Ari Siletz

What Darwin got wrong

Thank you Disenchanted, I'll check out Fodor's book. In the radio interview you kindly provided the author says that none of the book reviews (some by other philosphers of  evolution science) understood his point. Unfortunately, Fodor and Pigliucci weren't able to debate very well in the radio interview due to the unfamiliarity of the moderator with the subject. 

However, this review by Block and Kitcher is particulary thorough (and long), proposing that after Fodor's argument is understood it will be realized that his thinking throws out not only Natural Selection but the very epistemic possibility of cause and effect determination in many diciplines--a philosophically arguable premise but an absurdity from a practical point of view.

A good example is that Fodor would say (as he did in the radio interview) that we can't use the Natural Selection argument to say that the heart evolved to pump blood and not to make a thumping noise. This is because the heart pumping and its thumping always go together. A philosophical "touche," perhaps, but...the rest is in Block and Kitcher's engaging book review.

Divaneh: Big LOL on the brilliant Zakani joke!

Thanks Ari

البته ژن فرزند نه تنها به بقای فرزند بلکه به بقای مادر نیز کمک می کند.

حکایت: زن مزید حامله بود، روزی بشوهر خود نگریست و گفت: وای بر من اگر فرزندم شبیه تو باشد. مزید گفت: وای بر تو اگر چون من نباشد.

What Darwin got wrong?

 Good points Ari. Nonetheless I think a critical look at natural selection is essential since It has become be all and end all explanation for everything. It seems to me it is being over-stretched. Fodor explains below why it is not quite the same as other scientific theories.

Jerry Fodor is professor of philosophy and cognitive science at Rutgers University. He is the author of numerous works, including The Language of Thought, The Modularity of Mind, Psychosemantics and most recently What Darwin Got Wrong.
//simplycharly.com/darwin/jerry_fodor_darwin_...

Interesting new findings on interbreeding among ancient and

modern humans.  Somehat relevant:

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14936641

Which means that I will have to amend this blog and incorporate the new information in it:

//iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/it-time-recognize-islamic-republics-scientific-accomplishments

LOL in Dr Holmes cheh cherti mige

Last time I sort of was reminded, I gathered that I'm female and I can't lie to save my life! I can't even shut my mouth without blurting out the often bitter truth and in any case I don't have the energy nor the time to come up with a cock'n bull story, let alone inact it.

Or, I might just be too kheng, have some form of Asperger's or "language is a lie".

P.S. Is that a Queen bee in "beegheirat"? ;)

Disenchanted, JJ

Disenchanted: It's true that adapationists throw around a lot of plausible hypothesis for the origion of traits which are impossible to prove or disprove--therefore not "hypothesis" in the scientific sense at all. This probably has to do with Religion having been at the gates of the Theory of Evolution since its inception, relentlessly using any "I don't know" from the theory's proponets as a way to discredit the theory in its entirety. Some defenders of the theory seem to have adopted the faith-based tactics of their foes. However this tendency is more pronounced when they address a lay audience.  The main purpose of the argument not being scientific but rhetorical. When the religious come up with a new "only God could have made it this way," they counter with "it could have happened this other way by natural selection." They don't really mean it did happen this way--they couldn't possibly be sure--just that God need not be invoked.

When Evolutionists write scientific papers, however,  they hold themselves to standards and offer experimental results, field observation evidence, or at least suggest ways to test the hypothesis--the latter implicitly acknowledging that the idea is speculative pending experimental results.

For example, in the paper I cited about sperm competition the workers had gone through the trouble of building prosthetic penises and artificial vaginas to see if the effect they predicted actually happened. Then they noted that parallel mechanisms exist in species with similar sexual behavior, and that such mechanisms do not exist in species that do not behave this way. Pretty thorough!

Evolutionary explanations range from "just so" stories to well reasoned and supported treatise--depending on the audience. Additionally the workers in the field are aware of the unknowns and shortcomings in the still under construction Theory of Evolution--though they are loathe to express doubts, for reasons explained above. Take for example Jerry Fodor's argument that curly tails on some dogs are accidental and not selected for traits. These days geneticists knows that traits are linked and that genes interact in ways more complex than previously thought. New findings are bound to affect the Theory of Evolution as they would any other theory. Except when Einstein said Newton was wrong, a horde of Bible thumpers and half the US population didn't pile on educators demanding they stop teaching physics in schools.

***

JJ: Yes, the modern world having radically changed the male/female rules has brought us into an incredibly exciting new evolutionary epoch. I'm guessing that the future will recognize this as being a greater evolutionary upheaval for humanity than the invention of agriculture or the domestication of animals. I'm not being dramatic. A change in gender specific behavior and sex?? When you think about it, this is a very fundamental turnaround...for any species.

Warning: Overusing Evolution/Natural selection arguments!

     Since Ari recently has been posting few articles based on the natural selection argument (Like why breasts look so nice and this one) I thought this may article benefit everyone. It has some good points to have in mind.The title is "Why pigs don't have wings" by Jerry Fodor who is a well known philosopher.

Beyond biology & history

Thanks Ari. Enjoyed it and I learned.

