Korean Job Discussion Forums

[gang ah jee]

Don�t worry Gopher, our worldviews are too similar for a two-hundred page thread to result from any disagreements we may have, and in any case I�m about to go on holiday somewhere computerless for the next couple of weeks. I do have to say though that I�m surprised and somewhat disappointed at your response to my posts, If you don�t want your opinions critiqued then I suggest that you not post them on public forums

I�m also suggesting that your �impressions� of evolutionary psychology are mistaken, specifically your impression that it is an�entirely different field� to evolutionary biology. My argument here is that since ethology is a field within evolutionary biology, so too is human ethology (i.e. evolutionary psychology). Your response to this seems to be the logical fallacy argumentum ad nazium. I agree with you that there have been many cases in which scientific knowledge from many fields - evolutionary psychology included - has been misused; this isn�t an argument against the legitimacy of the science in general, however. If you have another response, I apologise because I seem to have missed it. Perhaps you disagree with my position that human ethology and evolutionary psychology are synonymous, in which case I�d be interested in how you make the distinction - depending on definitions, we may turn out to be in agreement.

And perhaps this is a �pet issue� of mine, but this hardly makes me unusual amongst graduate students in the social sciences. The biological bases of behaviour are very relevant to much of what I study, and of course, �nothing in biology makes sense without evolution�. Thus, when I see someone whom I think of as otherwise highly intelligent and rational claim that there is/should be some kind of barrier between evolutionary biology and the study of human behaviour, I become interested in their reasons for making this claim. Thus, my original question to you � how/why do you make the distinction between human and non-human ethology? This seems like quite a reasonable question to me, and it�s unfortunate that you seem to have misconstrued my intentions in asking it.

(and yes, Robert Wright has impressive credentials for a journalist. He's still not an evolutionary psychologist however, and making untestable speculative questions about connections between lipstick and bonobo oestrus is not the domain of the scholars that I'm aware of. It also seems to me that you picked that example of speculation purely for rhetorical reasons - regardless of validity, the comparison is so unpleasant as to be dismissed out of hand by most people.)

[Gopher]

[cbclark4]

Manny,

If you were agood sport you would have tag this topic onto the "Alternative Challenges to Evolutionary Theories of Origins" discussion and then it would have passed the 200 replies milestone.

Instead you have to start a whole new topic and throw milk intothe whole evolutionary question. How dare you?

90% of all drug addicts have a history of Milk drinking.

cbc

[Hollywoodaction]

[gang ah jee]

[Junior]

[dogbert]

[Junior]

[Gopher]

[ED209]

[gang ah jee]

[Hollywoodaction]

[Rteacher]

Based largely on the entertainment value of the scintillating debate between "Gopher" and "gang ah jee", I fearlessly predict that this thread (rather than passing a milestone like 200 pages...) will likely pass a kidney stone by Christmas...

[Junior]

Well you all have a lot more faith than i do. You'd have to need it to believe the incredible, dazzling array of complexity that represents life on earth came about from nothing, spontaneously.
there is a mastermind behind the design of life on this planet. All by chance is a far, way more ridiculous stance than is creation.

[ED209]

Order does spontaneously come from (not nothing but let's say-)disorder all the time. Look at a snowflake. A self replicating molecule is not a leap of faith. And from this more and more complexity arises through a natural selection process.

As for chance, there are many chances.