This is what I want to say to evolutionary psychologists, as they claim larger and larger ground for their discipline and seek to include more and more under the umbrella of their expertise: all grand unifying theories in the history of mankind have eventually been proven wrong. History is littered with philosophies and ideologies that believe themselves for the time to be the one true method to advance human understanding. And they never last.

Quoting Freddie: This is what I want to say to evolutionary psychologists, as they claim larger and larger ground for their discipline and seek to include more and more under the umbrella of their expertise: all grand unifying theories in the history of mankind have eventually been proven wrong. History is littered with philosophies and ideologies that believe themselves for the time to be the one true method to advance human understanding. And they never last.

I'm not sure I'd put Pinker's work in that category though. While there are certainly areas of his work that are subject to criticism, I've always thought Pinker one of our more 'honest' contemporary intellectuals. By 'honest' I mean consistently open to all lines of inquiry. His telling of the not so insignificant hostile reaction from within the academic ranks to The Blank Slate is evidence of this. See also his views of the Summers' controversy at Harvard. I would place Pinker more in the 'incrementalist' category rather than accusing him of (over)reaching for grand theories, however much you may [legitimately] question some of the current claims of evolutionary psychology.

I'm having trouble understanding Pinker's point on the "decline of Violence". First, he mixes up a whole bunch of disparate things under the umbrella of "Violence" - private killings (homicides, duels, etc.), War, Capital punishment, and slavery all of which have different causes and reasons for decline. Secondly, he uses "evolution" to explain this, yet evolution according to the Darwinists is an incredibly slow process with small changes occurring over millions of years. So, in effect, almost zero Human evolution in the last 2,000 years. Thirdly, violence has not declined. The USA homicide rate doubled between 1950-1975. Although there's been a minor decline in the last 15 years, its still way above the rate in 1940 or 1950. Similarly, while we have fewer wars in the 20th century - they are much more bloody and destructive than those of the 19th Century. Barbaric war crimes were committed in WW II that would have been unthinkable in the 19th Century. We had two aggressive, totalitarianism philosophies, Nazism and Communism that killed tens of millions of peoples in Gulags and concentration camps.

Quoting rcocean: I'm having trouble understanding Pinker's point on the "decline of Violence". First, he mixes up a whole bunch of disparate things under the umbrella of "Violence" - private killings (homicides, duels, etc.), War, Capital punishment, and slavery all of which have different causes and reasons for decline..

I guess we'll need to read his book to see how he addresses the various manifestations of 'violence.' My guess is that he'll be arguing for some definition that shows a common lineage in keeping with the evolutionary model of human behavior. That is, where you say 'disparate', he may say 'cousins.' But I'm just guessing here.

Quoting rcocean: Secondly, he uses "evolution" to explain this, yet evolution according to the Darwinists is an incredilby slow process with small changes occurring over millions of years. So, in effect, almost zero Human evolution in the last 2,000 years.

For a good critique of what looks to be a number of foundations to his upcoming book, see Orr here. Note that Orr's critique opens with a sentiment similar to Freddie's, but uses the phrase "single elegant theory" rather than "grand unifying theory." But a similar sentiment I think. I've also included the exchange between Pinker and Orr here.

Quoting rcocean: I'm having trouble understanding Pinker's point on the "decline of Violence". First, he mixes up a whole bunch of disparate things under the umbrella of "Violence" - private killings (homicides, duels, etc.), War, Capital punishment, and slavery all of which have different causes and reasons for decline. Secondly, he uses "evolution" to explain this, yet evolution according to the Darwinists is an incredilby slow process with small changes occurring over millions of years. So, in effect, almost zero Human evolution in the last 2,000 years. Thirdly, violence has not declined. Homicide rate in the USA doubled between 1950-1975. Although there's been a minor decline in the last 15 years, its still way above the rate in 1940 or 1950.

Similarly, we have fewer wars of the 20th century much more bloody and destructive than those of the 19th Century. Barbaric war crimes were committed in WW II that would have been unthinkable in the 19th Century. We two aggressive, totalitarianism philosophies, Nazism and Communism that killed literally tens of millions of peoples in Gulags and concentration camps.

His main idea refers to extended periods of time and he is comparing death rates as a percentage of the respective world population. Here is an older article

Fascinating diavlog! I don't know what Wittgeinstein's ladder was about, but this diavlog is an example of the ladder of curiosity. When interesting ideas are presented, they elicit more questions that take us to the next level and each step originates new quests. Steven talks about examining language patterns of usage that reflect fundamental conceptual (kantian) categories such as space, time and causality. He also presented the idea of "carving up" reality around those concepts. I can imagine different aspects to this conception. One would be about our ability to organize and classify information. Another one would be about how we construct our mental representation of reality according to those guiding principles. And yet, I wonder about another aspect which is how this structural organization of language affects and possibly limits thought. Anyone to comment? Another interesting topic that I find particularly intriguing has to do with an individual's inability to apply non-zero sumness when he/she is in a zero-sum ecological space. This is, at least as I understand this concept, the predicament that lies at the core of the (limits to) applicability of pacifism. When different individuals or groups are at different 'levels' in their ability

Quoting Ocean: His main idea refers to extended periods of time and he is comparing death rates as a percentage of the respective world population.

Here is an older article that may clarify his points.

Thanks Ocean.

Quoting spandrel: For a good critique of what looks to be a number of foundations to his upcoming book, see Orr here. Note that Orr's critique opens with a sentiment similar to Freddie's, but uses the phrase "single elegant theory" rather than "grand unifying theory." But a similar sentiment I think. I've also included the exchange between Pinker and Orr here.

Thanks. Most informative.

Quoting Ocean: Fascinating diavlog!

I don't know what Wittgeinstein's ladder was about...

Another term for the same thing is "lie-to-children" (though not children in the literal sense.) The idea is that concepts aren't always fully accessible prior to the accomplishment of prerequisites, but may need to communicated. nevertheless. So a version of the idea, which may in fact be false, but which allows an acceptable understanding, or will lead to an eventual understanding may be substituted. I don't think the phrase was ever used by Wittgenstein, but if you've ever attempted to read the Tractatus, you're familiar with a pretty extreme example of what this refers to.

Quoting AemJeff: Another term for the same thing is "lie-to-children" (though not children in the literal sense.) The idea is that concepts aren't always fully accessible prior to the accomplishment of prerequisites, but may need to communicated. nevertheless. So a version of the idea, which may in fact be false, but which allows an acceptable understanding, or will lead to an eventual understanding may be substituted.

I don't think the phrase was ever used by Wittgenstein, but if you've ever attempted to read the Tractatus, you're familiar with a pretty extreme example of what this refers to.

No, I haven't read Tractatus. However, your introduction makes it appealing enough that I'll try to read it soon. As to your first paragraph, I can understand now the general idea. Thank you.

Quoting Ocean: No, I haven't read Tractatus. However, your introduction makes it appealing enough that I'll try to read it soon.

As to your first paragraph, I can understand now the general idea. Thank you.

Good golly - trying to absorb that work is an exhausting undertaking. If you do so, I wish you luck!

Quoting AemJeff: Good golly - trying to absorb that work is an exhausting undertaking. If you do so, I wish you luck!

Well, as long as I have enough decades of life left, why not? If you are trying to tell me that it's laborious and boring, I may reconsider.

Quoting Ocean: Well, as long as I have enough decades of life left, why not?

If you are trying to tell me that it's laborious and boring, I may reconsider.

It's short. And extremely dense and abstract. I don't have enough short term memory to keep enough of its atomic facts (which is pretty much all it consists of) in my head at a time to have ever felt that I could claim any meaningful synthesis. It's a worthy hill to climb, but it is a vertical ascent.

Quoting AemJeff: It's short. And extremely dense and abstract. I don't have enough short term memory to keep enough of its atomic facts (which is pretty much all it consists of) in my head at a time to have ever felt that I could claim any meaningful synthesis. It's a worthy hill to climb, but it is a vertical ascent.

I just read a few of Russell's paragraphs in the introduction. So far: one name for each leaf. My (premature) response: what if you're more interested in the forest?

I'm enjoying the parts of this that remind me of a Seinfeld/Curb Your Enthusiasm discussion of a social trope, giving it a name, what are the rules, etc. I want to say 'middlebrow', stuff that is simultaneously interesting for academic inquiry and visceral enough for comedians. Also in that middle zone, for some strange reason any mention of recursion makes me happy. Any chance of a diavlog either with, or about, Doug Hofstader and _Gödel Escher Bach_ and its influence?