First of all, I've paid some attention to kids and their parents. There's nothing scientific about my observations over the years, but in general it seems to me that the first child looks like the parent with the opposite sex. In other words, if the first child is a girl, she will be a lot like her father. If it's a boy, he will resemble mom more. And not just physically. As I said, it's just a guess.

In terms of women and men, attraction, mating and such, I think generalizations are still important and scientifically sound, historically speaking, but I think we see more and more exceptions and variations as we evolve. One thing is pretty certain: today's technologically-driven world, where physical strength is becoming less and less important or useful, is more suitable for women, who over time have become more advanced in mental survival skills than men -- men who have always relied on muscle, deeper voice, rough character and a sense of heroic adventurism to survive and get ahead -- characteristics which are unsuited for today's softer world.

Thanks Ari for the link

What I find funny is that nowadays people lie so much that even when someone says the truth, the other side cannot accept that it is the truth.

AO

The answers to your questions is "tied-up" in the Science Channel Curiosity Videos: Why is Sex Fun? (for women) with Maggie Gyllenhaal, in particular, the first part of video #2.

Curiosity S1E3 [ Why Is Sex Fun ] 1/3

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ3YXvjIVrA

Curiosity S1E3 [ Why Is Sex Fun ] 2/3

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuVRRQF86SU&feature=related

Curiosity S1E3 [ Why Is Sex Fun ] 3/3

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MorDTjRGok&feature=related

PS, I can see everyone rushing to get some oxytocin

AO

Your bring up a relevant point. The physiological adaptations of the human penis strongly suggest sperm competition between males. For the reader who doesn't mind graphic "fluidics"  here's a good link illustrating AO's point.

Regarding your point about a good percentage of Iranian men not seeing anything wrong with the opression of women, also valid. This is true of both the conservatives and the religious Green faction. Every time Mousavi says "Emam's Golden Age," I hear "I don't trust Zahra."

Anahid, data mining on internet dating shows that women lie downwards about age and weight. Men lie upward about wealth and status. Just what you would expect. Here's  "Why women lie down."

Interesting blog- without getting too graphic

Ari - did you know why circumference of the tip of the male sexual organ is larger than the shaft? It's the case in all mammals, including us. It is evolved for maximum genetic competitiveness. The way it has evolved, with the tip being wider, allows the male of the species to clean out the vaginal cavity of other "suitors'" sperm deposits during the "in and out" strokes of mating action. This is particularly useful in mammals that engage in seasonal mating, where the females copulate with several males within a short period of time. In us, in modern days, it's an evolutionary leftover, but it may have still been useful in the "cave" days.

As far as the IR's male dominated system, I totally agree. I have always told my friends that part of the reason that the IR has some support in Iran is because a good chunk of the male population doesn't really see a problem with the social oppression of the IR, which is one of its most visible characteristics. So, as long as they are economically well off, they really see anything being THAT bad with their wives and daughters having to wear a monteau in the 130 degree heat. It also provides them with a primal sense of superiority. Plus, they can marry multiple women, keep most of the inheritance and can have automatic custody of their children in divorce proceedings. It's good to be the king!

Faramarz, wow, Barabara Bush really said that?

I think this is a very important discussion. I am sure that there have been studies done about lying in men and women and in different cultures. I am personally interested to know that. Do Iranians lie more or Americans? Are women's lies more white lies or not? If anyone knows of any reserach in this field, links would be appreciated. I am sure of it that in present Iran, people lie more than Iran that I grew up in. As far as Barbara's quote about Clinton, was what Clinton doing a white lie or close to it? At the time, people seemed very concerned about it but compared to the lies that Bush 2 came up with, Clinton's lies are less serious.

The Art of Lying to Women!

Here is my advice to the men who want to lie to their women; lie big, very big!

You see, women get offended when you give them a little lie. It is like giving them a little flower on Valentine. They think that you don’t care enough for them to spend the time and the effort to come up with a totally unbelievable, yet somewhat plausible story. So lie big and watch the sparkle in their eyes as they laugh and say, “you are such a liar!”

And good action is guaranteed later on!

“Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is.”

― Barbara Bush

LOL Anahid!

I must belong the  other part of the quote that says, "you can fool  some of the poeple all the time."

Ari jan,

I think the problem is that many people who lie don't perceive their actions as lies but have justifications for it. Also as far as the fact that I know a man is liar and therefore he must have been clumsy, I can only think of the quote that ends with the sentence:"you cannot fool all the people all the time".

Anahid

Holmes is saying that women are more sophisticated liars when it comes to affairs. Just the fact that you know men are liars makes them clumsy liars. By the way, I have never been lied to by a woman :)

MM, is your comment addressed to me?

If it is,it is not going to work out. I already beat him up and that is why we are divorced :).

MM

LOL.

when your husband comes home, beat him up

when your husband comes home, beat him up.  You don't know why you are beating him, but he sure knows why he is getting it.

Great blog Ari but as far as being liars

liked your blog but as far as lying, women don't come even close to men. men are far better liars. it might have been my personal experience which in it i have seen men lie and then get upset when a woman mentions it. it is still a men's world and to keep it this way, men fight, cheat and lie. this is not to say that there are millions of decent truthful men out there but on the average, men lie more and are more shameless about it.

weird!

The links in the article to "David Holmes" and "liars" aren't mine and are wrong. They just appeared. Please ignore those links.