no repetition.<br />Maybe art is too - you make an artwork once. You can maybe copy it but the creative part will not repeat.<br /><br />And I think Taleb is worth a closer look than that. He barely ever writes about economics and finance in his books - but much more about where the limits of science and empiricism are.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511101078287118422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-46849950084111941012010-11-27T19:24:36.267-05:002010-11-27T19:24:36.267-05:00@Thomas: Look up the definition of "science&q...@Thomas: Look up the definition of "science". The scientific method deserves to be studied, as it is used unconsciously by intelligent people all the time. <br /><br />Science is about trying to discover what can be relied upon and what works, whether one believes in it or not. <br /><br />Skill can often be best attained via observation, experimentation, modifying one feature at a time, repetition, etc. <br /><br />It is not a coincidence that Leonardo was both a great scientist and arguably the world's premier draftsman. Reading his notebooks gives an insight into his detailed and advanced use of observation and experimentation. His didactics are as good today as they were then.<br /><br />Sorry, I probably won't be reading Mr Taleb. I have absolutely zero interest in economics and finance. As to his broader points, there is always a tension between type 1 and type 2 errors. Error correction is in itself a major facet of science. And remember: even the three body problem has yet to be solved.kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-7593963068661832782010-11-27T17:55:39.802-05:002010-11-27T17:55:39.802-05:00@Kat: I think you're equating science and know...@Kat: I think you're equating science and knowledge too much. Much knowledge can come without science - actually most of our every day knowledge that we really use is learned in other ways.<br /><br />Check maybe Nassim Nicholas Taleb writings about that. His upcoming book will be a lot about it.<br /><br />I think art especially is something that is learned by doing and trying - much less by explaining. Blogs like this one here are interesting and helpful, but for the most part we have a very hard time to explain what goes on when making art. One could read all the best art books in the world - and would still guaranteed to be bad at art when picking up the pencil for the first time.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511101078287118422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-47027897814789269482010-11-27T17:41:33.631-05:002010-11-27T17:41:33.631-05:00From the blogpost: "And how does he know Homo...From the blogpost: "And how does he know Homo Erectus didn’t have language?"<br /><br />Science can know (to reasonable certainty) from which time humans started to talk. You can see this on the construction of our brain and speech organs.<br /><br />I still agree with most of your other points. Also interesting replies here - i.e. the discussion "what is science" - but I think, the TED-Talk is an example of very bad science. No evidence, no testable predictions... just random guessing. IMO, not science at all.<br /><br />What we can for example not see is what those humans found beautiful - I was thinking of how I find seashells much more interesting and beautiful than his example of stone axes. That completely doesn't fit the theory. And if he really talks about things happening millions of years ago: He has no clue of what other items they had, which just didn't last as well as stones.<br /><br />Was about to write an angry blog post about this too - but I guess I can save the time. :)<br /><br />There was this BBC documentary "How Art made the World", which has way more convincing arguments - even when using evolution. A great show, I can really recommend it.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511101078287118422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-4925444120359764352010-11-27T11:42:48.517-05:002010-11-27T11:42:48.517-05:00Kat, thanks for that thoughtful answer. The budgie...Kat, thanks for that thoughtful answer. The budgie, Mr. Kooks, is doing fine, after his month-long stay with the bird sitter. He picked up some exotic calls from neighboring parrots and macaws.James Gurneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-77755144920659704332010-11-26T17:01:47.960-05:002010-11-26T17:01:47.960-05:00@James: Sorry, I neglected to respond to your ques...@James: Sorry, I neglected to respond to your question. Bowerbirds are corvids -- the smartest and most inventive of birds. I don't know how much of the behavior is hard wired, but indications are that the general bower-building behavior is de rigeur while individual males choose the specific unique ornamentation according to preference or what he thinks will best please the females. The arrangements are very deliberate, as attempts by researchers to rearrange items result in the birds spending a great deal of time replacing the items in the precise previously chosen arrangement. They are capable of remarkable illusioneering via the placement of variously sized objects to create a sort of reverse perspective that leads the female in.<br /><br />Interestingly, many bowerbirds are also expert mimics, not unlike the lyrebird.<br /><br />I am one of those that believes that animals are far more conscious, aware, intelligent, and flexible (and many also have culture) than most humans will allow. I've observed cultural transmission even in squirrels.<br /><br />By the way, how's the budgie?kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-23879832814397544232010-11-26T15:57:06.535-05:002010-11-26T15:57:06.535-05:00@James: I personally believe that music and art ar...