Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

And then, of course, moralistic evolutionists would encourage "society" to feel sorry for the mentally ill who maimed or killed others. And when and if they can, blame law enforcement for hurting the mentally ill who got out of control. Etc.

In the modern world any behavior from biting other peoples' faces off to altruism with other peoples' money is OK. The only thing that isn't OK is having your own opinion, heresy, liberty, disputing dogma, or expecting to be safe in the cities.

This is the world created by having only rich people allowed to rent government. We eat cake right up until the minute it all collapses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the modern world any behavior from biting other peoples' faces off to altruism with other peoples' money is OK. The only thing that isn't OK is having your own opinion, heresy, liberty, disputing dogma, or expecting to be safe in the cities.

This is the world created by having only rich people allowed to rent government. We eat cake right up until the minute it all collapses.

What on earth are you babbling about...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Specialization is rarely conducive to seeing the big picture.

Agreed, but do you see that as a fault or limitation? Specialization was a distinguishing characteristic of civilization. Nomads were all the same except perhaps the shaman, who probably also was a hunter-gatherer. It's also a consequence of a burgeoning human fund of knowledge.

In my field, medicine, there's just too much to know to be competent at it all. General medicine spawned specialties like surgery, pediatrics, and psychiatry.

My specialty was internal medicine (diagnosis and therapeutics), but it has subdivided into assorted subspecialties like cardiology, hematology, and endocrinology. I can't do what those more specialized than I am can do, nor what the less specialized generalists can do. To work an ER or urgent care center, you have to be able to stabilize a bone fracture and handle an obstetric emergency. I can't do either, and thus couldn't do those jobs.

But the ER guy can't do my job, either. I would be called into the ER by the generalist when he needed the kind of help I could provide. Nor can the cardiologist. When his patient's diabetes is flaring, he calls an internist. We all know who to call for help - who to refer to - and that works well. And none of us see the big picture.

any "science" without commercial, military, or political applications isn't even performed any longer.

Disagree. Astronomy and cosmology are falsifying examples. So is abiogenesis research.

Science is more than mere methodology but also a perspective and state of mind.

Formal science is a method and the body of knowledge it generates. But we should recognize that that is only a subset of our empirical knowledge, most acquired by trial-and-error in daily life - what can be called informal science. Here I'm referring to knowledge such as where to find a good steak

 

[YoursTrue]

In the modern world any behavior from biting other peoples' faces off to altruism with other peoples' money is OK. The only thing that isn't OK is having your own opinion, heresy, liberty, disputing dogma, or expecting to be safe in the cities.

This is the world created by having only rich people allowed to rent government. We eat cake right up until the minute it all collapses.

Looking at today's news about the mass killings, governments obviously can't control such things.

 

[cladking]

Agreed, but do you see that as a fault or limitation? Specialization was a distinguishing characteristic of civilization.

It need be neither but it tends to be both. Specialization is killing us. Industry runs at exceedingly low efficiency because nobody knows what's going on. It used to be the people who had the best results who were put in charge so there was a lot of correlation between good operation and the ability to see the big picture. Now the people who know what governance to rent are in charge. They which parties to attend and whose needs to satisfy. Everyone else is running around with no direction. The big bosses have important uncles and important degrees. Most good engineers avoid industry and often end up in supervisory roles. They spend million of dollars to save a few pennies. Waste is ubiquitous. Inefficiency the order of the day and relations are so bad between the various factions that they are usually trying to hurt one another. This exists across the entire economic system except small businesses that could easily outcompete big business but they are kept down by fiat and the regulators as well as the rampant corruption.

There needs to be hundreds of thousands trained in generalism and they should have input at every level of managements and direct things at the lowest levels. We need to get rid of a system that rewards stupidity in promotion and waste in operations. The value of college degrees have fallen dramatically but now days you need four years to be a garbageman.

Nomads were all the same except perhaps the shaman, who probably also was a hunter-gatherer.

Actually, no. There was a single language and no specialties at all until cities arose and even then there were exceedingly few specialists except carpenters, potters, and the like. Ancient Language was a continuing IQ test and every time anyone opened their mouth it could lead to promotions or demotions. Everyone spoke the same language and all knowledge was a part of that language. If you used a word wrong it was apparent to every single person smarter than you. The capable and competent rose to the top. Words were power itself so good words meant good results. If you would have gotten bad results then you were probably lower down in the economy so never got the chance to mess things up.

