= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Some counterevidence for human sociobiology - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (28)
Are you endorsing it as the best argument made against (brand-name?) sociobiology? I imagine that it's better than most of the later arguments that endorse it, but that's a much weaker claim than denying the existence of better arguments. You can't rely on opponents of an idea to filter for the good arguments against it. In particular, if the best arguments against it are less sweeping, they may be ignored.
Perhaps I should have said "most famous" or "most influential". I'm not qualified to judge whether it's the best.
I interpreted your comment as meaning that ad hominem (etc) arguments should be seen as in contrast to good arguments. I see it as the opposite. We should expect the use of effective rhetorical techniques and prestigious authors to lead to fame. These are good reasons to expect not to hear of better critiques. [ETA: this is what I was groping towards in my earlier comment]
I read the letter after writing my comment and it is not sweeping, contrary to my claim. Its arguments are pretty reasonable and it doesn't explicitly misrepresent Wilson much. But it is very effective at producing false beliefs, such as my belief that it was sweeping, and TAW's beliefs elsewhere on this thread.