@James: I personally believe that music and art are fundamentally responsible for human culture. I contend that music provided a method to recall long passages of words for the transmission of human stories and information beyond a single generation in the form of songs (music is a potent amplifier of memory) and without art, no common written symbols could have emerged to unify a group and allow for transmission of information even into the deep future. And more elaborate artistic expressions could have served as a universal language to communicate beyond a given language, between tribes, allowing groups to enlarge into coordinated groups that could build, cultivate, etc.<br /><br />I think people disregard the arts at their peril.<br /><br />Yours is the best blog on the net, in my opinion. Thank you so much for everything you do, the disproportionate amount of joy you bring.kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-9524992029973129452010-11-26T15:55:47.923-05:002010-11-26T15:55:47.923-05:00"Is there really something functional, someth..."Is there really something functional, something practical, about our love of art? Do we need it to survive?"<br /><br />Every time I hear that question, I feel like the answer is so self evident, why don't people see it? It's simple, imagine a world without art. Imagine all the TV's in every house disappearing all at once. All the cinemas, museums, galleries, books. Any creative endeavor you could possibly dwell on, gone. What would that world look like, and what would people do? The place would most closely resemble a prison. How would it effect the human psyche? Go to your nearest prison and observe people in solitary confinement.<br /><br />The best argument I've heard so far against Dutton comes from artist Chris Bennett on conceptart.org (a parallel discusson of the video). By Dutton's definition of beauty, Fred Astaire's dance would be even more beautiful if he was balancing a chamberpot on his head - because it'd be even more skillful.<br /><br />Chris maintains that what we find beautiful isn't simply in seeing something done well, but done right. That this creates a sense of completeness that gives us pleasure - it becomes a metaphor of sorts, for perfection. He explains it much better than I can, but the idea is, when something like the Venus De Milo is done right, it satisfies us to the point where, even when the limbs are broken off, we still see their phantom in the pose of the figure, and nothing is lost.T Arthur Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07831844692245441302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-90769038836303213102010-11-26T13:47:48.123-05:002010-11-26T13:47:48.123-05:00Lots of interesting ideas here. BTW, gang, it’s OK...Lots of interesting ideas here. BTW, gang, it’s OK with me if the discussion expands beyond Dutton’s lecture to larger issues like evolution, as long as no one goes ad hominem. Sorry I’ve been a bit aloof from the discussion, but I just haven’t had much time online lately. But you’re all contributing thoughtful and passionate ideas, and it’s fine with me if the comments are a place for open discussion, and even off-topic sidelines. The only thing I delete are robotic Viagra ads and tennis shoe spam, which just take up space (but I can leave them up if you want them). <br /><br />Roberto: Loved your “Darwin, Tolstoy, and Picasso go into this bar...”<br /><br />Kat, I’m glad you mentioned bowerbirds, because they come to mind as “artlike” behavior in non-humans. Do you know if their nest-making displays are hard-wired or learned? Either way, it still looks like art, and it definitely operates with the mechanism of sexual selection. Penny Patterson and others have demonstrated a clear love of spontaneous representational painting among captive gorillas. And seals do those fun things with bubble rings. So something like art or beauty or enjoyment of skillful non-utilitarian action may extend beyond our human experience. Or you could argue that the seals and gorillas are essentially playing, practicing social or hunting skills in another context.<br /><br />I appreciate that some of you mentioned how Tolstoy’s essay came from a late period of his life and should be taken with a grain of salt. I personally disagree with his attack on opera at the beginning of the essay. I think great opera meets his definition of art.<br /><br />In order for Dutton’s “Darwinian-Aesthetics” hypothesis to be really convincing, it has to answer the question: Is there really something functional, something practical, about our love of art? Do we need it to survive? That’s the classic test of Darwinian natural selection. And it’s funny, because many of the definitions of art have hinged on art being a non-functional activity. <br /><br />Not finding an answer in natural selection, Dutton turns to Darwin’s “peacock-tail mechanism”—sexual selection. I think he should have stayed with natural selection. As some of you pointed out, the Lascaux cave paintings could easily be read as hunter’s notes. Fertility figures could be regarded as reinforcers of successful social norms. And watching a Bushman hunting party using non-verbal signs during a tracking party seems pretty darn much like art. No surprise that we develop an emotional resonance to all such activities. It seems to me, although I can’t prove it, that artists as storytellers contribute mightily to the success of both the society and the individual.<br /><br />So whether you believe in evolution or not, maybe we can all agree that art can be seen as a vital and central activity to our very survival (listen up, school budget committees).James Gurneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-55599433100890927342010-11-25T15:58:51.863-05:002010-11-25T15:58:51.863-05:00@MyPenName: Oh dear, everywhere, a bridge too far....