It wasn't until ~5000 BC that specialization like medicine and chemistry began appearing but even specialists saw the big picture because that was the nature of using Ancient Language.

Obviously there were individual differences and some individuals were more fit to tending fires or making tools than to hunting or exploring. You could tell by the way they used language anyway. Men were scientists and women were metaphysicians for the main part. Children until they were five ran errands (messages). Older children had a wide variety of jobs much of it cleaning. By adulthood at 13 or 14 they were settling into their lives.

 

[cladking]

Astronomy and cosmology are falsifying examples.

More weaponry has originated in cosmology that anywhere else.

Formal science is a method and the body of knowledge it generates. But we should recognize that that is only a subset of our empirical knowledge, most acquired by trial-and-error in daily life - what can be called informal science.

In order to know anything at all it is necessary to use reason. So what is the reasoning behind the failure of Egyptology to have applied century old technology to the great pyramids and release the results? There is no logic in failing to look or see. There is no logic in ignoring the pyramids while looking for gold and tourist dollars. These people pretend to be scientists but barely make pseudo-scientists.

 

[cladking]

Looking at today's news about the mass killings, governments obviously can't control such things.

I should say nothing and single events mean little but it appears this one was entirely preventable.

It's a matter of allowing not only criminals to roam free but also the crazy and dangerous. The only way to get locked up now days ins to plead innocent.

Meanwhile people are so fed up with crime they allow their rights to be taken away by the same government that is bullying people into crazy acts. This is what rich people want; a populous that is fewer, eat less flatulent cow, and are easily controlled to do their bidding.

They closed down all the looney bins and put the nuts on the street. Ones too violent for the street are in solitary confinement. This is just sick and evil.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actually, no. There was a single language and no specialties at all until cities arose

That's not very different from what I wrote except that I didn't mention language, since the topic was specialization. I assume that everybody in a given nomadic tribe spoke the same language, but even if there a few, I don't see that as a specialization issue unless it created a need for a subset to be translators. Also, you seem to be saying that even the shaman isn't a specialist. In my understanding, he's the medicine man and/or holy man, which is what I mean by a specialist - someone with a talent not possessed by all whose services are coveted by many.

Specialization is killing us. Industry runs at exceedingly low efficiency because nobody knows what's going on. It used to be the people who had the best results who were put in charge so there was a lot of correlation between good operation and the ability to see the big picture.

That's also not a specialization issue to me. If anything, it represents a paucity of specialized talent. But it is an interesting phenomenon. How is it that so many great minds found one another to create the American government, but today, it seems like the worst rise to the top in politics, religion, and business. How is the current Republican party in power at all? Look at who rises to the top in religion - fraudsters. This is who people support and admire, but one, people like that were anomalous.

More weaponry has originated in cosmology that anywhere else.

I wrote, "Astronomy and cosmology are falsifying examples. So is abiogenesis research" to your claim that, "any "science" without commercial, military, or political applications isn't even performed any longer."

That's an interesting claim. Didn't you want to develop that a little? Which aspects of cosmology do you propose is related to weaponry? If you mean nuclear weapons, I disagree that they are a child of cosmology. That's nuclear physics. Are you referring to determining the age and dimensions of the cosmos? Maybe you mean studying the cosmic microwave background or the distribution of filaments of galaxies and voids. I'm aware of no weaponry to come out of that science.

And what about the other counterexamples, astronomy and abiogenesis? Surely you don't believe that no work is done in those areas unless it serves one of those three (commercial, political, or political interests).

what is the reasoning behind the failure of Egyptology to have applied century old technology to the great pyramids and release the results?

I don't know. That's never been an interest of mine. But that DOES refer to specialization following the arrival of civilization as does all architecture and much of construction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More weaponry has originated in cosmology that anywhere else.

Are you talking about the railguns on Mars, the platform just inside the orbit of Mercury that uses the sun to propagate lasers and that thing out on Titan that redirects meteors into collision courses with planets? Them's real nasty.