Another interesting topic that I find particularly intriguing has to do with an individual's inability to apply non-zero sumness when he/she is in a zero-sum ecological space. This is, at least as I understand this concept, the predicament that lies at the core of the (limits to) applicability of pacifism. When different individuals or groups are at different 'levels' in their ability to use cooperation and non-violent conflict resolution, it appears that the more forceful side could end up prevailing by obliterating the other one.

Nonviolent conflict resolution theorists dispute this framing of the situation. The model proposed by Gene Sharp and others is that organized nonviolent groups often have determinative power, even when they think they are facing overwhelming coercive power. This is because even the worst and cruelest dictators depend on the consent of key support groups to operate. Once the consent is withdrawn or shows signs of crumbling, nonviolence is often an amazingly effective tool. There are many examples throughout 20th century history that are covered by Jack Duvall and Peter Ackerman in "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict." (The title tells you the

Quoting Ocean: I just read a few of Russell's paragraphs in the introduction. So far: one name for each leaf. My (premature) response: what if you're more interested in the forest?

Wittgenstein's answer to that, I think, would be something like the following: How much can you trust your apprehension of the forest, if you don't have a tool to organize that understanding that you can show to be trustworthy?

Quoting Kevin: Also in that middle zone, for some strange reason any mention of recursion makes me happy.

I love it when people are happy to hear mentions of recursion!

Quoting Wonderment: Nonviolent conflict resolution theorists dispute this framing of the situation.

The model proposed by Gene Sharp and others is that organized nonviolent groups often have determinative power, even when they think they are facing overwhelming coercive power.

This is because even the worst and cruelest dictators depend on the consent of key support groups to operate. Once the consent is withdrawn or shows signs of crumbling, nonviolence is often an amazingly effective tool.

There are many examples throughout 20th century history that are covered by Jack Duvall and Peter Ackerman in "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict." (The title tells you the premise.) The Soviet Union, to everyone on the planet's great surprise, dissolved with virtually zero violence. Nonviolence also worked in some instances against Hitler and the Nazis (examples are in the book).

This doesn't mean that pacifism faces no risks or will always prevail. Pacifism does require people to make great sacrifices under certain circumstances, but it is not -- in general -- a game theory loser. On the contrary.

Plus, the great triumphs of nonviolence have been on virtually zero budget and on a totally improvised

Quoting AemJeff: Wittgenstein's answer to that, I think, would be something like the following: How much can you trust your apprehension of the forest, if you don't have a tool to organize that understanding that you can show to be trustworthy?

Logically, I have to agree with that. But, as you know, in the balance between analysis and synthesis, some prefer analysis and some prefer synthesis. And others are just impatient...

Quoting Ocean: ...
And others are just impatient...

That's always been one of my biggest problems getting through the Tractatus!

If Pinker's argument (which I have personally held for a long time) about a trend of less violence is correct, non-violent conflict resolution would be the natural outcome.

Yeah, I think he (and you) are wrong about that. But one of my core principles of nonviolent conflict resolution is to diffuse tension by prefacing my remarks (and thought) with, "You could be right...."

I was referring to an individual level of conflict (interpersonal), and also, to the transition phase that we seem to be in now at a global level.

You could be right. I've read Pinker's views on the decline of violence before (also popular with John Horgan), and I'm skeptical of both the massaging of the numbers and the general optimistic lens he puts on the data. I think he developed the work as a contrarian who was understandably skeptical of the view that the level of violence is always on the upswing from the good old days to the impending Holocausts and nuclear annihilation. Still, unpersuasive that we are goig in a peaceful direction. I hope he's right, however.

Quoting Wonderment: Yeah, I think he (and you) are wrong about that.

I'm happy to be part of that club!

But one of my core principles of nonviolent conflict resolution is to diffuse tension by prefacing my remarks (and thought) with, "You could be right...."

Hmmm... I'll try to remember that.

You could be right.

My memory is not that weak!

I've read Pinker's views on the decline of violence before (also popular with John Horgan), and I'm skeptical of both the massaging of the numbers and the general optimistic lens he puts on the data. I think he developed the work as a contrarian who was understandably skeptical of the view that the level of violence is always on the upswing from the good old days to the impending Holocausts and nuclear annihilation. Still, unpersuasive that we are going in a peaceful direction.

What do you think about the general idea about violence being less acceptable, cruelty rejected, 'expanding the circle'? It is true that by possessing more massively destructive weapons, the number of casualties can be proportionately larger. And I can also grant that from a political perspective it wouldn't be helpful to minimize

Well, this was much more edifying than Goldberg - Althouse. And indeed, I wonder whether any repetitive viewer of Althouse would engage in any positive-sum activity under any circumstances. It seems more likely to me that repeated exposure to Althouse would lead to behavior characterized by bilateral mutually assured destruction.

Quoting rcocean: Thanks Ocean.

... and his TED talk. Possibly the one he mentions in the diavlog, but I'm not certain.

Quantum mechanics is said to be "counterintuitive", but in some ways it is a product of our intuition. Is it truly beyond our intuition, or are our languages simply insufficient without extensions (via mathematics)? Or is there some disconnect between language and symbolic processing. Fascinating dialog. I think that this was one of the best yet. P.S. I'm not sure Wittgenstein understood the Tractatus. He did abandon it later in life.

What do you think about the general idea about violence being less acceptable, cruelty rejected, 'expanding the circle'?

I think that it is a great principle of ethics, which is the way Peter Singer presents it. That has to be separated, however, from Pinker's case. It doesn't follow that violence WILL decrease from Singer's "expanding circle"; Singer just advocates expanding the circle. Pinker says there's an unmistakable and inexorable trend line. That's much more debatable.

But, if you look at it from the perspective of moral development, wouldn't you agree that there has been substantial progress?

Depends how broadly you look at it. I think Western societies are less xenophobic and sexist than they used to be, and a reversal of that humanism is very unlikely. But that's a very narrow claim. I'm most skeptical about using the past 60 years as a measure of progress. There are too many exceptions (Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos, for example) and too much good luck (the Cuban missile crisis not turning into a nuclear holocaust) to make any generalizations (although Bob was quick to humor Pinker on this). It's also a very short period, even in terms of the history of civilization, much less the history

Quoting claymisher: I love it when people are happy to hear mentions of recursion!

I think Bob was happy too, but clearly began to feel somewhat uncomfortable here.

Quoting Wonderment: I think that it is a great principle of ethics, which is the way Peter Singer presents it. That has to be separated, however, from Pinker's case. It doesn't follow that violence WILL decrease from Singer's "expanding circle"; Singer just advocates expanding the circle. Pinker says there's an unmistakable and inexorable trend line. That's much more debatable.

I didn't interpret his ideas as being so radically inexorable. I doubt that as a scientist Pinker would be so dogmatic. He may propose the idea that there is clear trend but nobody can predict the future.

Depends how broadly you look at it. I think Western societies are less xenophobic and sexist than they used to be, and a reversal of that humanism is very unlikely. But that's a very narrow claim.

If you want to give credit to Western societies, don't discount the effects of the Westernization of Eastern cultures. Sure there are significant pockets of 'less modern' populations, but the effects of globalization can't be underestimated.

I'm most skeptical about using the past 60 years as a measure of progress. There are too many exceptions (Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos, for example) and too much good luck (the Cuban missile crisis not turning into

Quoting xgy3: ...
P.S. I'm not sure Wittgenstein understood the Tractatus. He did abandon it later in life.

I'm not sure that's quite fair. It seems apparent that he changed his mind about the approach he took with it regarding certain problems of language later in his career. His concern about the distinction between "to say" and "to show" forced him toward extreme efforts to avoid paradox, and to show a general approach on how to do so. It might be fairer to say that there were things he believed later in his career, that he hadn't considered when he wrote the Tractatus; but I know of no reason to assume he didn't understand what he had written, or what its implications were.

Regarding the idea that we somehow separate ideas on bases of space, time, etc. due to some underlying cause, Pinker suggested that English doesn't gracefully admit to "I carried him the box", or "I lifted him the box" but allows "I threw him the box" and theorizes that this is due to some quasi-instantaneous aspect of throwing that is significant compared to the slower processes of lifting or carrying. That is, he seemed to say that we don't relate well via language, and presumably for some significant underlying reason, to ideas of events or efforts in the past that occur over time. At least that is what I came away with based on the discussion. I don't have the facility with other languages to know whether his suggestion that language doesn't comfortably fit around the particular concepts he used in his examples holds outside English. English comfortably permits "I brought him the box" however, in which "bringing" may well encompass both lifting and carrying, and is certainly something that occured over a time interval during the past. It seemed at least a little strained in English based on the example given, and English is after all

The problem seems to lie in the way we deal with verb tenses in English (via auxiliaries). I don't see how one could take up this question without considering a whole host of languages - both ancient and modern.

