Theme: Science

zzzz….. yet another critic who is a product of the postmodern cult academy. —“Evolutionary psychology has very strict rules, and none of this can be said under those rules. “— Evolutionary psychology consists in an operational rational test of the possibility of construction. It is a means of falsification. It is not a science. it is not a formal logic. It is a technique by which we attempt to narrate a plausible history given the difficulty of selecting a subset of information by which to reduce any intertemporal phenomenon to communicable form. I don’t rely on that technique, but on demonstrated behavior documented in the canon of research of differences in human behavior, and use the evolutionary model, almost always with reference to either the other great apes, the domestication of dogs and foxes, the findings of neuroscience, brain science, and cognitive science, and in particular the insights from the study of male and female brain differences at the extremes (solipsism and autism), and the study of male and female anti social behavior at the extremes, and differences in expression of male and female methods of conflict at the extremes, and the differences in male and female conflict-argument. –“Second, humans are no longer under the rule of evolution. We haven’t been since the around the time of the invention of agriculture.”– This is false. We have evolved FASTER under agriculture than in prior eras which can be easily demonstrated by the distribution of the adaptation to milk and wheat (or the cabbage family for that matter). The indo european expansion was driven not only by horse bronze and wheel, but by milk tolerance that made 40% more calories available from the same efforts. The opposite is also true: we have produced increases in dysgenia faster during the past 180 years. (which we are not allowed to talk about without moral criticism). The difference between east asian and western european peoples is due to forcible domestication under manorialism, and extreme prosecution of non-conformists which westerners achieved by bipartite manorialism and hanging, and chinese achieved by rice farming and the headsman (the symbol of rule in china was the headsman’s axe – something the Great Khan found amusing apparently.) That said, the fact that an individual can CHOOSE outside of his or her genetic demands, does not mean that people do not by and large demonstrate bias in favor of their genetic biases. This is true in everything from gender brain and endocrine differences, to our personality traits (of which intelligence is one), and –“It also views the past through the present’s framework of human behavior which is completely inappropriate.”— No it views the past through a deep understanding of human history, particularly economic and legal history – although my specialty was art(archaeology) and military history, I added economic, legal, and intellectual history. And I am still working on the genetic but at present I think I am close enough to current for high level arguments I make. –“… scientist…”–
I write, and am probably at present, by a long shot, the most innovative and current contributor to the scientific method, and without a doubt I can debate that with any person living – easily. NOW IN RESPONSE TO THE NON-ARGUMENT BY ‘CRITIQUE’ You are simply positing what is called ‘Critique” which is a combination of marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern denialism. We know the intellectual history of the argument you make above, and we know why it was invented, and who taught it to you and why. You actually didn’t propose a SINGLE counter proposition. You just proposed straw men. It’s pseudoscience at its best: DENIAL without argument. One of my principle contributions has been to articulate the techniques by which abrahamic-marxist-postmodernist-feminist pseudoscience, sophism, and supernaturalism have evolved and been practiced and the mechanics by which they use false promise (bait), pilpul (sophism), critique(straw manning), and heaping of undue praise (distraction), as a means to produce suggestion by loading, framing, overloading, forcing appeal to intuition and therefore genetic bias. THis is how abrahamic religion and its secular substitutes of marxism (pseudoscience), postmodernism (sophism) and feminism (fictionalism, revisionist historicism, pseudoscience, sophism) have been used to construct counter-rational, counter-empirical, counter-scientific movements in the Ancient (jewish greek revolt against roman evidence, reason and stoicism), Modern (french, german, counter-revolution against anglo empiricism), and Present Worlds (jewish-french-feminist counter revolutions against Darwin et al.) . ( Um. And while you don’t know this, I don’t make mistakes. It’s sort of my job. ie; don’t waste my time. Learn something – even though your genetics, and indoctrination in the postmodern cult, that feeds your genetic bias, will fight it all the way. )