I don't know of any weapons resulting from research into cosmology and since you didn't specify anything, I'm betting you don't either. Rockets are not the result of the study of cosmology.

In order to know anything at all it is necessary to use reason.

That's been an issue with you since you started posting here. You don't.

So what is the reasoning behind the failure of Egyptology to have applied century old technology to the great pyramids and release the results?

Don't know. Don't know if it is a real problem or just you. Don't care.

There is no logic in failing to look or see.

Except you are always denigrating science as look and see. Imagine that. Another internal contradiction.

There is no logic in ignoring the pyramids while looking for gold and tourist dollars.

No idea. Don't care.

These people pretend to be scientists but barely make pseudo-scientists.

Are these real Egyptologists or are they other members of the other forums you frequent? I've often wondered if you elevate those encounters to pump up your rep. I've read them and the consensus doesn't favor your empty claims in those places any more than it favors those attempts here.

 

[cladking]

I assume that everybody in a given nomadic tribe spoke the same language, but even if there a few, I don't see that as a specialization issue unless it created a need for a subset to be translators.

There was apparently a single worldwide language. All humans spoke an elaboration of Proto-human.

Also, you seem to be saying that even the shaman isn't a specialist.

There was no such thing as a "shaman". There was no such thing as an abstraction and they had no words for "belief", "thought", and no taxonomies. Egyptologists never noticed this because it flies in the fact of BOTH their beliefs and how they believe language works. They aren't stupid or insensate they merely think like every homo omnisciencis. There is no other recorded ancient Language except some snippets of Sumerian and all of it is untranslatable. It can be interpreted but NOT translated. AL is formatted differently so can not be translated.

There was very little need for specialization because everybody was pretty much capable of learning all human knowledge. The best at it were in charge.

In my understanding, he's the medicine man and/or holy man, which is what I mean by a specialist - someone with a talent not possessed by all whose services are coveted by many.

Larger groups would have someone who primarily tended to the sick and injured but it was more experience than knowledge that made him more effective. Most people knew about bones and the theory behind setting them but the doctor had experience.

That's an interesting claim. Didn't you want to develop that a little?

I see little point in it. Most people, especially scientists, are interested in how things work and will study it if they have the chance or need. \

Which aspects of cosmology do you propose is related to weaponry? If you mean nuclear weapons, I disagree that they are a child of cosmology. That's nuclear physics. Are you referring to determining the age and dimensions of the cosmos?

Cosmology is just physics. What most people call the "laws of nature". deeper understanding of physics normally leads to booth weaponry and commercial products..

I don't know. That's never been an interest of mine. But that DOES refer to specialization following the arrival of civilization as does all architecture and much of construction.

If I'm right there are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. There might not be a single pyramid built with a single ramp. If I'm right the individuals who built the great pyramids understood evolution far better than Darwin and understood consciousness infinitely better than neuroscientists.

Maybe we don't sit at the crown of creation as everyone believes as we strive to murder the least fit. Maybe we are a bunch of stinky footed bumpkins judging our superiors like those who wrote the ancient texts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is more than mere methodology but also a perspective and state of mind.

I know that it isn't making stuff up and citing repeatedly as if it were fact.

There has been no methodical study of any great pyramid in more than a century and a quarter. When Flinders Petrie left science went with him.

Where do you imagine he went? On a cruise? He didn't leave science for another opportunity. He passed away in 1942. Which I will add, his tenure and lifetime fall within the range you claim for there being no methodical study, i.e. science, in Egyptology. Another inconsistency for you.

 

[cladking]

Don't know if it is a real problem or just you.

It's not a problem per se. Egyptologists just study the pyramids and their builders with their backs turned.

Are these real Egyptologists or are they other members of the other forums you frequent?

I've read thousands of books and papers written by Egyptologists, amateur Egyptologists, and wannaba Egyptologists. Not one has ever said Egyptology is not science. I don't wannabe an Egyptologists and can state categorically it hasn't been a science since Petrie died. It even fails as linguistics since they never even noticed the language has no abstractions and breaks Zipf's Law.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There was apparently a single worldwide language. All humans spoke an elaboration of Proto-human.