@MyPenName: Oh dear, everywhere, a bridge too far. Science is not a religion but a way of producing verifiable knowledge that all of us rely upon to the ultimate degrees. We all bet our lives on it every single day. So yes, you do agree with scientific authority, whether you admit it or not. <br /><br />Science has a wonderful way of rooting out human error via peer review and confirmation of results. Bad science is weeded out when other scientists performing the same experiments in the same way cannot replicate the results. This has proved to be a particularly robust check on human foibles.<br /><br />The IPCC scientists were completely cleared of all wrongdoing in the email controversy. However, the oil companies (the most powerful special interest in the history of mankind) got what they paid for by betting on science illiteracy. <br /><br />As Richard Feynman famously once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics". Quantum mechanics is a set of (rather bizarre) observations about matter, not an overarching Theory on the nature of physical reality. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity and yet both are true, so a Theory of Everything has not yet been arrived at. There are lots of ideas, but they remain speculative until there is solid observation to back any of them up. Hopefully the Large Hadron Collider can offer some insights. But alas, physics still awaits its Darwin.<br /><br />Indeed, many physicists are looking to evolution as a fundamental principle in the formation of the Universe (or universes). It's a bit difficult to argue with the basic premise that that which persists, persists. <br /><br />The word "science" means "knowledge". So, yes, science is the best way that humans have yet devised to gain human knowledge. History can be pieced together by written accounts and archeological finds, but archeology is increasingly dependent upon other sciences such as geology, biology, and physics. <br /><br />Natural truth is not metaphysical by definition and is eminently suited to the scientific method.<br /><br />When you come up with a metaphysical truth (other than mathematics), please let us know.kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-25378904875092777502010-11-25T13:19:41.599-05:002010-11-25T13:19:41.599-05:00P.S. @Steve
Thanx for the RSA link. It is TOTALLY ...P.S. @Steve<br />Thanx for the RSA link. It is TOTALLY right-on! -RQRobertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751501281929627657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-76000819178040634632010-11-25T12:46:30.274-05:002010-11-25T12:46:30.274-05:00So…
Darwin, Tolstoy, and Picasso go into this bar...So… <br />Darwin, Tolstoy, and Picasso go into this bar, it’s called the ‘E-Z-Night Inn.’ <br />After a long night of trash-talk, drunkenness, and cruelty, Darwin announces that the party is on him, and he slaps a stone-axe down on the bar. <br />The barkeep say’s: “We don’t accept that currency in these parts any more buddy, what are you tryin’ to pull?” <br />“Don’t look at me” says Tolstoy, “All I have is this Novel: ‘Warren P’s’ and I don’t even like it anymore”<br />“You artists are all alike” says the barkeep.<br />Well one thing leads to another and pretty soon the place is in total Kaos!<br />The door bursts open… It’s the Art-Police! <br />“Hold it right there!’ says the cop, “you’re all under Aesthetic Arrest!”<br />Some guy in the corner with a unicycle says “Wait a minute, I’m innocent! I’ve got a license, an artistic license.” <br />“We have reason to believe you started all this, your all goin’ down!” says the cop.<br />So off they all go, all except Picasso. In all of the confusion he slipped out the back door with, the bar-maid, Anna, and was last seen in a café in the French-quarter, drinking absinthe and throwing money around like he had a printing press in the basement. <br /><br />@Jimmy G.: Once again your blogosphere and its blogophiles have contributed to a very interesting journey! -RQRobertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751501281929627657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-44935308303659188702010-11-24T22:43:57.685-05:002010-11-24T22:43:57.685-05:00To ascribe art this status you're giving it he...<i>To ascribe art this status you're giving it here is to say that it is too complex--basically magic. You can say that, but that's either a cop out or like giving up.</i><br /><br />No, not at all, unless you content that anything we cannot explain scientifically *right now* is magic. Which I'd say is a fundamentally unscientific attitude. <br /><br />To me the sine qua non of science is the willingness to say "we don't know yet." <br /><br />Dutton seems extremely reluctant to say this. <br /><br />And if this approach is productive, as you contend, why not provide a novel and interesting interpretation of a piece of art based on this approach? <br /><br />I've read Dutton's book, and I don't remember running across one there, but maybe you or someone else can turn up something I missed.adversecityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405731913588504085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-30886509025994570032010-11-24T21:00:36.560-05:002010-11-24T21:00:36.560-05:00*yawn**yawn*phiqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11424182011653329283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-26470633758085694652010-11-24T19:13:45.030-05:002010-11-24T19:13:45.030-05:00@ Kat I find the anti-science attitude darkly amus...