Re: Bad Science 2: "Anthropomorphism Rules OK."

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:51:12 -0400, in talk.origins , "Perplexed in
Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<695yl.21969$c45.20599@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Joe Cummings" <joecummings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:td7hs411tsfn31kk3bj5k7lluh68ne0pj8@xxxxxxxxxx


They're at it again at the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7957834.stm

This time, evidently, the perpetrator is a scientiist, Dr.
Andy Gardner.

In what seems to be a mathematical study of various types of
mass behaviour, we have the usual anthropomorphic terms: "for the
greater good of the hive," "the workers are happy to help the
community," "because the queen carries their genes," and so on.

He gives what must be interpreted as an exculpatory
qualification at the end of the article: "however superorganisms are
quite rare, and only exist when the internal conflict within a groups
is suppressed"...what kind of conflict could exist?...."so we cannot
use this term, for example, to describe human societies."

I think I'm touching a real problem when I in moan about the
imposition of human thought processes on animal studies. Evolutionary
psychology seems particularly prone to this.


You may be touching on a real problem, but I don't think you are
characterizing it correctly. I would say that the problem arises
because researchers in some field appropriate a common every-day
word ("conflict", for example, or "altruism") for use as a technical
term.

Organic, work, heat, energy, evolve, all have been appropriated by
scientists who now think they own the terms. I might add game and
strategy to the list as they are relevant here.

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Loading