Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.
User ID: 1525
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
The world did not, in fact, believed that at all. We didn't wait for Darwin to understand that living creatures have the means to preserve their own lifes.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
No, I meant to say tautological. Most tautologies are trivial, and I believe this one is, but we are not discussing whether it's trivial or not, we are discussing whether it's tautological or not. The diversity of life is not explained at all by Natural Selection, because it only tells us that diversity exists because it exists. A nothingburger. What you'd like to study in order to understand nature's diversity is paleontology (to which Darwin made several contributions) and genetics, none of which need the theory of Natural Selection.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
I think you still fail to understand what a tautology is. Natural Selection does not explain the why of anything. Why do we see creatures with fins? Because they have survived. In other words, we see them because they are alive. What does this explain? You are exactly at the same point where you started. A tautology is, by definition, not an useful explanation. We didn't need to wait for Darwin to know that we can preserve and multiply creatures with desirable characteristics by keeping them alive and making them breed. The "why" of this is explained by genetics, not by Darwin's theory.
Now, how can we know that Natural Selection "selects" something? Because it exists. In your example, all this tells us is that people with sickle cells are not dead. Again, Natural Selection doesn't help us at all, we need genetics to understand why and how that happens. It's not true that we need Darwin's theory to notice atypical populations, this is just basic reasoning, and we certainly didn't wait for Darwin to start using it. Compare this to Lamarck's theory. His theory is not correct, ot least hasn't been proven, but it is not tautological because it explains how species acquire new traits, by a mechanism he called "inheritance of acquired traits", meaning that benefitial traits acquired by the parents are inherited by the offspring. So we could say, for instance, that if a car is blue it is because it somehow changed its DNA to be blue when it realized it would be faster, and then genetically passed on this knowledge. All that Darwin could say here is that where there are blue cars red cars did not survive.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
You are right, if we look hard enough we can find a tautology at the root of all human knowledge, but they are generally useful to study a share of reality. 2+2=4 may mean the same as 4=4, but by changing the terms you are providing new information: That this operation may be written differently. Pragmatically we can use this to explain many things. But when Darwin says that traits that favor the preservation of the species are preserved, no new information is gained. It describes an aspect of reality, but in terms that don't imply anything beyond themselves. Saying that everything that is red is not green accurately describes reality as well, but pragmatically fails at explaining anything.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
Well, I'm at a bit of a loss here. What do you think engineering is if not the application of natural sciences? It's not the fairy-loving-godmother that engineers things. Claude Bernard would vivisect you for saying that doctors are not scientists, and then Kraepelin and Jaspers would electroshock some sense into your computer for saying psychiatrists are not scientists. Psychopathology could be a bening illusion, but the fact that believing in something that does not exist doesn't hurt anyone is no argument to hold that belief, especially when we can be just as effective without it as we are now.
For the rest, last time I checked the preferred psychotherapies were third wave behavioral therapies like Behavioral Activation and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Even if in practice they apply cognitive techniques, they ultimately are followers of Skinner and therefore assert that neither the mind nor cognitive mechanisms exist. They also sustain that depression is not a brain problem but a behavioral one, and many (like Marino Perez Alvarez) go as far as to question the relevance of psychopathology. I don't particularly adhere to this school of thought but I do agree with their conclusion regarding psychopathology.
Lastly, I don't assert the impossibility of unpacking the blackbox of human cognition. What I said is that we are yet to find definitive proof that it is possible, so it's not time to make claims about what humans are programmed to do or not to do quite yet. I would also say, paraphrasing an scholia by Nicolás Gómez Dávila, that if the universe were so artless as to be comprehensible to the human brain, then it would be immeasurably and unbearably boring, and we would have legitimate reason to feel disappointed. It's hilarious that everytime humankind creates some wacky artifice it believes it holds the key to understanding the universe. It happened with fire, writing, mechanical watches, and now computers, and so shall it be per saecula saeculorum. I guess there are computers everywhere for those with the eyes to see.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
I don't like this explanation because it supposes a high amount of consciousness on the "elite"'s side, and I don't think that the experts really know what they are doing. In fact, I believe nobody knows, and that's why we have experts in the first place. You can be very good at something or very knowledageable in a specific subject, but what does that really mean? Isn't it all vain in the end? The truth is that people do things because there's nothing better to do, and sitting under a tree to medidate for 75 years isn't really an option for most of us.