@ Kat <i>I find the anti-science attitude darkly amusing: these folks express it by hammering away at the keyboards of their reliable science-created modern technology.</i><br /><br />@exgoodnight<i>People don't want to agree with scientific authority,</i><br /><br />Science is not a religion. Once should not use religion as a science, but it is equally foolish to treat science as a religion. <br /><br />Scientist are human - and as humans corrupt, dishonest, selfish, ambitious. Look at the climate email scandal - doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on that argument - there was a clear effort to suppress dissenting view points. <br /><br />Perhaps a less inflammatory example would be nutrition 'food science' if you will, the debates on this or that vitamin, fat, etc. <br /><br />Physics has seen the newtonian world view superseded by relatively then quantum mechanics.. <br /><br />the way you defend evolution is as a be all and end all, as you say, the universes and nature are lot more complex than we can conceive and there is still much to be discovered, but ask yourselves if you would really be open to anything challenging this theory.<br /><br />But this natural selection/evolution, as i mentioned in my first post, is quite trendy now to analyze all aspects of human behavior, the same way freudian psychology was a few years ago - poo pooing anyone who disagrees with what is clearly speculation is the mark of dogma. <br /><br />as i said earlier <i>I am more interested in physics than biology - why do my sub-atomic particles want to do that in the first place? </i><br /><br /><i>Science is not only creative and beautiful, it is the best way humans have devised to encounter truth.</i><br />umm it is one way not the best or only way. Again, truth as a metaphysical concept cannot be tested in a laboratory.My Pen Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10163003696435139513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-49405572295691895502010-11-24T18:52:31.344-05:002010-11-24T18:52:31.344-05:00@Pen Name: This is going to be my last reply to yo...@Pen Name: This is going to be my last reply to you here. If you wish to debate me, I think we're actually being quite rude to Gurney and his blog. I'm enjoying this conversation quite a lot, but it would annoy the crap out of me if people posted this many comments on my blogger account. Follow my Blogger name link and email me. I have plenty to say in reply to your last comment, but I gain nothing by retorting your comments in public. I'm happy to continue the conversation, however.EZ Goodnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14885539025549500697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-14981238888102767202010-11-24T18:40:23.255-05:002010-11-24T18:40:23.255-05:00Do you know what people view the universe as now? ...<i>Do you know what people view the universe as now? "The Cosmic Computer.</i><br />who are these people you refer to? ..."Clocks and clouds "<br /><br /><i>You throw that word "reductionist" around like the Tea Party throws around the word "Socialist." </i><br />ok, gratuitous insult, but it does reflect on you a little." See how clever I am everyone I am on of those bible banging tea party members". Ok we got the message, you think you're clever. <br />I was pointing out that people can become so in love with ideas the ignore or distort realty. Your hero Richard Dawkins is a perfect example:<br /><br />Here's a quote from his site:<br /><i>Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. </i><br />This is so mind numbingly ignorant of history, and current geopolitical conflict I scarcely believe an adult wrote it. <br /><br />It also deadly, as deadly as Dawkin's idealogical predecessors,the French "republic', and the Bolsheviks. <br /><br /><br /><i>And I'm pretty sure Dawkins lives pretty firmly in the 21st century with the rest of us.</i> <br />And what about people who believe in God?<br /><br /><i>He simply thinks the "why" questions it sounds like you're talking about are irrelevant.</i><br />Spends an awful lot of time dwelling on them then, writing books on how silly/stupid/superstitious people are for believing it, calling people who teach their children religion a form of child abuse... and all the while he is remarkably ignorant of what he writes about. <br /><br /><i> I don't see that as a mistake, personally.</i>That's fine. Your universe is essentially pointless. <br /><br /><i>And, yes, "love" is a concept we have evolved to help us survive and raise better children. It's why we prize familial love and love of spouses--it protects DNA for the next generation.</i><br />Ill let your words stand on their own.<br /><br />I have a little theory I'd like to test out though... <br />You believe that love the desire to protect DNA .. and it has 'evolved' for that purpose. Do you believe intelligence is inherited? If so how would account for the disparity between races - the thought that got James Watson so much trouble? <br /><br />From your tea party comment, I suspect you will find this little part of evolution ideologically untenable.My Pen Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10163003696435139513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-38592920626936970122010-11-24T16:51:56.018-05:002010-11-24T16:51:56.018-05:00@EZ Goodnight: Indeed, a thoroughgoing examination...@EZ Goodnight: Indeed, a thoroughgoing examination of the mechanics of denial would be immensely useful... perhaps even Life-saving. We've become almost like a cancer in the body of Earth denying that the body can die and our vaunted immortality perish along with it.kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157191667153531127noreply@blogger.com