@Gregor's banner p

Gregor

Fuge, late, tace.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 08 15:34:01 UTC

¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.

Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1525


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gregor


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Fuge, late, tace.

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 08 15:34:01 UTC
				


				
					

					
¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.



				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1525


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Old Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It is not a metaphor, it's an analogy. And you don't get the point. Of course we can see "natural selection in action", because it is true. The problem is that it cannot be false, so literally everything is proof that natural selection is true. Therefore it explains nothing and no new knowledge is won by this. Watching the car being painted red may be a good enough explanation, but watching the genes of the benefitial traits pass from one generation to the other doesn't change that Darwin's definition of benefitial traits is tautological.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Lol, you were the one bringing up examples that actually undermined your point, don't blame me for it. Secondly, I haven't gotten myself into any corners. I did respond to your other example, I literally said that there are things we can predict (remember the shark example?) - just that we don't need to read Darwin to predict them. But that doesn't change the fact that there are things that we can't predict. Would the brown rats still be as likely to survive in one thousand years? How about in one million years? Of course, you can predict that a predator will affect the population of a species, but there are things we cannot predict in nature, that's  how it works. If you could control all the variables of the evolution of a species then it wouldn't be natural selection would it? On the other hand Natural Selection does not gain any predictive power from stating the obvious, that individuals who get devoured won't pass on their genes. The facade would be believing that anything is explained by this circular argument.


I guess that if you are satisfied by such truisms then there's nothing for you to worry about, besides being a bore.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Of course, you can also see that the car is red with thousands of studies, and in real time...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				There’s no psychopathology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's funny because nowhere in the book does Darwin explain what a species is or how is it originated, but more to the point, Carl Linnaeus would like an amicable word with you, because you seem to ignore the fact that a century before Darwin people were already talking about "A branching Tree of Life". Hell, even Aristotle understood the concept and studied the "Tree of life" of the isle of Lesbos. I won't bother to prove that the rest wasn't new either. What was new, and I'm getting tired of repeating it, is the idea that nature was bound by XIXth century England's economic principles. Why are different species everywhere? I actually don't know, but I do know that Natural Selection explains nothing, because it only says that diverse species exist and copy-pasted species don't. But in fact both exist, and that also proves Natural Selection right. This is both obvious and useless, because it provides no new knowledge. The fact that you ignore history doesn't mean that what's obvious now wasn't obvious before. England's XIXth century ideas weren't obvious, and England's navy, without which Darwin wouldn't have been able to gather evidence from all around the world, was not useless either.


For the rest, when other people and I say that Natural Selection is an inherent trait of life, we mean to say that it is so only in possible universes. This is of course an arbitrary limitation because we don't actually know for sure what's ultimately possible and impossible, but such arbitrary limits are necessary to have any sort of meaningful conversation, since I can make up an universe where up means down and down means soup and nothing makes sense and you would understand nothing of what I'm saying. So of course you can make up an universe in your mind where Darwinism isn't tautological, but that doesn't prove anything.


And you know, you could take any biology book and change "Natural Selection" by "God" and nothing would change, the meaning of the text would remain the same. The difference being that Natural Selection is a tautology, while God is simply unknowable. Both explain nothing but one is more clever than the other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				There’s no psychopathology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Firstly, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I mean, 99.9% of people feel sad at some point in their lives, but is that supposed to make me feel better when I'm sad? The fact that most people have unique opinions doesn't change how I feel, i.e. feelings don't care about your facts. I appreaciate you trying to help but I'd much rather keep being a snowflake and discuss with people on the internets.


Secondly yes, you don't have to understand something to change it, and ultimate causes are a theological issue, not scientific, as Thomas Aquinas divinely demonstrated. The point still stands: Psychopathology does not exist. We do not have a scientific knowledge of mental pathologies. This is an information you won't ever need in your life but people can stop pretending psychopathology exists any time now. On the other hand, if you are content with this and do not feel at least a bit curious about what insanity is and how it works then you are a bore and we don't have anything to speak about.


Lastly, we do know how anaesthesia works, lol. What was that all about? Of course there's no "mechanism", but there is such a thing as anaesthesiology.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I do believe there's a confusion there because most people on this thread mix up Natural Selection and evolution as if they were the same thing. I'm aware that the term "Theory of Evolution" is used to speak about the current state of research on evolution, which is heavily influenced by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, but I believe that there's really no "theory of evolution", just like there's no "theory of everything", there are different fields of scientific research that try to piece together evolution, but no true "theory of evolution" to speak of. Unless I'm wrong, but in any case I'm not opposed to the use of the term, I just find it confusing because it mixes several fields of knowledge and even contradicting theories of evolution. So when I speak about the Theory of Natural selection I mean just that, Darwin's theory of evolution, which is certainly the most popular but not the only one, and to me at least, not the best.


For me it's quite hard to see the value in a tautological explanation. I understand that the grounds for any human knowledge is a tautology such as A=A. But this is suffered as an arbitrary imposition by the constraints of human language, not taken literally as the "law" of anything. So to me it's quite strange seeing people defend a tautology as if it had any real value. I think you have to try really hard to find real value in a tautology, so I must, at least, salute the effort.


Now, everything is a tautology is you try hard enough as well, but there's no point to it. I'm not saying we should destroy all of human knowledge because of its tautological foundations. It's possible to start from a tautology and reach a non-tautological explanation, even if we must be aware that this explanation is only temporary because it can only be expressed in terms defined tautologically. For instance: A=A and B=B therefore A=/=B. On the other hand, Natural Selection cannot reach anything beyond what its tautological definition states.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You know, when people started using antibiotics they didn't really predict that bacteria would become resistant to it. And they had Darwin's theory by that time. But now that resistant bacteria exists, you tell me that's proof of Natural Selection? You see how it works? No matter what example you give me, Natural Selection will always be the correct explanation, because it is no explanation at all. If bacteria hadn't become resistant then you would tell me that it lacked the traits for its survival, and so on. That's not a prediction, that's hindsight.