For me the best explanation is that we are all very confused and very prone to deceive ourselves, so stumbling upon the correct answer is a matter of luck. And any answer that does not take this confusion into account is cheap and probably false, but it's also easier to ellaborate and disseminate, so opinions held by the masses are usually truisms or gross misunderstandings. It's also quite common that people are intelligent for something and dumb for something else, it happens all the time. I've seen very intelligent people do the following: They like X. One day, X does Y and they remain silent. The next day X's opponent does Y, and they start loudly criticizing X's opponen for Y, without noticing the contradiction. We cannot understimate people's ability to deceive themselves.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
Yes, I agree. But I think that good psychiatry is close to what another person on this thread called "engineering". I don't think there will be much breakthroughs in psychopathology in the future, because as you say it is a non-sequitur. What we can do is give people with... mental problems? the best treatment we can, and in that sense thinking of insanity as an illness has dramatically improved conditions for them. For me the problem is that if we continue creating effective treatments without knowing what we are treating we open up Pandora's box, and who knows what will be considered a disease in the future. This is the characteristic trait of modern society: It falls prey to its own effectiveness.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
Yes, but this does not change the fact that psychopathology does not exist. Of course social dysfunction is a relevant criteria to select the people who will receive psychiatric treatment, but would you say that criminals are all mentally ill? Certainly not.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
2mo ago
Respectfully, you are missing the point. I agree with what you say, this is why I started by saying this is not an anti-psychiatry post. What I'm saying doesn't change anything in clinical practice. I never said psychiatry doesn't work, quite the contrary. I explicitly say that it exists because it works. I think you have the right mindset by thinking of it more as an engineering practice, you are actually agreeing with me there.
If you think this is just semantics then fair enough, but I do believe the way we speak shapes the way we understand things. This is what it's about, our concept of psychopathology. You mentioned geriatrics, but geriatrics is an epistemologically sound specialization of medicine. What comes first, the loss of muscle mass or aging? In this case we can clearly stablish an object of knowledge even if we can't do anything to stop aging. The same happens with dementia: What comes first, the loss of cognitive function or the proteinopathy? Note that we don't know what causes the proteinopathy, but we do know for sure that Alzheimer's is a brain disease. So I ask again, if depression is a brain disease, then what comes first? Until we can confidently answer that, we can't really say that depression is a "disease like any other". The fact that changing someone's brain is a treatment for depression does not mean anything, because we could also make a carpenter change their profession by messing with their brain, and as I said, both being depressed and being a carpenter change your brain in predictable and observable patterns.
Let's see an example: There's a person who went through a break up and a year after that they still can't get over it, they feel sad all the time, they don't enjoy anything, and they think they won't be able to live without the person they love. Of course this is a problem, of course this person needs help, and thankfully we have the means to thelp them, that's wonderful. But are they sick? Is this because of a problem in their brain? We don't know. Unless we do, on which case you'd have to illustrate. This is a question that nobody is asking because they are busy choosing who gets the zap, as we cannot give psychiatric treatment or psychotherapy to everyone in the world, even though most people culd benefit from it at some point in their lives. But I do believe it is a question worth asking, even if it were only out of curiosity for the human condition.
I never implied this is some sort of forbidden knowledge, and this is what baffles me the most. Even though it is evident that there is no such thing as psychopathology, most people act as if there were. I know this doesn't really change anything but I can't understand it, this is what moved me to make this post. I also never implied psychiatrists are witch-doctors, because even though psychiatry has epistemological issues it is still a legitimate branch of medicine because of the fact that it works. Note that I'm saying that psychopathology does not exist, not that psychiatry does not exist, because it seems as one can exist without the other. I would prescribe you a text by Georges Canguilhem called What is Psychology, it is about psychology but many of the issues he points out are also applicable to psychiatry.
Regarding the blog by Dr. Sisskind, I fail to see how his argument changes anything. He's a psychiatrist (I think?) talking about a working definition of mental illness that serves his profession. If there's anything specific you think is relevant then please point it out. But the article does talk about evolutionary psychology and oh boy do I have something to say about that. I will make a post about it soon, but for now let's just say that it tries to explain something we don't understand using something we understand even less. It is another of those things that I feel like everyone's playing a prank on me by believing it's legitimate. The good thing is I can rest assured knowing that I'll have psychiatrists to take care of me.
I'll end with a fun fact: Psychiatrists are called "shrinks" precisely because they were in love with Freud, or as Chesterton and you pronounce it, Fraud. This is of course a translation issue, and the anglicized version of Freud has long been proved to be a flunk.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
First of all:
God protects all animals and won't allow any of them to suffer
You mean something like this?
When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.
That is a quote from Darwin btw. Besides neither St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas believed that animals do not suffer. That counterexample of yours is nothing but a strawman.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying...
You seem to understand it well enough to judge it as nonsensical. Or don't you understand what "nonsensical" means either? In any case, it doesn't get much clearer than this: The theory of Natural Selection is a tautology. For the rest all I can say is: ¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.
Erratum: Somebody did predict antimicrobial resistance.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
I'm aware of Mark Fisher's work, and I am aware that Darwin wasn't the one responsible for what you call "realist inevitability". I'll admit I have a personal bias against Darwinism, so I'll confess I don't really have a long-term strategy here. I just smelt blood and attacked the perceived weakness. The fact that Darwinists make all sorts of bold claims about nature and human behavior makes them more atractive targets.