I'm having trouble understanding Pinker's point on the "decline of Violence". [...] Secondly, he uses "evolution" to explain this, yet evolution according to the Darwinists is an incredibly slow process with small changes occurring over millions of years. So, in effect, almost zero Human evolution in the last 2,000 years.

You are correct that humans have evolved negligibly in the last 2,000 years. Pinker wasn't suggesting that humans have evolved to be less violent in that time. That's not his explanation His "evolutionary" explanation is this: In prehistory, humans evolved to be more violent in some circumstances and less violent in others. They had already evolved to be this way when history began. The things that tend to cause violence and the things that tend to cause peace haven't changed for thousands of years. The way that humans react to their environment hasn't changed. What has changed is the environment in which those humans find themselves. A far higher percentage of us live comfortably above subsistence, so that we don't have to choose between violence and starvation. We are more economically integrated, so that our interests are more aligned. Mass media presents us with frequent visceral reminders

Quoting Ocean: Steven talks about examining language patterns of usage that reflect fundamental conceptual (kantian) categories such as space, time and causality. He also presented the idea of "carving up" reality around those concepts. I can imagine different aspects to this conception. One would be about our ability to organize and classify information. Another one would be about how we construct our mental representation of reality according to those guiding principles. And yet, I wonder about another aspect which is how this structural organization of language affects and possibly limits thought. Anyone to comment?

A very interesting question Ocean and as you suggest, it brings to mind many possible dimensions. In chapter 4 of The Stuff of Thought, Pinker discusses the "schematic modeling of shapes" as the geometry that "defines most spatial terms in English and other languages." This "schematic modeling", he claims, defines not only how we recognize and visualize objects, but also how we reason about them. He cites some interesting ways in which we routinely express thoughts that if taken literally, don't really seem to make sense. For example, "he's swimming under water" or "the oil is underground." Clearly, a person swims "under the surface" of the water and the

From the discussion alone and the example given I'm left wondering just how valid the point was and what significance it might have if correct. Unfortunately Bob Wright seemed a little preoccupied with getting validation for nonzero sum relationships as influences and didn't bring out much on this point as I recall the conversation.

Bob is not qualified to have a serious discussion about linguistics. His need for a refresher course in the meaning of "syntax" is like talking to a mathematician and asking for a reminder of what a decimal point is. So Bob did what he does well, which is very intelligently engage from a generalist perspective. What Pinker does well is explain linguistic issues to non-linguists. It's not that he has (to my knowledge) any groundbreaking ideas; he's just a good writer and a great educator. But getting his Kantian points across in a 5-minute segment with Bob is a bit much to ask even of a great teacher. So kudos to both, but to delve deeper we all need to do more homework and read Pinker's work.

Quoting cragger: Regarding the idea that we somehow separate ideas on bases of space, time, etc. due to some underlying cause, Pinker suggested that English doesn't gracefully admit to "I carried him the box", or "I lifted him the box" but allows "I threw him the box" and theorizes that this is due to some quasi-instantaneous aspect of throwing that is significant compared to the slower processes of lifting or carrying. That is, he seemed to say that we don't relate well via language, and presumably for some significant underlying reason, to ideas of events or efforts in the past that occur over time. At least that is what I came away with based on the discussion.

I don't have the facility with other languages to know whether his suggestion that language doesn't comfortably fit around the particular concepts he used in his examples holds outside English. English comfortably permits "I brought him the box" however, in which "bringing" may well encompass both lifting and carrying, and is certainly something that occured over a time interval during the past.

It seemed at least a little strained in English based on the example given, and English is after all

You are a paradoxical optimist. I'm sure you'll completely agree with me.

Puede que tengas razón.

I guess the best comparison would be to think about someone who only speaks some foreign language at a very basic level. He travels to a country where that language is spoken. For most basic verbal interactions he does fine, but if he tries to engage in a conversation that involves more complex concepts, he doesn't have the words to express them. In our topic, the 'foreign language' is language, and the 'complex concepts' are the non-verbal origins of thought.

Pinker does a nice job in "The Language Instinct" of explaining how thought is not simply sub-vocal verbalization. He illustrates how thought precedes language and gets encoded, amplified and enhanced by the tools of language. This view is consistent with Chomsky (and Kant; not that I ever really read Kant). I have a feeling Bloggin' Noggin' may show up in this thread in a very angry mood

Quoting Wonderment: Pinker does a nice job in "The Language Instinct" of explaining how thought is not simply sub-vocal verbalization. He illustrates how thought precedes language and gets encoded, amplified and enhanced by the tools of language. This view is consistent with Chomsky (and Kant; not that I ever really read Kant).

I read Kant, when I was 9. And again when I was 14. I have PTSD from it...

I have a feeling Bloggin' Noggin' may show up in this thread in a very angry mood

Huh? Angry? Not sure about that. Verbose may be...

Quoting xgy3: Quantum mechanics is said to be "counterintuitive", but in some ways it is a product of our intuition. Is it truly beyond our intuition, or are our languages simply insufficient without extensions (via mathematics)? Or is there some disconnect between language and symbolic processing.

I don't see any disconnect between language and mathematics. After all, you can translate any mathematical equation into a meaningful sentence. (Oh, perhaps it could take a few paragraphs.) Whether something is counter-intuitive depends on the state of your intuition. I don't know if we are born with any intuition, but it's largely a product of personal experience. It may be possible to align one's intuition with the laws of quantum mechanics, and I think there are physicists who claim to have done that. For me, quantum mechanics is indeed counter-intuitive; it violates my expectations about how physical objects should interact across space and time. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

Quoting Simon Willard: Whether something is counter-intuitive depends on the state of your intuition. I don't know if we are born with any intuition, but it's largely a product of personal experience. It may be possible to align one's intuition with the laws of quantum mechanics, and I think there are physicists who claim to have done that. For me, quantum mechanics is indeed counter-intuitive, because it violates my expectations about how physical objects should interact across space and time.

Probably intuition relies heavily on previous sensory experience. When we encounter constructs that are very different from anything that we have experienced or known previously, we don't have precursors or templates that we can apply to them. We can't build a mental representation of them and they feel strange and counterintuitive. Some people may be able to create a mental representation of the new construct. They either have some special plasticity that allows them to go beyond the limits of their previous representational experience, or they 'grasp' the new construct by using pieces of previous templates and putting them together in new creative ways.

"nothing can be done without a good notation". I've forgotten who said it. I suspect that there is a reason for the use of symbols. They make it easier to see the patterns. Sure, we could write mathematics in plain English but we would still have to parse it out into something else to "understand", to "see" the meaning. You might argue that is no different than what we do with language, but I can't escape the feeling that what I do with mathematics is somehow not quite the same. I've always seen language as a burden, a barrier I have to cross before I understand. Hence my use of "disconnect". Feynman's quote is very true, but it should be remembered that he was of the shut up and calculate school. Appropriate for his time, but we still lack a foundation for quantum mechanics. Once we find it our "intuition" may change.

Quoting xgy3: "nothing can be done without a good notation". I've forgotten who said it.

I suspect that there is a reason for the use of symbols. They make it easier to see the patterns. Sure, we could write mathematics in plain English but we would still have to parse it out into something else to "understand", to "see" the meaning. You might argue that is no different than what we do with language, but I can't escape the feeling that what I do with mathematics is somehow not quite the same. I've always seen language as a burden, a barrier I have to cross before I understand. Hence my use of "disconnect".

Feynman's quote is very true, but it should be remembered that he was of the shut up and calculate school. Appropriate for his time, but we still lack a foundation for quantum mechanics. Once we find it our "intuition" may change.

"A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there." Darwin.

Quoting xgy3: I suspect that there is a reason for the use of symbols. They make it easier to see the patterns. Sure, we could write mathematics in plain English but we would still have to parse it out into something else to "understand", to "see" the meaning. You might argue that is no different than what we do with language, but I can't escape the feeling that what I do with mathematics is somehow not quite the same. I've always seen language as a burden, a barrier I have to cross before I understand. Hence my use of "disconnect".

