SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (41376)4/2/1999 9:33:00 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
Since science is an area where most falter, I don't know how seriously to worry about it. In any event, evolution doesn't really get us much of anywhere, does it? Large philosophical issues are untouched if the mechanism for physical transformation is somehow evolutionary. I personally would just as soon complain about those who have not studied philosophy at all who engage in speculation, but since it is everyone's prerogative to come up with a world- view, I mostly don't...When it comes to the meaning of it all, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, just to name a few, have more to offer than Gould or Dawkins...



To: TigerPaw who wrote (41376)4/2/1999 9:42:00 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
I already gave my criticism of Dawkins in an earlier post. Let me mention Gould. His idea of Punctuated Equilibrium is controversial and thinly supported, but the main problem I have with it is that he admits that he came up with it as a PC gesture, to prove that evolution was egalitarian rather than hierarchical. As he said once,"My daddy raised me to be a socialist." While I appreciate filial piety, axe- grinding has no place in science.