The correct response to genetic realism, should always be to find new ways to grant our ideals control over our genetics.
I don't know about that but I do know what Gómez Dávila says: "With pessimism and a sense of humor, it's impossible to be wrong or bored."
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
Well, if I know that red is not green I can predict that if something is red, it won't be green. But this prediction is no enlightenment at all.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
You seem to be saying...
I'm not. Why don't you focus on what I actually said? I won't respond to the "then everything is a tautology" claim because I've already done so several times on these comments, even on this very thread if I recall correctly.
Newton says...
No he does not.
It does seem that you are complaining about...
Key word: Seem. I'm only stating that there's no counterexample to a tautology. Because I'm trying to explain that the theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
So that is how it differs from Darwin's explanation.
Yes, St. Augustine is not the same as Darwin. But in practical terms, Divine Selection and Natural selection have the same explanatory value. That is, none at all.
And yes, the Wikipedia article says that Flemming "predicted" antimicrobial resistance, but he "predicted" it in 1945, that is, 17 years after he discovered antibiotics. And he "predicted" it because he already observed the resistance in his laboratory. So no, he didn't "predict" it, he discovered it.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
Well, if you read the source I quoted you'd know that Augustine's doctrine of rationes seminales allowed Thomas Aquinas to move away from the essentialist position that made extinction metaphysically impossible. So yes, extinction is indeed implied.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
How can you start from (only) a tautology and reach a non-tautological explanation?
Don't ask me but that's how it works. A=A is the root of all logic, so is all of logic a tautology? Maybe, from a certain point of view. All human knowledge is basically translating obvious statements into a systematic set of relations that allows us to communicate more precisely and build upon the observations of others. Math is the best example here, it basically explains nothing, but allows us to understand the world. Darwin's tautology on the other hand doesn't say anything beyond itself. The fact that all living beings survive should not be the explanation to evolution, but the starting point of any biological science.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
And what is "the mechanism of selection"?
This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection
But
This statement is true but it’s useless as an explanation because it doesn’t give any information other than what is implied by its terms. Darwin’s critics accuse him of crafting a tautological statement because in his definition “favourable” or “beneficial” traits are defined as those that are preserved, and traits that are preserved are of course those that are favourable or beneficial.
So yes, Darwin did say that "traits that are benefitial are preserved", or in other words "those who survive, survive". Therefore, it is a tautology.
Your complaint seems to be that whenever...
No it isn't. My complaint is what I said it is, it's in the title of the post. As I said in another comment, if you wanna say that Darwin's theory is true and correct then go right ahead, but it is also trivial and useless.
And did you read the quote I cited? Here it is again:
The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, allowed Augustine to argue that species emerged sequentially in historical time rather than all at once.
In other words, Augustine argued that God selected some species to be born at specific points in time. This of course means that some other species where chosen to disappear in the same manner.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
Yes of course, if you turn my initial tautological statement into something completely different that's no longer tautological then yes, it's not a tautology anymore, but it's also not my initial statement.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
The predictions argument has already been addresed multiple times elsewhere, so I won't respond to it. But c'mon, "our domain knowledge of animals tells us that eyes are generally very useful things"?? Really? You don't say.
You say that mankind was humilliated by Darwin but I would claim the opposite is true. Before Darwin humans had a secondary place in the universe, they were created by something bigger and more powerful. After Darwin humankind has no rivals, and they supposedly hold the secret to explain all possible life in the universe. If anything, humans are more proudful and entitled now that ever before.
And you are wrong about the idea of exponential grows in subexponential resources being known before. Before Malthus people lacked the mathematical models necessary to understand the behavior of populations. One thing is making an empiric observation and another is describing a common pattern in all populations. There's also the idea, quite characteristic of the modern age, that mathematics alone explains the growth of populations. This led to some strange conclusions, like that war is good because it quells an overgrowth population. Once more, Darwin's work just expanded upon this idea.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
My mistake, you are right. The Soviets didn't look for the differences between the bourgeois and the working class in the genes, but they did had a notion of HBD and strived to create a New Soviet Man through a sort of eugenics.
The ape-man scandal was indeed before Stalin consolidated power.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
It's not simple, it's tautological. Of course I accept tautologies as true, I cannot not accept them.
Gregor
Fuge, late, tace.
1mo ago
The voluminous research and math and the "it was not obvious" claims I have countered elsewhere so you can read other comments on this thread, but it is true that there's a distinction between human and natural selection, and I'm aware of that. However, if we look at the issue with some detachment and with a metaphysical inclination, isn't human behavior also a part of nature? So it doesn't really matter if people are not predisposed to select favourable traits, because nature is.
The fact that people find Darwin's theory useful and applicable can only mean that they are in love with Darwin, because only love could blind them so.
¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.
More options
Context Copy link