Yes, language is a burden because colloquial speech may lack the precision enforced by math. When you study math, you learn rules for manipulating the symbols, and this gives you very powerful tools for reasoning. It can all be done via language too, but that's very much less efficient.

Quoting xgy3: ... but we still lack a foundation for quantum mechanics. Once we find it our "intuition" may change.

Our intuition is formed by our interactions in a particular domain of size. For example, we don't handle individual atoms and feel the forces between them with our hands. So I think the feeling that QM is

Quoting spandrel: "A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there." Darwin.

By relieving the brain of all unnecessary work, a good notation sets it free to concentrate on more advanced problems, and in effect increases the mental power of the race. Before the introduction of the Arabic notation, multiplication was difficult, and division even of integers called into play the highest mathematical faculties. Probably nothing in the modern world would have more astonished a Greek mathematician than to learn that a large proportion of the population of Western Europe could perform the operation of division for the largest numbers. This fact would have seemed to him a sheer impossibility. Our modern power of easy reckoning with decimal fractions is the almost miraculous result of the gradual discovery of a perfect notation.

Yep, Whitehead. From 1911. I think he had another one like that too ...

Quoting spandrel: "A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there." Darwin.

A physicist is a man outside a dark room looking for a cat that may or may not be alive in there.

Quoting claymisher: Yep, Whitehead. From 1911. I think he had another one like that too ...

A wonderful reference. I actually have this but have to admit I have not looked at it for years. The paragraph you cite together with the subsequent two or three provide a perfect context to the Willard/xgy3 discussion above.

Biologically speaking aren't language and mathematics general considered left brain functions, thus closely related, where as intuition and synthesis generally considered right brain functions?

As a footnote to a discussion with Caledonian, Pinker and Wright admirably tackle Ludwig Wittgenstein's inscrutable opacity concerning statements. I won't admit to any insight, only that I share their pain. One seminar in skepticism with a professor about as comprehensible as Tractatus left me with too much curiosity and reams of notes effectively full of gibberish. I will admit I tend more to the "mystical" interpretation than to the "humble" one, but I don't believe they are exclusive. Yet, thanks to Pinker I at least have an alternative interpretation. Perhaps this alternative interpretation is what Caledonian was alluding to.

I have two questions about Pinker's argument about violence: 1. Isn't Pinker positing progress where there's a paradox? 2. How do we square progress with the argument, that human civilization became more violent with the advent of agriculture in the Neolithic than in the hunter-gathering clans of the Paleolithic?

I implore you not to rush into that tangle without a guide. Seriously, if you really want to read that book, take a class. Let the instructor either sell you on an interpretation, or self-destruct in front of you. It is not a book that will give you a fuzzy feeling of accomplishment. It's more like trying to figure out a spider's web without becoming the spider or the prey.

Quoting Baltimoron: I implore you not to rush into that tangle without a guide. Seriously, if you really want to read that book, take a class. Let the instructor either sell you on an interpretation, or self-destruct in front of you. It is not a book that will give you a fuzzy feeling of accomplishment. It's more like trying to figure out a spider's web without becoming the spider or the prey.

Too late, Baltimoron, too late... I'm barely recovering from a state of near-coma caused by extensive brain short-circuiting... while I was trying to read the Tractatus Nefastus...
Just kidding. But thank you for the advice. I'll wait until I'm enjoying a full state of mental health and I have tons of free time before trying...

Wow! I'm looking forward to this discussion. I figured Bob might know Pinker especially since he was mentioned in The Blank Slate. Pinker is such a fine writer and thinker.

Quoting badhatharry: Wow! I'm looking forward to this discussion. I figured Bob might know Pinker especially since he was mentioned in The Blank Slate.

Pinker is such a fine writer and thinker.

There's another, older interview on Wright's MeaningOfLife.tv.
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=pinker

Fabulous diavlog and the comments are as fascinating and intelligent as the speakers. One of the things that came to mind when Pinker and Wright were talking about non-zero sum solutions and and the wisdom of cooperation is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. His forth level includes self esteem and respect of others, while morality occurs on the fifth level. This seems to line up with Pinker’s (and Bob's) ideas quite nicely. I think euphemisms for ‘do you want to have sex?’ aren’t as ubiquitous today as these two middle-agers seem to think. I think the people in the current 20-ish generation have no trouble being perfectly candid about their desires, although I'm sure saving face is still very important. I’d like to explore the threw/carry example a bit further and ask if this could be more a grammatical phenomenon than something in which our 'basic ways of carving up reality' plays a part. I’m sure Pinker researched this before he said it, but my question would be aren’t word usages changing all the time? Pinker is such a wordsmith. His writing is so intelligent and off the

Quoting AemJeff: There's another, older interview on Wright's MeaningOfLife.tv.
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=pinker

Wow, Bob goes way back. I just learned about the bloggingheads phenomenon fairly recently, but read Bob's book The Moral Animal many years ago. ....another example of what I don't know (so I guess I shouldn't talk about it!).

I’d like to explore the threw/carry example a bit further and ask if this could be more a grammatical phenomenon than something in which our 'basic ways of carving up reality' plays a part. I’m sure Pinker researched this before he said it, but my question would be aren’t word usages changing all the time?

I haven't read The Stuff of Thought, but from Pinker's talks I gather that his examples hold across a wide variety of languages.

Godwin's Law, condensed: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/240...2:51&out=02:56

Quoting Ocean: Fascinating diavlog!

Yep! Many thanks Bob and Steve!

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: I haven't read The Stuff of Thought, but from Pinker's talks I gather that his examples hold across a wide variety of languages.

I'm sure they do. It's just that he didn't flesh out (sufficiently for me) the difference inherent in those two verbs. I guess I'll have to get his book. I'm glad he has a new one.

I did read The Stuff of Thought (and would HIGHLY recommend it). I can't say that I remember enough details, but I do remember that chapter (one of the best in the book) and I felt that Pinker's examples (there were many) were pretty convincing. He's definitely thorough in laying out his theories. I would love to see a diavlog with Pinker and John McWhorter about language. Great diavlog.

[quote=uncle ebeneezer;139672 I would love to see a diavlog with Pinker and John McWhorter about language. Great diavlog.[/QUOTE] I would love to see Noam Chompsky and Pinker discuss language, that is if Chompsky is still interested in language. And I would love to see John Horgan and Pinker discuss Horgan's stated presumption that evolutionary psychologists are all nice, liberal, progressive democrats.

Quoting badhatharry: I would love to see Noam Chompsky and Pinker discuss language, that is if Chompsky is still interested in language.

And I would love to see John Horgan and Pinker discuss Horgan's stated presumption that evolutionary psychologists are all nice, liberal, progressive democrats.

And this had been such a nice, nonpartisan thread up till now...

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I did read The Stuff of Thought (and would HIGHLY recommend it). I can't say that I remember enough details, but I do remember that chapter (one of the best in the book) and I felt that Pinker's examples (there were many) were pretty convincing. He's definitely thorough in laying out his theories.

Agreed, and to address Tyrrell McAllister's other question, Pinker touches upon some 34 languages, plus sign language.

I'm surprised Pinker failed to mentioned Christianity as a factor contributing to our modern cosmopolitan, universalist point of view. It is hard to exaggerate its role in ending slavery to take one important example. People like Wilberforce and Harriet Beecher Stowe were not acting out of any sense of non-zero-sumness, nor of dialogue with Africans, or abstract philosophy: they were animated by faith in God and the teachings of Jesus as they found them in the Bible. A similar case could be made for the role Frances Perkins played in getting the New Deal enacted into law. In fact the examples are legion.

I'm surprised Pinker failed to mentioned Christianity as a factor contributing to our modern cosmopolitan, universalist point of view. It is hard to exaggerate its role in ending slavery to take one important example.

I am surprised that Pinker fails to mention Neanderthal culture as a factor contributing to our modern cosmpolitan, universalist point of view. It is hard to exaggerate Neanderthal's role in ending slavery, to take one important example. Neanderthals made tools, buried their dead and worshipped bear gods. Obviously, toolmaking was an early precursor to the belief that technology could replace slaves. The Bear God shows us the way to a Higher Power can guide our behavior and burying the dead shows a reverece for life essential to the abolitionist movement. Thank you, Neanderthal sisters and brothers!

