= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Who owns LessWrong? - 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 (83)
To be honest I suspect it may be interesting to hear what other people than either Phil or Eliezer have to say on the details of group selection applicability. It's a red flag for both of them.
For my part it strikes me that there is something rather different between the thing that Eliezer ridicules and the thing that species selection can be considered an instance of. There is also more to be said on what modern biology has to say on the subject.
It may also be worth seeing if there are contributors with suggestions on how to mellow out the group selection page without introducing any inaccuracies.
Group selection is a topic which breeds contention for some reason. For example I do not understand why Robert Sapolsky (top primate expert) seems to treat the subject with a tone of voice which is almost sanctimonious in these lectures:
Biology and Human Behavior.
It seems as if he has a muscle memory of getting bludgeoned by hours of arguments.
Correct. Species don't breed - they are not part of a sexually reproducing population - so the theory and simulations ruling out group selection against a countervailing individual selection pressure (invaders take over the gene pool under all realistic conditions) doesn't rule out species-level selection. Modus ponens to modus tollens, observed examples of species selection don't argue for group selection being realistic and Phil Goetz's entire argument is a nonsequitur. This was obvious to me at a glance but experience has taught me I do not enjoy arguing with Phil Goetz.
Does this not count as an indirect argument or something?
I for one would be sort of annoyed if somebody announced that due to an alleged unamiable personality of mine they're declining to debate me, and then in the same public venue proceeded to state that my whole argument was an obvious non-sequitur.
Does your annoyance suggest a way in which the decisions in question are wrong? If not, it might be wrong to endorse this emotional response (in this sense). If it does, then it's better to describe that explicitly, irrespective of emotion. Or maybe you are drawing attention to the emotion itself as a relevant consideration? It's not clear from your comment.
I think it may involve dividing it into two pages, one about biases, the psychology of biologists, the failings of permissive science, etc. and one about natural selection.
Failing to understand amoral stochastic systems may lead people to believe true things for bad reasons. We can criticize this even when and where they happen to be right.