A biblical claim without evidence and much against it. It is a bad assumption and I know how you claim to dislike those. I guess just where you erroneously perceive them in others only. More inconsistency.

There was no such thing as a "shaman". There was no such thing as an abstraction and they had no words for "belief", "thought", and no taxonomies.

Show me. Show anyone. Show us all these claims have any substance.

Egyptologists never noticed this because it flies in the fact of BOTH their beliefs and how they believe language works. They aren't stupid or insensate they merely think like every homo omnisciencis. There is no other recorded ancient Language except some snippets of Sumerian and all of it is untranslatable. It can be interpreted but NOT translated. AL is formatted differently so can not be translated.

So far, the only person that believes a single language existed as fact is you and you can't demonstrate that it existed. It doesn't even rise to the level of speculation.

There was very little need for specialization because everybody was pretty much capable of learning all human knowledge. The best at it were in charge.

No evidence. Just you.

Larger groups would have someone who primarily tended to the sick and injured but it was more experience than knowledge that made him more effective. Most people knew about bones and the theory behind setting them but the doctor had experience.

No evidence. Just what you believe without the evidence.

I see little point in it. Most people, especially scientists, are interested in how things work and will study it if they have the chance or need. \

That attitude contradicts your claim about research only be for profit and war.

Cosmology is just physics. What most people call the "laws of nature". deeper understanding of physics normally leads to booth weaponry and commercial products..

That isn't what you claimed. You claimed that cosmology was the biggest source of military advances. What you are saying here could apply to research in any field.

If I'm right there are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps.

Is infinite pyramids built with infinite ramps a claim of Egyptology? It doesn't seem like it would be a claim of anyone.

There might not be a single pyramid built with a single ramp. If I'm right the individuals who built the great pyramids understood evolution far better than Darwin and understood consciousness infinitely better than neuroscientists.

So far, your record at being right is consistent and I don't think science has to worry about you coming up with something that shows Darwin knew less about evolution than ancient Egyptians.

Maybe we don't sit at the crown of creation as everyone believes as we strive to murder the least fit.

That the poor or mistreated and the infirm sometimes have been singled out is not the fault of the science of evolution or Darwin.

Maybe we are a bunch of stinky footed bumpkins judging our superiors like those who wrote the ancient texts.

You are in love with certain phrases to the point of making them mantras. Stinky-footed bumpkins, one funeral at a time, flatulent cows. I have no idea. I assume those ancient Egyptians of 5,000 years ago were ignorant by comparison to people today, but I would not demean as being less intelligent. Why do you keep trying to force that into the conversation when it has no bearing and is often mischaracterizing people you are conversing with? You seem to elevate ancient people to the status of gods and have created what I can only describe as a mythical people that had special abilities and practiced a mythical science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a problem per se. Egyptologists just study the pyramids and their builders with their backs turned.

Don't know what that is supposed to mean.

I've read thousands of books and papers written by Egyptologists, amateur Egyptologists, and wannaba Egyptologists.

How nice for you.

Not one has ever said Egyptology is not science.

OK. Then maybe it is or the subject wasn't a critique of Egyptology. How would anyone here know. Why should we care? The discussion is the science of biology and your claims that don't hold up.

I don't wannabe an Egyptologists and can state categorically it hasn't been a science since Petrie died.

I can claim things too. So what. Noting that you have revised your previous claim and requalified it without an admission of error.

It even fails as linguistics since they never even noticed the language has no abstractions and breaks Zipf's Law.

So you keep repeating, but I have no way of knowing if this is valid, significant, or correct given your propensity to hyperbole, self-aggrandizement and propensity to be wrong.

 

[cladking]

Where do you imagine he went? On a cruise? He didn't leave science for another opportunity. He passed away in 1942. Which I will add, his tenure and lifetime fall within the range you claim for there being no methodical study, i.e. science, in Egyptology. Another inconsistency for you.

Petrie didn't die until 1942 but primarily worked in Assyria and Sumeria and the like after the 19th century. I'd remind people that Petrie was a real scientist and invented archaeology and stratigraphic excavation. He employed a scientific perspective. He could have interceded in Masperro's and Champollion's errors but can not be held responsible for not doing it. As I've said many times Masperro had almost no chance of properly translating the text. Indeed, it looks like Mercer recognized there was an underlying pattern that represented the meaning but failed to deduce it. If he or Sir Isaac Newton had access to google, as I did, either would have solved it.