Dear Wonderment, Don't be such a sarcastic jerk. I was responding to one of the points Pinker made between 44:30 to 48:00, regarding the emergence of the modern humanitarian-cosmopolitan point of view. Re-listening more carefully, however, I think my point may have implicitly been included already in what Pinker was saying, namely, that the spread of literacy and of print made it possible for people to learn about the contents of the Bible (which Catholics did not allow) and, through modern reportage, about the suffering of others with whom they had no direct contact for reasons of class and geographical distance. Whether the extension of sympathy with increasing knowledge was natural in and of itself or was influenced by religious ideas and beliefs (got from reading of the Bible) is an issue of intellectual history pure and simple. It has nothing to do with whether such beliefs are "true" (whatever that means) or whether you share them or whether they have much influence today among our educated elites, which obviously they do not. They used to though, at least in my opinion. Do you disagree?

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: I'm surprised Pinker failed to mentioned Christianity as a factor contributing to our modern cosmopolitan, universalist point of view. It is hard to exaggerate its role in ending slavery to take one important example.

Quoting Wonderment: I am surprised that Pinker fails to mention Neanderthal culture as a factor contributing to our modern cosmpolitan, universalist point of view. It is hard to exaggerate Neanderthal's role in ending slavery, to take one important example.

And they're off! However, there are a series of talks where you can get Pinker's view on the evolutionary basis of, if not Christianity per se, religion in general. The talks are in a serious of videos that you can view here. I believe he touches on the issue of cosmopolitism a bit more around part 5. Personally, while I find much of Pinker's work of great interest, it is precisely in these areas (not necessarily restricted to religion) that I become a bit more skeptical and think that there may be a bit of over-reaching going on. Again, referring to Orr: "... evolutionary psychology suffers a methodological problem: it is at times surprisingly unrigorous. Too often, data are skimpy, alternative hypotheses are neglected, and the entire enterprise threatens

I'm surprised Pinker failed to mentioned Christianity as a factor contributing to our modern cosmopolitan, universalist point of view. It is hard to exaggerate its role in ending slavery to take one important example.

The question is, Why did Western society become more peaceful? Maybe the historical record supports the assertion that a certain part of Western society (specifically, the religious part) became more peaceful, and this spread to the other parts. But, even if you can establish that this is true, it's really too proximate a cause to be a real explanation. The question then becomes, Why did that first part of Western society become more peaceful in the first place? It's like explaining why all the dominoes in a row fell by pointing out that the first domino fell. That might be an important part of the story, but the real question is, What caused the first domino to fall? At any rate, I don't think that the historical record supports the claim that Christianity caused the reduction in violence. The 10-fold reduction didn't happen until about 1000 years after Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. If we want to

Thanks for the link, Spandrel. You obviously know more about this than I do.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: I was responding to one of the points Pinker made between 44:30 to 48:00, regarding the emergence of the modern humanitarian-cosmopolitan point of view.

I went back to the section you mentioned above and now recall that I was surprised that Pinker did not mention V.S. Ramachandran's work in the area of mirror neurons (or at least the evolutionary consequences of it). Much of what Pinker is referring to in the segment you mention (along with the video reference I gave in my previous post) relate to the 'Theory of Mind' or what Dennett calls the "intentional stance" and I think that current research in mirror neurons is providing support for a biological basis of this.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Thanks for the link, Spandrel. You obviously know more about this than I do.

I definitely wouldn't assume that :-)

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: The question is, Why did Western society become more peaceful? Maybe the historical record supports the assertion that a certain part of Western society (specifically, the religious part) became more peaceful, and this spread to the other parts. But, even if you can establish that this is true, it's really too proximate a cause to be a real explanation. The question then becomes, Why did that first part of Western society become more peaceful in the first place?

It's like explaining why all the dominoes in a row fell by pointing out that the first domino fell. That might be an important part of the story, but the real question is, What caused the first domino to fall?

At any rate, I don't think that the historical record supports the claim that Christianity caused the reduction in violence. The 10-fold reduction didn't happen until about 1000 years after Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. If we want to understand what pacified Europe, we should look for causes that came into play around the time that the pacification happened. It's unsurprising that, once Europe was pacified, the dominant religion in Europe, which had presided over

Hahaha!
Love it.
C & S, you are funny!
We may need a DVD release, _Bloggingheads Comedy Classics_. Poor Bob.

Quoting xgy3: I suspect that there is a reason for the use of symbols. They make it easier to see the patterns. Sure, we could write mathematics in plain English but we would still have to parse it out into something else to "understand", to "see" the meaning. You might argue that is no different than what we do with language, but I can't escape the feeling that what I do with mathematics is somehow not quite the same. I've always seen language as a burden, a barrier I have to cross before I understand. Hence my use of "disconnect".

Interesting observation. I wonder if the relative easiness of mathematics (for those who master the symbols at least) has something to do with the fact that in mathematics we are dealing with identities (numbers, spacial relations, unchanging operations) whereas when we use language we are more often dealing with relations of similarity, difference and fuzziness? To say nothing of the fact that grammar and syntax vary so much from langage to language and are full of irregularities that are often of historical origin. I know that the Chomsky/Pinker "nativist" school believes otherwise.... I wasn't at all persuaded by Pinker's example of

Quoting AemJeff: And this had been such a nice, nonpartisan thread up till now...

Yes it has, but I guess I'm still smarting from the Horgan comment and the subsequent ones which explained that Horgan was only meaning to say that evo-psychologists are not racist, eugenics fans. Besides, I happen to know that Pinker admires the conservative view of things.... a stance I admire.

Quoting spandrel:
"... evolutionary psychology suffers a methodological problem: it is at times surprisingly unrigorous. Too often, data are skimpy, alternative hypotheses are neglected, and the entire enterprise threatens to slip into undisciplined storytelling. (One of the worst examples comes from Pinker himself. His popular piece on two cases of middle-class neonaticide is a nearly data-free account that comes perilously close to parody.[2] ) Concerns about rigor are surely the leading worry about evolutionary psychology among working biologists. Ask a molecular geneticist who's skeptical of Darwinian psychology to explain why. You won't hear that the slate is blank; you'll hear about "soft science." In the end, evolutionary psychology wants to have it both ways. It longs after the prestige of hard science but hopes to be held to a lower standard of rigor than, say, molecular biology."

Of course there is a lot to be skeptical about in evolutionary psychology and it would be hard to describe it in the same terms as one would molecular biology but no one can be less than curious about the ways evolution has translated to behavior. It is up to others to provide alternative hypothesis

Quoting badhatharry: Yes it has, but I guess I'm still smarting from the Horgan comment and the subsequent ones which explained that Horgan was only meaning to say that evo-psychologists are not racist, eugenics fans.

Besides, I happen to know that Pinker admires the conservative view of things.... a stance I admire.

I often think it's comical
How nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal,
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative! Gilbert and Sullivan quoted by Pinker in Chapter 16 of The Blank Slate Pinker is at pains to distance himself from this cartoonish view of the world, but you are right: he clearly sympathizes with it.

Quoting Francoamerican: Interesting observation. I wonder if the relative easiness of mathematics (for those who master the symbols at least) has something to do with the fact that in mathematics we are dealing with identities (numbers, spacial relations, unchanging operations) whereas when we use language we are more often dealing with relations of similarity, difference and fuzziness?

Good morning, sunshine. But math also deals with inequalities, over-lapping sets, fuzziness etc. N'est-ce pas?

Quoting look: Good morning, sunshine. But math also deals with inequalities, over-lapping sets, fuzziness etc. N'est-ce pas?

And good evening to you. Does math deal with fuzziness? My math never got that far. Only identical things can be equal or unequal. Are there identical things outside mathematics?

Quoting badhatharry: Of course there is a lot to be skeptical about in evolutionary psychology and it would be hard to describe it in the same terms as one would molecular biology but no one can be less than curious about the ways evolution has translated to behavior. It is up to others to provide alternative hypothesis and they have. I'm sure you are aware of Gould's criticism of the 'just-so' stories which he said have abounded in the evo-psych field. However, coupled with cognitive/neuro science, I think evolutionary psychology can become more and more rigorous.

I can't disagree with anything you say, and I'm not even sure Orr would (from the quote you cite). On the molecular biology comparison though, I don't think Orr is suggesting that evolutionary psychology necessarily be described in the same terms, but rather hold to something of the same level of rigor, and perhaps more importantly, that if it cannot, then let us not pretend it is doing so. I believe that is what he means by "having it both ways."

Quoting spandrel: I can't disagree with anything you say, and I'm not even sure Orr would (from the quote you cite). On the molecular biology comparison though, I don't think Orr is suggesting that evolutionary psychology necessarily be described in the same terms, but rather hold to something of the same level of rigor, and perhaps more importantly, that if it cannot, then let us not pretend it is doing so. I believe that is what he means by "having it both ways."

