From: "jamie morgan" <zen34405-AT-zen.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: isn't this trolling?
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:19:09 +0100


Interesting how you cut and paste statements from other people but leave
aside any substantive issues they raise - superiority -racism for example,
previosuly in my case in response to your comments.

If refernce to works is all that is required to make your point I refer you
on biological reductionism to the debates on reductive, nonreductiove and
eliminative materialism between Armstrong, Putnam, Davidson, Churchland and
others that clearly indicate that 1. empirical evidence is not its own
explanation of a philosophical concenpt such as reductionism 2) there is no
general agreement on any form of naturalism-materialism 3) the weakest form
of philosophical argument for the role of biology is reductionism 4)
empirical evidence, such that it is is still way too partial on any
conceptual area to allow such strong statements as yours 5) where the burden
of proof should lie is itself a matter of debate - most of what you say can
however simply be countered on its own cocneptual incoherence especially its
incompatibility with the complexities of arguments coming out of science

jamie






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "shiv kumar" <iconoclast2050-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; "Bhaskar list"
<bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: isn't this trolling?


>
>
>
> FOR TOBIN, PHIL, HANS AND JAMIE
>
>
>
> I knew there were ninnies on this list and, now it is fairly evident Tobin
Nellhaus, Hans and Phil Walden personify the trait.
>
>
>
> To repeat, it is clear to the eye that Tim Murphy did not proffer a single
argument but simply labelled E.O. Wilson. Instead of realizing this, Tobin,
Hans and Phil have deemed it better to take sides  (for reasons best NOT
know to them) than seize the matter. By this token, one can say that Tobin
Nellhaus and Hans are insane. Should we take it that both are insane
(assuming he is not) simply because he has been branded. This is precisely
what Tim does - he simply labels. EVERY SINGLE MAIL THAT TIM MURPHY HAS
WRITTEN IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING ARGUMENT - whether
it was labelling Tony Blair as LIAR, or Hutton Committee Report as being
'biased', or George Bush as being a sort of madcap. And, Phil says this is a
'bit of ad hominem'. Phil, this is an understatement; it is ad hominem and
NOTHING ELSE!!!
>
>
>
> And the trio believe that they are enaging in arguments! Humans understand
so little of about themselves.
>
>
>
>  Like a dimwit, Hans writes: 'I do know the password and could uns*bscr*be
Shiv, therefore Shiv, please consider yourself warned.'
>
> This comes from a lister on Critical Realism! Cannot tolerate opposition!
Has no counter-arguments. GO AHEAD DO IT. This is the pits of argumentative
interaction!!!
>
>
>
> Tobin Nellhaus too had failed, and failed completely to provide
comprehensive rebuttals to the points raised about biological reductivism
(his e-mails dated 9 and 17 November 2003 refer).
>
> Tobin may consider others as 'crackers', but so were Newton, Darwin, etc.
considered in their times. Time shall prove whether Tobin is the real
'cracker' or not. Besides, he failed to provide any empirical evidence to
rebut biological reductivism. So much for his conceit!!!
>
>
>
> And, Jamie writes:
>
> 1. "Shiv given that you never directly respond to any formal
argument-critique people seem to have ceased to bother to provide them.
Directing people to".
>
>  Who are these "people"? Jamie, you speak for yourself and not others; let
others speak for themselves. If you have read my previous mails, all
arguments were backed by what biological determinists are saying on the
issue. One must first read and then criticize.
>
>  2. Jamie writes: "you seem guilty of that of which you accuse others and
beneath that dogmatism surely resides a sense of superiority, and a highly
negative one since it entails no drive to enlighten merely to browbeat."
>
>
>
> Jamie would like us to believe that enlightenment is a one-way affair.
Contrarily, enlightenment is a two-way affair.
Galileo/Newton/Darwin/Einstein plus people against witch-hunting tried to
enlighten many people during their lifetime - how many people were
enlightened? These scientists/reformers were ridiculed by many during their
lifetime. Similarly, when I proffer arguments about biological reductivism,
it is for the other side to come out of its shell, shed their prejudicial
thinking (if they can). Then only they can be enlightened. In my previous
mails, I have mentioned web-sites, writers like Matt Ridley, etc. but no one
has been able to conclusively rebut these arguments, including Tobin
Nellhaus.
>
>
>
> Some listers talk of rationalism, etc. but this notion is unable to
provide a sound theory why a person suffering from 'Alzheimer's disease
cannot reason. To explain this, one has to invariably take recourse to the
functioning of biological mechanisms. Thus, if neurons, etc. (inaccessible
to humans) can explain how a 'diseased' person behaves, why not a 'healthy'
person? Why not determinism? What is your say in deciding your gender, your
parents, your country of birth, etc. These are all given. And, these issues
decide much of our life. So much for free will!!! People from Bangladesh are
already the pariahs of the planet, for no fault of their own. This is free
will!!! There is a game of nature going on since aeons. The biological
mechanisms antecede us and have their own properties which we simply act
out.
>
>
>
> MY MESSAGE IS CLEAR - IF 'BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIVISM' IS INADEQUATE, DISPROVE
IT WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, LEAVE IT OPEN AND LET SCIENCE TAKES
IT COURSE.
>
>
>
> Shiv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
>
> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> ---
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---