As I've said, there are things that are random (as far as we know) in nature and things that aren't. Natural Selection explains all, which means it explains nothing because it cannot meaningfuly distinguish randon and non random events. Right now you would predict that if a human being ingests arsenic they would die, but what if this human had a benefitial trait that made him inmune to arsenic? Natural Selection cannot discriminate what outcome is more likely, you'd have to look at genetics and physiology, none of which have any need for the theory of Natural Selection.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And what theory requires Natural Selection to be tested? Natural Selection only provides a language that biologists like to use (adaptation, benefitial traits, evolutionary pressures, etc) but nothing new, we had those concepts before Darwin. What it does provide is a framework for the naturalization economic prejudices. You say that we rarely talk about the pure logic of evolution. Doesn't this make this "logic" irrelevant?


But you didn't explain why Natural Selection can be false. Please elaborate on that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Natural Selection is no basis to make such predictions, because it can only predict that what already exists will likely continue to exist, unless it doesn't exist anymore on which case it will cease to exist. Of course, if you take a shark out of the water it will die, we can predict that 100%. But do we need Darwin for that? And you know what, even if the shark didn't die, that would still "prove" natural selection...


What predictions we can make don't need Natural Selection, and those we can't make aren't explained by Natural Selection either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, they may evolve heavy fur or they may go extinct, we can't predict that. Otherwise it would be lamarckism, not darwinism. Unless we could control the environment's conditions, on which case it wouldn't be natural selection but human selection. The tautology is that if dogs survive is because they had traits that allowed him to survive, and if they didn't survive then they didn't have them. So basically no matter the circumstances, Natural Selection is true because it does not explain anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
5000 years ago people knew that short haired cats had short haired offspring. Entire empires and civilizations were created out of the concept of inheritance. What people lacked was the theory of genes, but Darwin lacked that as well. Darwin does not explain at all why detrimental traits are passed down, if we were to prove then Darwin's theory would be false. But we cannot prove that things that don't exist are preserved. If something exists then it is 1. Benefitial, 2. Bening, or 3. Extinted/In process of disappearing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, yes, but I can't share your conclusion. There's no depth to a tautology. In every conceivable universe everything that has 2 legs doesn't have 3 legs. Do you consider this deep? It is no explanation at all. Truths that are universally true are usually just truisms.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
La constancia vence lo que la dicha no alcanza.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, that was not obvious but that wasn't Darwin's discovery either. There were plenty of people who studied natural history and arrived to that conclusion, and there were plenty of explanations for it as well, Lamarckism being perhaps the most notorious. Darwin was indeed very good at natural history and provided very thorough evidence for evolution. But this has nothing to do with Natural Selection. The theory of Natural Selection tries to explain evolution by stating that the least fit will die and the fittest will thrive. But what does fitness mean if not the ability to thrive, the lack of which causes death? And is it not obvious that those who thrive are more likely to pass on their genes than those who die? Species change, of that there is no doubt. But are we really supposed to be content by saying that those species who survive are alive and reproduce, while those that went extinct don't reproduce anymore?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Other thinkers had some good ideas, Darwin did as well but this is not one of them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You are correct, there are many tautologies that are not trivial. But Darwin's is, regardless of how many people use them, because they only use them as a historic relic (biologists) or to create nonsensical theories (evolutionary psychologists). All human knowledge is ultimately tautologic but it still beats no knowledge at all. Natural Selection is tautologic and it does not beat no explanation at all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No one had put together the theory of natural selection before because we had to wait for Malthus to publish his Essay On The Principle Of Population. We also had to wait for industrialization and secularism to come up with the idea that nature is bound by economic principles. As I said, Natural Selection explains nothing, the concept of Struggle for Existence is what made Darwin popular and different from other biologists.


Regarding your other statement, 4. would just be 1. with extra steps. And yes, people did make predictions about nature, they did it all the time. In fact, agriculture is based on the observation that certain conditions produced changes in the species that were benefitial for humans. You'd be surprised how "modern" some ancient thinkers were.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I really don't care about spreading my ideas, I wouldn't be in some obscure internet forum if that were the case. I just want to know what other people think, and most struggle to grap the concept of tautology and how it applies to natural selection. I don't see why I'd stop using the term since it is exactly what I mean and there's no better term to express what that. The fact that most people struggle with this goes to show how and why Darwin is so popular in spite of being tautologic, and that's not a fault in my argument. Unless I'm wrong, on which case I'd like to be corrected but that can only happen if I use the correct words to express exactly what I think.


I don't care to come up with an undeniable argument, because people will believe what they want regardless. Look at Richard Dawkins for instance. He stated that even if he saw Jesus Christ descending from a cloud and speaking directly to him, he'd still be an atheist and he would think that there's probably something wrong with his own sanity. There's no such thing as an undeniable argument, and whoever is not convinced by simple evidence won't be conviced at all, no matter how sophisticated the evidence is. I think we can only aspire to invite people to see what we have to say, and those who want to listen will listen and those who don't, won't. We can only convince other people to believe things they already believed in the first place, or things that are vulgar and commonplace.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's nothing new, Heraclitus already claimed that order can emerge out of chaos, and Thomas Aquinas solved the problem for Christianity. This is not Darwin's contribution. As I said, what he contributed was the idea that nature is bound by economic laws, which confirms the prejudices of our times. And he did so by proposing a tautologic explanation that explains nothing at all.