From what I have read, E.O. Wilson was encouraging the consilience of the social sciences and the hard sciences. He felt that the kind of rigor science demands could be better attained in that way. He encountered a lot of resistance by many including the philosopher, Richard Rorty.
I guess I haven't encountered, in my reading travels, evolutionary psychologists pretending to the same kind of rigor that molecular biology counts as standard. But I do think they attempt to back up their theories as much as they can, while always holding out, as any scientist does, that they may be wrong or not quite right.

Quoting Francoamerican: I often think it's comical
How nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal,
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative!

Gilbert and Sullivan quoted by Pinker in Chapter 16 of The Blank Slate

Pinker is at pains to distance himself from this cartoonish view of the world, but you are right: he clearly sympathizes with it.

Since the first sentence of that chapter reads "Gilbert and Sullivan got it mostly right in 1882..... ", I don't see that he was distancing himself one whit from what you call a cartoonish view of the world. He goes on to give myriad examples of why he thinks this analysis holds true. And by the way, what I said was that he sympathized with the conservative view which is quite different from the way you characterized what I said.

Quoting spandrel: There goes Bob throwing the pejoratives around again. We need a version of 'Commenter Court' for the people.

A commenter led court against diavloggers would be very fun, but it would probably get out of hand.

Quoting JonIrenicus: A commenter led court against diavloggers would be very fun, but it would probably get out of hand.

First in the dock would be Mickey, for abandoning his fans...just a bone once in awhile Micks...we're darn loyal.

Quoting badhatharry: Since the first sentence of that chapter reads "Gilbert and Sullivan got it mostly right in 1882..... ", I don't see that he was distancing himself one whit from what you call a cartoonish view of the world. He goes on to give myriad examples of why he thinks this analysis holds true.

And by the way, what I said was that he sympathized with the conservative view which is quite different from the way you characterized what I said.

If Gilbert and Sulivan are right, then Pinker must be wrong. According to Pinker liberalism is a freak of nature, an erroneous philosophy based on an erroneous understanding of (human) nature. Evolutionary psychology proves that conservatism is the only true philosophy. Ergo: liberals should be extinct by now. Pinker has a cartoonish view of the difference between liberalism and conservativism because he claims that the distinction between them overlaps the distinction between the SSSM (standard social science model) of human behavior and evolutionary psychology. Since SSSM is a strawman, his case is as solid as are all cases that consist in knocking down a strawman.

Wittgenstein says there are no philisophical problems. Only problems in how we talk about these philisophical problems. Basically, don't look for meaning, look for use.

Quoting Francoamerican: And good evening to you.

Does math deal with fuzziness? My math never got that far.

Only identical things can be equal or unequal. Are there identical things outside mathematics?

Well, I only got as high as trig. But I've heard of something called fuzzy logic, which as I understand it allows systems to respond to a range of values in receiving input. For example, when a automated phone machine ask you to say yes or no, the interpretation would be based an acceptable range of hertz (pitch) in the response. 'Are there identical things outside mathematics?' Philosophy (symbolic logic)? Please advise.

Quoting look: Well, I only got as high as trig. But I've heard of something called fuzzy logic, which as I understand it allows systems to respond to a range of values in receiving input. For example, when a automated phone machine ask you to say yes or no, the interpretation would be based an acceptable range of hertz (pitch) in the response.

'Are there identical things outside mathematics?'

Philosophy (symbolic logic)? Please advise.

Symbolic logic was devised by mathematicians or by mathematically inclined philosophers. I suppose it is an improvement on traditional logic, which had already attained a kind of summit in Aristotle's writings---so thought Kant anyway. Logic and mathematics have always gone hand in hand: the principle of identity, of non-contradiction, of the excluded middle, all suppose a world of unchanging essences. Symbolic logic sometimes helps to sort things out that would otherwise be ambiguous, but personally I don't see how it matters that much. Unless, that is, you think, as many Anglo-American philosophers of the 20th century thought, that philosophy and logic chopping are the same thing. I have heard the term fuzzy logic too. Perhaps this is just an example of fuzzy logic in action?

Quoting Francoamerican: Symbolic logic was devised by mathematicians or by mathematically inclined philosophers. I suppose it is an improvement on traditional logic, which had already attained a kind of summit in Aristotle's writings---so thought Kant anyway. Logic and mathematics have always gone hand in hand: the principle of identity, of non-contradiction, of the excluded middle, all suppose a world of unchanging essences.

Symbolic logic sometimes helps to sort things out that would otherwise be ambiguous, but personally I don't see how it matters that much. Unless, that is, you think, as many Anglo-American philosophers of the 20th century thought, that philosophy and logic chopping are the same thing.

I have heard the term fuzzy logic too. Perhaps this is just an example of fuzzy logic in action?

Touché. But I take your original point. Very interesting. I recall a passage from CS Lewis saying that numbers, measurements, etc, only describe reality, and that we can never be one with it, and that heaven would be the merging of the measurement with the essence...or some such. Like in Zen, words and thoughts separate us from reality.

Quoting look: Touché. But I take your original point. Very interesting.

I recall a passage from CS Lewis saying that numbers, measurements, etc, only describe reality, and that we can never be one with it, and that heaven would be the merging of the measurement with the essence...or some such. Like in Zen, words and thoughts separate us from reality.

That's only because he'd never encountered a differential equation.

Quoting look: Touché. But I take your original point. Very interesting.

I recall a passage from CS Lewis saying that numbers, measurements, etc, only describe reality, and that we can never be one with it, and that heaven would be the merging of the measurement with the essence...or some such. Like in Zen, words and thoughts separate us from reality.

I didn't intend to disparage mathematics or logic. They have their legitmate place in science, but since the scientific revolution of the 17th century in physics and cosmology, there have been two other scientific revolutions of equal importance: in history and biology. Neither the history of life on earth nor the history of mankind lends itself to mathematics or to mathematical logic. C.S. Lewis was a brilliant apologist for Christianity, but he was also a bit of a medievalist nut. Sorry!

Quoting Francoamerican: Neither the history of life on earth nor the history of mankind lends itself to mathematics or to mathematical logic.

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Thank you bj, but it would be nice if you could tell me what you have learned from all this stuff. I can google too. I have read enough popular accounts of evolution to know that mathematics have been used since the 1930s in evolutionary theory. So what?

Quoting Francoamerican: Thank you bj, but it would be nice if you could tell me what you have learned from all this stuff.

Sorry, I can't. Those fields are not among my areas of expertise. I only know that they exist and are active.

Quoting Francoamerican: I can google too.

It did not appear so from that statement of yours to which I just responded.

Quoting Francoamerican: I have read enough popular accounts of evolution to know that mathematics have been used since the 1930s in evolutionary theory. So what?

So your statement was not entirely correct. Just thought I'd point that out.

Quoting Francoamerican: I didn't intend to disparage mathematics or logic. They have their legitmate place in science, but since the scientific revolution of the 17th century in physics and cosmology, there have been two other scientific revolutions of equal importance: in history and biology. Neither the history of life on earth nor the history of mankind lends itself to mathematics or to mathematical logic.

C.S. Lewis was a brilliant apologist for Christianity, but he was also a bit of a medievalist nut. Sorry!

I know. With the Lewis and Zen thoughts I was just riffing off speech's limitations in conveying thought. I really enjoyed A.N. Wilson's surprising biography of Lewis.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry, I can't. Those fields are not among my areas of expertise. I only know that they exist and are active.

It did not appear so from that statement of yours to which I just responded.

So your statement was not entirely correct. Just thought I'd point that out.

I think I made it pretty clear in another exchange with claymisher et al. what I think of population studies when applied to evolution: pure bullshit. Tautologies from beginning to end. There are no data about extinct species, so there cannot be calculations of probability regarding them. You underestimate me if you think I cannot google as well, and perhaps even better, than you!

Quoting Francoamerican: And good evening to you.

Does math deal with fuzziness? My math never got that far.

Only identical things can be equal or unequal. Are there identical things outside mathematics?

I think math can deal with fuzziness. You could argue that simple probability theory deals with fuzziness. Mathematicians try to do this in a very controlled way so that everyone can agree on the reasoning. Language deals with fuzziness too, but not in a very controlled way. Each word is fuzzy.

Quoting Francoamerican: I think I made it pretty clear in another exchange with claymisher et al. what I think of population studies when applied to evolution: pure bullshit.

I did not bother following that thread once I saw where it was headed, and I'm not going to do so now. As to your final two words: You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how uninformed they are, but that doesn't mean I have to respect them.

