Re: Social Darwinism


"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:atbcu1h1pqu973c1qul6htb10cbqgim574@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:21:27 -0700, in talk.origins , "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<glennsheldon-5OfFf.52$q3.1673@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

You must also accept that science can determine *why* we place
"good"
or "bad" labels on behaviors. Knowing how and why allows science to
tell us how to act.

Science can certainly explore naturalistic reasons for our use of
"good" and "bad" and evolution (particularly, but not exclusively,
selection) will play a role. To take a very specific example human
standards of physical beauty find clear skin and symmetrical
features
quite important. Both of those are makers for good health and good
genes. The selective connection is obvious. That result, however,
does
not tell *you* how to act no more that understanding of gravity
tells
you how to treat a cliff. Science does not tell me not to modern
uncooked chicken, it just tells me the likely results if I do eat
it.

That result you mention, of course is not enough information to
provide us with the reasons for our behaviors. However, that certainly
does provide some information as to what we should do. Our reasons do
not come from a void. Science did not need to tell us about gravity as
concerns the fact, but nevertheless our understanding of gravity does
tell us not to jump off the cliff. Of course, there are other reasons
involved, which is what I meant by these examples not providing enough
information. Societal rules are not that simple, you wouldn't want
science to be simple as well. And Matt, science most assuredly tells
you not to eat uncooked chicken. You don't, and you know if you do
that you stand a good chance of poisoning. There may be other reasons
why you are willing to take known risks, and science can also tell you
what the possible consequences are. You make the decision to act, just
as you make the decision to exceed the speed limit. In all situations,
your reasoning comes from knowledge. Whether you *should* act a
certain way is determined by this reasoning, and it is derived from
scientific knowledge. Not deriving reasons from science is seen as
irrational, dysfunctional. We certainly do not go around saying that
we should be dysfunctional or having ethical standards that amount to
chance or gambling. Society would break down, no one would be happy
and everyone would be hungry and cold. There would be no super bowl or
pooridge. This is not how we have supposedly evolved and *are*.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... you can't even demonstrate that science applies to all ... you did not disprove Zeus. ... evolution gave reasons to believe that there was a way to pass on ... IS the explanation for lightning. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: It is sublime
    ... than because it is their best understanding of the science. ... What are those reasons? ... Top Five bribers of Joe Barton, 2009, by industry ... And the Republican party has continued to divest itself of anybody who ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... you can't even demonstrate that science applies to all ... you did not disprove Zeus. ... Science builds reasons. ... The experiment on lighting didn't "get rid of Zeus," because no one went to Mt. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> But some reasons for rejecting evolution ARE unscientific. ... >>> scientists like that is a disservice to science. ... >>> by evidence, it's very difficult to build a consensus. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: And another problem for evolution
    ... Heat given off by the nuclear processes inside, ... literalist reading of the bible indicates. ... *science* sites would answer this. ... None of these reasons for knowing the age of the Earth are "guesses", ...
    (talk.origins)