There is so little data or evidence surviving and that was known in Petrie's day he had no chance of figuring out the people he was studying were of a different species. He had no means of studying modern brains and no ancient brains survived even in the 1800's. Petrie, no doubt, was taken in by Darwin's conclusions just like everyone else. It was obvious to Petrie that ancient people were less evolved, more ignorant, and more superstitious. He could have never have even guessed the opposite was true. He had no means to directly observe his own consciousness or understand those who could.

He was a capable and competent 19th century scientist who improved science immeasurably but was wrong about most other things. Darwin, Freud, and Champollion damaged science and the human race and set us on a detour of a detour.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Petrie didn't die until 1942 but primarily worked in Assyria and Sumeria and the like after the 19th century. I'd remind people that Petrie was a real scientist and invented archaeology and stratigraphic excavation. He employed a scientific perspective. He could have interceded in Masperro's and Champollion's errors but can not be held responsible for not doing it. As I've said many times Masperro had almost no chance of properly translating the text. Indeed, it looks like Mercer recognized there was an underlying pattern that represented the meaning but failed to deduce it. If he or Sir Isaac Newton had access to google, as I did, either would have solved it.

There is so little data or evidence surviving and that was known in Petrie's day he had no chance of figuring out the people he was studying were of a different species. He had no means of studying modern brains and no ancient brains survived even in the 1800's. Petrie, no doubt, was taken in by Darwin's conclusions just like everyone else. It was obvious to Petrie that ancient people were less evolved, more ignorant, and more superstitious. He could have never have even guessed the opposite was true. He had no means to directly observe his own consciousness or understand those who could.

He was a capable and competent 19th century scientist who improved science immeasurably but was wrong about most other things. Darwin, Freud, and Champollion damaged science and the human race and set us on a detour of a detour.

I have no interest in this and don't see a need to waste the time trying to determine if you have a valid opinion or if this is just more of your stuff.

Darwin didn't do any damage to science. He helped advance it. Your opinion isn't based on any facts you can provide to support it.

I have this hypothesis that once you got here and discovered that most people here weren't interested in an endless debate about Egyptology, you grabbed to the most controversial topic being discussed regarding science and just picked the contrarian position. From reading through other sites, you didn't discuss evolution all that much that I could find. You certainly don't have an expertise in the subject or much understanding of biology or science in general given the claims and conclusions you make.

The people that Egyptologists study are Homo sapiens based on all the evidence and no one has demonstrated them to be any other species. Fairytales are not evidence, even if they were concocted this Century or in the latter part of the last one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed, but do you see that as a fault or limitation? Specialization was a distinguishing characteristic of civilization. Nomads were all the same except perhaps the shaman, who probably also was a hunter-gatherer. It's also a consequence of a burgeoning human fund of knowledge.

In my field, medicine, there's just too much to know to be competent at it all. General medicine spawned specialties like surgery, pediatrics, and psychiatry.

My specialty was internal medicine (diagnosis and therapeutics), but it has subdivided into assorted subspecialties like cardiology, hematology, and endocrinology. I can't do what those more specialized than I am can do, nor what the less specialized generalists can do. To work an ER or urgent care center, you have to be able to stabilize a bone fracture and handle an obstetric emergency. I can't do either, and thus couldn't do those jobs.

But the ER guy can't do my job, either. I would be called into the ER by the generalist when he needed the kind of help I could provide. Nor can the cardiologist. When his patient's diabetes is flaring, he calls an internist. We all know who to call for help - who to refer to - and that works well. And none of us see the big picture.

Disagree. Astronomy and cosmology are falsifying examples. So is abiogenesis research.

Formal science is a method and the body of knowledge it generates. But we should recognize that that is only a subset of our empirical knowledge, most acquired by trial-and-error in daily life - what can be called informal science. Here I'm referring to knowledge such as where to find a good steak

I consider the informal science of good steak finding to be a rather important achievement in empiricism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's not very different from what I wrote except that I didn't mention language, since the topic was specialization. I assume that everybody in a given nomadic tribe spoke the same language, but even if there a few, I don't see that as a specialization issue unless it created a need for a subset to be translators. Also, you seem to be saying that even the shaman isn't a specialist. In my understanding, he's the medicine man and/or holy man, which is what I mean by a specialist - someone with a talent not possessed by all whose services are coveted by many.