Quoting Simon Willard: I think math can deal with fuzziness. You could argue that simple probability theory deals with fuzziness. Mathematicians try to do this in a very controlled way so that everyone can agree on the reasoning. Language deals with fuzziness too, but not in a very controlled way. Each word is fuzzy.

Statistics, probability theory etc. use numbers and numbers, unlike words, are identities. Statistical probability is "fuzzy" but is it anywhere near as fuzzy as the word "fuzzy"? The belief that words refer to identical essences---the word "horse" to the eidos (form, idea, essence) of horse---was an ingenious bit of mathematical metaphysics, but Plato was wrong. There are only individual horses and the word "horse" is nothing but a linguistic abstraction.

Quoting bjkeefe: I did not bother following that thread once I saw where it was headed, and I'm not going to do so now.

As to your final two words: You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how uninformed they are, but that doesn't mean I have to respect them.

Yes, I have noticed that you reduce everything to politics. You might have actually learned something had you followed the thread. In any case, for someone of your level of education to accuse me of being uninformed is ludicrous.

Quoting Francoamerican: Yes, I have noticed that you reduce everything to politics.

You've noticed incorrectly. I also care a lot about other things, including actual science, more so, it seems clear, than do you.

You might have actually learned something had you followed the thread.

No, I am sure I would not have. I glanced at enough to see it was the same old same old -- you attempting to bamboozle people by dropping names of dead philosophers who share(d) your predisposition to think that evolution must not be right because you don't like admitting humans are animals.

In any case, for someone of your level of education to accuse me of being uninformed is ludicrous.

Yeah, I noticed you tried pomposity in that thread a few times, too. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. As Darwin famously said. ;^)

So you have noticed that Franco reverts to appeals to authority when he finds himself/herself on shaky grounds. Reminds me of Eric Alterman in that respect.

Quoting piscivorous: So you have noticed that Franco reverts to appeals to authority when he finds himself/herself on shaky grounds. Reminds me of Eric Alterman in that respect.

No, that is not at all what I said. He is appealing to people who have no authority. I don't know what this has to do with your clumsy attempt to disparage someone who has more sense in his pinkie than you will ever dream of acquiring, but I guess the statement Alterman=liberal=bad in your simplistic worldview about sums it up.

Quoting Francoamerican: Statistics, probability theory etc. use numbers and numbers, unlike words, are identities. Statistical probability is "fuzzy" but is it anywhere near as fuzzy as the word "fuzzy"?

The belief that words refer to identical essences---the word "horse" to the eidos (form, idea, essence) of horse---was an ingenious bit of mathematical metaphysics, but Plato was wrong. There are only individual horses and the word "horse" is nothing but a linguistic abstraction.

I think I agree, but I'm not completely sure I understand what you think your words mean. ;-)

Is there a charge for you running your projector in overdrive or do I just get it for free?

Quoting piscivorous: Is there a charge for you running your projector in overdrive or do I just get it for free?

Here's a nickel, kid: go buy yourself a new retort. You and your furry friend have burned this one out.

Quoting badhatharry: I guess I haven't encountered, in my reading travels, evolutionary psychologists pretending to the same kind of rigor that molecular biology counts as standard. But I do think they attempt to back up their theories as much as they can, while always holding out, as any scientist does, that they may be wrong or not quite right.

I really do not think that the real issue is whether or not claims made within the field should necessarily be held to the same level of exactness as say, the description of the transfer of information from DNA to mRNA through protein transcription factors (although some claims have come perilously close to this). But it is here important, I think, to understand exactly why many working in the biological sciences want to hold researchers in the field of evolutionary psychology to a fairly high standard. Evolutionary psychology aims to take as its foundation the relatively solid field of molecular biology and genetics, combine it with the somewhat less certain field of evolutionary biology (here I do not mean 'less certain' to mean more 'doubtful' or 'dubious', only that there are some pretty large areas of disagreement

Quoting bjkeefe: You've noticed incorrectly. I also care a lot about other things, including actual science, more so, it seems clear, than do you.

No, I am sure I would not have. I glanced at enough to see it was the same old same old -- you attempting to bamboozle people by dropping names of dead philosophers who share(d) your predisposition to think that evolution must not be right because you don't like admitting humans are animals.

Yeah, I noticed you tried pomposity in that thread a few times, too. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As Darwin famously said.

;^)

Actually, BJ you are the one who likes to appeal to authorities, even when you haven't read them or haven't the slightest idea of what they say, as in the above flurry of googling. You even admitted in your reply that you had no knowledge of the subject. Curiously, you then accused me of being uninformed! As for my pompous references, well what can I say? Am I to blame for your inferior education?

Spandrel writes... Judicious remarks which I endorse fully. I think people will eventually recoil in disbelief from the extravagant claims of evolutionary psychology. Freud in comparison seems to me pretty sane. But in the meantime POP EVOPSY pervades the intellectual climate of the US and the UK. Why have Darwinian fairytales always been so popular in English-speaking lands but not elsewhere? There is good book by a former neurobiologist and psychologist that traces the fortunes of Darwinism in the 20th century from the Modern Synthesis to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Kenan Malik: Man, Beast and Zombie. What science can tell us about human nature. (UK, 2000)

Quoting Francoamerican: Spandrel writes...

Judicious remarks which I endorse fully. I think people will eventually recoil in disbelief from the extravagant claims of evolutionary psychology. Freud in comparison seems to me pretty sane. But in the meantime POP EVOPSY pervades the intellectual climate of the US and the UK. Why have Darwinian fairytales always been so popular in English-speaking lands but not elsewhere?

There is good book by a former neurobiologist and psychologist that traces the fortunes of Darwinism in the 20th century from the Modern Synthesis to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Kenan Malik: Man, Beast and Zombie. What science can tell us about human nature. (UK, 2000)

Last week you were saying natural selection is tautological and meaningless. That's not what spandrel is saying here.

Quoting Francoamerican: Actually, BJ you are the one who likes to appeal to authorities, even when you haven't read them or haven't the slightest idea of what they say, as in the above flurry of googling.

It is hardly an "appeal to authority" merely to point out that lots of people are doing work in various fields. You need a new retort. You're starting to sound like the wingnuts on this site.

You even admitted in your reply that you had no knowledge of the subject. Curiously, you then accused me of being uninformed!

You're conflating my acknowledging that I had no expertise in the specific fields I listed to dispute your assertion that math was not applicable to biology with my observation that your understanding of evolution seems limited to knowing what philosophers say about it.

As for my pompous references, well what can I say?

Nothing that I care to hear.

Quoting claymisher: Last week you were saying natural selection is tautological and meaningless. That's not what spandrel is saying here.

It is tautological, until you or someone else can convince me otherwise. Tautologies are true (A=A), though they have no scientific value. Are they meaningless? As meaningless as pure logic, I guess. When you define fitness (adaptation) by survival and survival by fitness, what else is that but a tautology? I will let spandrel speak for himself, but he is clearly aware that the theory of evolution involves more than natural selection.

Quoting Simon Willard: I think I agree, but I'm not completely sure I understand what you think your words mean. ;-)

Then how can you agree? But I agree that I should have made my meaning clearer. Would you agree with the following? 1. Mathematics deals with unchanging essences, identities (numbers, points, lines, spacial relations, functions etc). 2. Outside mathematics nothing is identical with anything else: Everything flows, you cannot step into the same river twice---Hericlitus 3. Language hovers between these two worlds, the world of unchanging essences and the world of impermanent flux. 4. Philosophers since Plato have been obsessed by this duality. 5. Some have turned towards mathematics. 6. Others have turned towards language. 7. Some have become mystics and fallen silent. 8. Others have become scientists. 9. Most people just babble. 10. The rest is history.

Quoting Francoamerican: Then how can you agree? But I agree that I should have made my meaning clearer. Would you agree with the following?

1. Mathematics deals with unchanging essences, identities (numbers, points, lines, spacial relations, functions etc).

2. Outside mathematics nothing is identical with anything else: Everything flows, you cannot step into the same river twice---Hericlitus

3. Language hovers between these two worlds, the world of unchanging essences and the world of impermanent flux.

4. Philosophers since Plato have been obsessed by this duality.

5. Some have turned towards mathematics.

6. Others have turned towards language.

7. Some have become mystics and fallen silent.

8. Others have become scientists.

9. Most people just babble.

10. The rest is history.

Great post, Franco.

Quoting Francoamerican: Would you agree with the following?

