The Neanderthal theory, your thoughts?

Page 8 of 12 [ 185 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 4:00 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

The ethical thing to do is counter psychiatry's Defective Mutant Hypothesis of Autism which has parallels with the Aryan mysticism of the Third Reich. Mistaken notions of political correctness be damned. Leif Ekblad isn't any more responsible for what white supremacists do with his hypothesis than Smith & Wesson is responsible for what a nut case may do inside a McDonald's.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It is the difference between good and bad science. Good science is skeptical, cautious, and ethically responsible.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 4:01 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

Do you agree they have a right to test their theory? Well realistically, unless they have a load of money, they are not going to achieve much in secret.

It is not a theory. It is an untested (and probably untestable) hypothesis.

DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

06 May 2008, 4:18 pm

nominalist wrote:

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It is the difference between good and bad science. Good science is skeptical, cautious, and ethically responsible.

You are conflagrating political correctness and ethics whether you choose to realize this sad fact or not.

DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

06 May 2008, 4:19 pm

nominalist wrote:

0_equals_true wrote:

Do you agree they have a right to test their theory? Well realistically, unless they have a load of money, they are not going to achieve much in secret.

It is not a theory. It is an untested (and probably untestable) hypothesis.

Plenty of tests were listed here at the bottom of the page.
http://www.rdos.net/eng/

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 4:24 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

Plenty of tests were listed here at the bottom of the page.
http://www.rdos.net/eng/

Yes, but those have nothing to do with the Neanderthal hypothesis.

DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

06 May 2008, 4:27 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

bonobos are predominately matriarchal, and chimps are predominately patraical. there hasn't been evdencience of interbreeding between them yet. Each of them exhibit a high degree of individuality just like humans.

this statement is spurious in the first place so there is no point extending that logic, because you aren't achieving anything.

0_equals_true wrote:

To say that homo sapiens are just patriarchal is a vast over simplification. if anything we share many behavior akin to bonobos...

...because in our case interbreeding with Neanderthals occurred.

Chimps are genetically similar to bonobos. That doesn't mean chimps have a bisexual sex party at the drop of a cardboard box.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 4:28 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

You are conflagrating political correctness and ethics whether you choose to realize this sad fact or not.

Everyone is free to have their own viewpoints. However, publishing potentially racially charged research, without solid evidence, would be regarded as scientifically unethical by myself and most of my colleagues. It would most likely not be approved by most peer reviewers either.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

06 May 2008, 4:42 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

0_equals_true wrote:

this statement is spurious in the first place so there is no point extending that logic, because you aren't achieving anything.

wow that's mature... spurious means likely to be false, or not backed up by anything. My stament is true, unless you have some evidence of bobobos and chimps are interbreeding in the wild

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

0_equals_true wrote:

To say that homo sapiens are just patriarchal is a vast over simplification. if anything we share many behavior akin to bonobos...

...because in our case interbreeding with Neanderthals occurred.

How do you know that?

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:

Chimps are genetically similar to bonobos. That doesn't mean chimps have a bisexual sex party at the drop of a cardboard box.

Actually chimps and bonobos are just as promiscuous, they just don't tend use sex in quite the same way. It is just that bonobos got that reputation first.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 06 May 2008, 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

06 May 2008, 4:43 pm

nominalist wrote:

0_equals_true wrote:

Do you agree they have a right to test their theory? Well realistically, unless they have a load of money, they are not going to achieve much in secret.

It is not a theory. It is an untested (and probably untestable) hypothesis.

so what? you can't qualify that.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 5:43 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

so what? you can't qualify that.

In other words, it is a prediction. In order to be a theory, it would need to be more empirically grounded.

DrillbitTaylor
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 4 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 31

06 May 2008, 6:23 pm

...Gotta get a woman ! Gotta get a woman ! Gotta get a woman ! That's Bertha Butt ! And her sisters , the Butt Sisters !
Awwwww , sock it to me , Daddy , big-time........... :twisted:

LostInSpace
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,617
Location: Dixie

06 May 2008, 7:00 pm

nominalist wrote:

Essentialism refers to idea, now largely rejected by scientists and academics, that there is some kind of ontological essence, a universal form, which transcends particular things. From an essentialist standpoint, Asperger's autism or (name the trait) can be treated as a real thing.
[

Not to get off-topic, but I just ran across the coolest word ever in this book on intonation I'm reading: haecceity.

It means the essential characteristic something has which defines it as X.

I suppose the idea of "haecceity" would fit well into the theory of essentialism, since they both seem to embody the idea that there are fixed or objective concepts in the universe.

I know the Buddhists would disagree with the assumption of "haecceity". Some Buddhist guy ages ago made this point by dismantling a cart, and challenging people to identify the "cartness" inherent in the materials. His point was that ideas like "cart", "time," "autism" etc., are defined by humanity and do not exist independently of our conceptions of them. This would seem to be fairly obvious, but people often tend forget this fact and to accept these concepts as having absolute meanings.

Slightly tangential, but I had to share my cool new vocab word, and it did relate *somewhat* to the topic.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 8:04 pm

LostInSpace wrote:

Not to get off-topic, but I just ran across the coolest word ever in this book on intonation I'm reading: haecceity.

Quiddity is the common term used to refer to essence. Haecceity is from a medieval scholastic word for "this-ness" (particularity). The concepts, as usually understood, are similar but not exactly the same.

LostInSpace
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,617
Location: Dixie

06 May 2008, 8:13 pm

nominalist wrote:

LostInSpace wrote:

Not to get off-topic, but I just ran across the coolest word ever in this book on intonation I'm reading: haecceity.

I ran across quiddity as I was looking up haecceity, and some places referred to them as synonyms, while others made a distinction. According to wikipedia, haecceity refers to those properties that define something, while quiddity refers to universal properties that something shares with other things. So haecceity refers to differentiating qualities, and quiddity refers to shared qualitities. Wikipedia refers to haecceity as meaning "essence".

I know, I know, it's wikipedia- I take what it says with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, my dictionary is still packed away with my stuff from school, so I just did a few quick web searches to look up the words.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

06 May 2008, 9:17 pm

LostInSpace wrote:

Well, both are true. They are synonyms, and there is a distinction. The fact that two or more words are synonyms does not indicate that they have identical definitions or usages. Haecceity is particularity or individuality. Quiddity is the essence which, according to Platonists and Neoplatonists (i.e., idealists), distinguishes a class of entities.

bookwormde
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 127

07 May 2008, 12:00 am

Nominalist,

I am sure that Darwin’s original writings would not have net your criteria for what a "theory" is initially since they were only observationally based. Any good "scientist takes the hypothesis and applies the available "facts" to see if they are supportive or diminishing or eliminating, if the hypothesis still has substantial merit at that point it becomes a theory, even if it is not widely supported.
Granted the "facts" in this case are thin and in many cases based on other unproven models they are still the best that is available so that is what you go with until better data is available. I guess we will know the "truth" on gene mapping is more complete.

bookwormde

Page 8 of 12 [ 185 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Jump to:

The Neanderthal theory, your thoughts? Post Reply New Topic

The Neanderthal theory, your thoughts?