That's also not a specialization issue to me. If anything, it represents a paucity of specialized talent. But it is an interesting phenomenon. How is it that so many great minds found one another to create the American government, but today, it seems like the worst rise to the top in politics, religion, and business. How is the current Republican party in power at all? Look at who rises to the top in religion - fraudsters. This is who people support and admire, but one, people like that were anomalous.

I wrote, "Astronomy and cosmology are falsifying examples. So is abiogenesis research" to your claim that, "any "science" without commercial, military, or political applications isn't even performed any longer."

That's an interesting claim. Didn't you want to develop that a little? Which aspects of cosmology do you propose is related to weaponry? If you mean nuclear weapons, I disagree that they are a child of cosmology. That's nuclear physics. Are you referring to determining the age and dimensions of the cosmos? Maybe you mean studying the cosmic microwave background or the distribution of filaments of galaxies and voids. I'm aware of no weaponry to come out of that science.

And what about the other counterexamples, astronomy and abiogenesis? Surely you don't believe that no work is done in those areas unless it serves one of those three (commercial, political, or political interests).

I don't know. That's never been an interest of mine. But that DOES refer to specialization following the arrival of civilization as does all architecture and much of construction.

The idea that specialization means that there is no interest in or thought to a bigger picture or consideration of context seems much out of touch to me. Or short-sighted hyperbole biased to provide support for a weak or poorly thought-through position.

My own parents had their specializations, but were interested in philosophy, politics, human history and natural history. They didn't have to be researchers in the field to be literate in other subjects to the point of forming opinions open to upgrade. They counseled my siblings and I to learn about subjects from available knowledge and not formulate opinions in the vacuum of our own heads and declare conclusions into existence. To me, that seems to be so highly specialized that it not only doesn't take in the bigger picture but ignores or denies it.

It seems like a weak indictment coming from a perceived position of exceptional singularity that is believed to exist, but doesn't.

 

[cladking]

Larger groups would have someone who primarily tended to the sick and injured but it was more experience than knowledge that made him more effective. Most people knew about bones and the theory behind setting them but the doctor had experience.

To put this another way there were many specialists even among hunter gatherers but it wasn't knowledge that was specialized, it was experience. After the invention of agriculture that arose through the "The Theory of Change in Species" ~8500 BC and especially the invention of writing ~3200 BC knowledge began increasing more rapidly and fewer and fewer individuals could learn all of it so true specialties did arise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There was no such thing as a "shaman." Larger groups would have someone who primarily tended to the sick and injured but it was more experience than knowledge that made him more effective.

That's a shaman, and what you described is specialization. If you prefer a different term for the medicine man in a nomadic tribe, fine, but he's still a specialist. My original point was that there was little specialization before civilization.

Men and women had different jobs, which is specialization, but the men all did the same things as one another except the one who was also (or only) in charge of spells and potions and summoning the power of the spirit world, and so did the women, although we can imagine them dividing responsibilities that all of them could have attended to.

Thus, some women might have remained at the camp to cook or tend to the children while others were out gathering, but they could have done one another's jobs, because those skills were general knowledge to adolescent girls and women.

But all of this is a digression - a tangent inspired by your introduction of a claim about specialization and seeing the big picture.

Cosmology is just physics. What most people call the "laws of nature". deeper understanding of physics normally leads to booth weaponry and commercial products.

Yes, it is likely that some physics is funded to develop weapons, but that doesn't help your argument that all science is geared toward serving government (you used the words politics and military) or industry. You're conflating cosmology with physics and physics with some physics. Cosmology and some physics are both subsets of physics.

To put this another way there were many specialists even among hunter gatherers but it wasn't knowledge that was specialized, it was experience.

All knowledge is the result of experience, and having useful knowledge not known by all others makes one a specialist. Nothing not learned and confirmed empirically deserves to be called knowledge, and every useful idea gleaned empirically is knowledge.