1. Mathematics deals with unchanging essences, identities (numbers, points, lines, spacial relations, functions etc). It depends on what you mean by "deals with." Mathematics "deals' with" both changing and unchanging relations. If you mean "deals with" more to be the abstractions, represented by symbols, that it maniuplates, then yes. But as you use the phrase "unchanging essences," I'd tend to think you are characterizing (and placing a certain limitation on) the nature of what it can describe, in which case I'd say "no." 2. Outside mathematics nothing is identical with anything else: Everything flows, you cannot step into the same river twice---Hericlitus "Yes" to the first statement, but the implied connection between the first and second is misleading. The two statements are neither equivalent nor contradictory and the second is a philosophical conjecture. 3. Language hovers between these two worlds, the world of unchanging essences and the world of impermanent flux. I don't understand what you mean by stating that language itself 'hovers' between these two worlds. 4. Philosophers since Plato have been obsessed by this duality. Some have; others have not. But yes, it has historically been a central theme of much of philosophy. 5. Some have turned towards mathematics. Yes. 6. Others have turned towards language. Yes, and

Quoting spandrel: 1. Mathematics deals with unchanging essences, identities (numbers, points, lines, spacial relations, functions etc).

It depends on what you mean by "deals with." Mathematics "deals' with" both changing and unchanging relations. If you mean "deals with" more to be the abstractions, represented by symbols, that it maniuplates, then yes. But as you use the phrase "unchanging essences," I'd tend to think you are characterizing (and placing a certain limitation on) the nature of what it can describe, in which case I'd say "no."

2. Outside mathematics nothing is identical with anything else: Everything flows, you cannot step into the same river twice---Hericlitus

"Yes" to the first statement, but the implied connection between the first and second is misleading. The two statements are neither equivalent nor contradictory and the second is a philosophical conjecture..

There is a basic dichotomy between the world of mathematics, whether Greek or modern, and the world of sense perception and experience. It is true that modern mathematics, when wedded to physics, seeks to establish "laws" of motion but these laws describe constant relations. Whether we are dealing with numbers or geometrical figures or laws of motion we are, it seems to me, in the realm of unchanging essences, "ideas" in the Platonic sense, self-sameness (identity). You

Quoting Francoamerican: There is a basic dichotomy between the world of mathematics, whether Greek or modern, and the world of sense perception and experience. It is true that modern mathematics, when wedded to physics, seeks to establish "laws" of motion but these laws describe constant relations. Whether we are dealing with numbers or geometrical figures or laws of motion we are, it seems to me, in the realm of unchanging essences, "ideas" in the Platonic sense, self-sameness (identity).

Very well, your explanation here does help clarify for me what you meant by #1. I guess my only comment here would be to suggest that where you see, as implied by the remaining statements, this 'dichotomy' to be a major problem confronting philosophy (it certainly is), it can also be seen a major contributing factor in the development of intellectual thought. But I think you are saying something well beyond this in your other responses, and it is that I was trying to get clarification on.

Quoting Francoamerican: You apparently disagree with Heraclitus and Plato.

Too broad a statement I think. My only point here was that Heraclitus' absolute dialecticism does not necessarily follow from the observation that "nothing is identical with anything else."

Quoting Francoamerican: Try

Quoting claymisher: Last week you were saying natural selection is tautological and meaningless.

Quoting Francoamerican: It is tautological, until you or someone else can convince me otherwise. Tautologies are true (A=A), though they have no scientific value. Are they meaningless? As meaningless as pure logic, I guess. When you define fitness (adaptation) by survival and survival by fitness, what else is that but a tautology?

In some sense, this whole argument has seemed to degenerate to a level of linguistic and logical legerdemain. It feels a bit like engaging in a challenge to Newton's laws of motion based on an inability to answer Zeno with a logical proof, which I for one cannot do. I think my previous post explains why this aspect of the discussion is essentially unresolvable. Franco's formulation is in fact tautological but only because it is not an accurate statement of natural selection as understood by both evolutionary biologists and nature. As shown in the previous thread where the aforementioned comment appeared, Franco has managed to attach the phrase "natural selection" to a very slightly modified version of Hobbes and Malthus and then to attribute that to Darwin. Of course, Darwin said a great

Quoting spandrel: In some sense, this whole argument has seemed to degenerate to a level of linguistic and logical legerdemain. It feels a bit like engaging in a challenge to Newton's laws of motion based on an inability to answer Zeno with a logical proof, which I for one cannot do..

No one has ever challenged Newton's laws of motion...except Einstein. Zeno's paradoxes (or sophisms?) were answered pretty effectively by Bergson, weren't they?

Quoting spandrel: I think my previous post explains why this aspect of the discussion is essentially unresolvable. Franco's formulation is in fact tautological but only because it is not an accurate statement of natural selection as understood by both evolutionary biologists and nature..

Bizarre formulation. How does "nature" understand anything? Are you attributing purposes to nature? Anthropomorphism! Final causes!

Quoting spandrel: As shown in the previous thread where the aforementioned comment appeared, Franco has managed to attach the phrase "natural selection" to a very slightly modified version of Hobbes and Malthus and then to attribute that to Darwin. Of course, Darwin said a great deal more (a few of the specifics pointed out in some previous posts) which is why we today recognize him, not Malthus, as the

Hee hee! Link via an ad that appeared at the top of this thread page: Teach the Controversy.

Quoting spandrel: I certainly agree that "sense experience", "subjectivity", and "culture" underpin most if not all our use of "language." There are certainly some who do not believe that "words" are the way to "the truth" though, whether "mystics" or theoretical physicists; and some linguists. This would require a much deeper conversation into some of these terms, not the least - "the truth.".

Indeed. I tend to side with Nietzsche and Willian James on this question. There is a plurality of truths. The "truth" is either a metaphysical or Platonic chimera, or a hangover from theology.

Quoting spandrel: This challenge is not really connected in any meaningful way to my response. I certainly wasn't challenging the notion that philosophers are in most cases concerned with epistemology or, in just about all cases, aware of certain epistemological assumptions they may be making in their reasoning outside of the discipline of epistemology proper. My statement was only suggesting that many philosophers have not been "obsessed" with this duality to the extent that it has not been the primary object of attention in their studies, or they otherwise simply state one position or another as their starting point for analyses..

OK. I take back "obsessed." But much 20th-century anglophone

Quoting badhatharry: Since the first sentence of that chapter reads "Gilbert and Sullivan got it mostly right in 1882..... ", I don't see that he was distancing himself one whit from what you call a cartoonish view of the world. He goes on to give myriad examples of why he thinks this analysis holds true.

And by the way, what I said was that he sympathized with the conservative view which is quite different from the way you characterized what I said.

In that it's come up before, I'll point out that he said he voted for Obama.

Quoting spandrel: [i]

9. Most people just babble.

I have no experience of this, or seen any evidence of it.

well let me be the first person to welcome you to this planet - we call it "earth" (in english)

Quoting Baltimoron: 2. How do we square progress with the argument, that human civilization became more violent with the advent of agriculture in the Neolithic than in the hunter-gathering clans of the Paleolithic?

we show that it did not become more violent. the basic idea, as i understand it is this: imagine a bubble bath. each bubble is a culture. the outer shell of the bubble is in contact with other bubbles - these are the areas where the most violence occurs because we are dealing with the "other". agriculture's effect is to increase the size of the bubbles because it creates opportunities for specialization etc., so initially an agricultural population expands and collapses the surrounding bubbles into itself (probably entailing violence) - but you end up with fewer bubbles and thus, fewer zones of contact between different cultures and less violence. the basic premis: there is more violence where cultures are interacting with each other than within a culturally homogeneous space. a well documented observation: homogeneous cultural spaces have been expanding over time.

That's a good analogy.

thank you, sir. its a helpful visual for me - not sure if i may have cribbed it from jared diamond.

Quoting Francoamerican: Then how can you agree? But I agree that I should have made my meaning clearer. Would you agree with the following?

1. Mathematics deals with unchanging essences, identities (numbers, points, lines, spacial relations, functions etc).

2. Outside mathematics nothing is identical with anything else: Everything flows, you cannot step into the same river twice---Hericlitus

3. Language hovers between these two worlds, the world of unchanging essences and the world of impermanent flux.

4. Philosophers since Plato have been obsessed by this duality.

5. Some have turned towards mathematics.

6. Others have turned towards language.

7. Some have become mystics and fallen silent.

8. Others have become scientists.

9. Most people just babble.

10. The rest is history.

WIN