http://www.lewrockwell.com/
See the Man and Beast one.
Um, seriously? Seriously?
I get that methodological dualism was useful for social understanding, and that often human faith in Reason is itself unreasonable, but when did LRC go to the point of Darwin bashing?
Anybody?
See, on one extreme, you have Samuelsonian thinkers who study human social behaviour like hard sciences, who'd use mathematical calculation to conclude that a man is better off severing his eyes because he doesn't need them when he sleeps. On the other extreme, you have rigid science haters who bash Darwin, which now unfortunately includes LRC.
Why can't we be people who believe in the scientific method for physics and chemistry, and human casuitry for moral life and philosophy? It's a contradiction we all can happily accept, no?
Sorry, LRC, but when it comes to evolution, I think Dawkins > Sobran.
Ironically enough, evolution -- specifically, human evolution -- is one of the greatest tools in understanding how the human "state of nature" is decidedly un-Hobbesian.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
To put it simply, animals have brains, but man also has a mind, a very distinct kind of soul. Man can calculate, imagine, moralize, form abstract concepts, and perform many other mental operations of which no animal is capable. Animals have sensation and memory – the power of association – and not much else. They may be very beautiful, but they lack the sense of beauty.
Complete bullshit.
Like its contemporary fallacy, Marxism, Darwinism had a mighty impact on history, except that Marxism has all but expired and its Darwinist twin is still going strong. The Marxists made the fatal error of predicting events in the (historically) short term; whereas most of Darwin’s avatars wisely confine themselves to making prophecies over such long periods as to be virtually unfalsifiable.
Complete bullshit. Evolutionary theory makes possible predictions such as where you would find a particular transitional fossil and how far down you should dig.
Also, scientists created synthetic life, concurrent with the laws of evolution.
And someone used chaos theory to predict the evolution of some bird, but its in my Discover Mag so I cant link it
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
RIP, Joseph Sobran.
Like mentioned previously, Darwinian natural selection is not only true, but a truth that builds a firmer foundation for libertarianism: humans are adaptively cooperative and markets exhibit an analogous selection process.
This anti-science sentiment is not reserved for Darwinism; if you haven't noticed before, LRC houses some of the wackiest AIDS-HIV denialists I've ever seen.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Sam Armstrong:To put it simply, animals have brains, but man also has a mind, a very distinct kind of soul.
Sam Armstrong: To put it simply, animals have brains, but man also has a mind, a very distinct kind of soul. Man can calculate, imagine, moralize, form abstract concepts, and perform many other mental operations of which no animal is capable. Animals have sensation and memory – the power of association – and not much else. They may be very beautiful, but they lack the sense of beauty. Complete bullshit.
bullshit is too generous.
Everybody is human. I guess every person has his breaking point where the areas of the brain responsible for logical deductive thinking is simply too overwhelmed by emotions.
I was actually gonna make a thread on LRC's latest podcast with Dr. Tim Ball, but I couldn't post from my phone or iPod.
Ball started to talk about Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin early on in the podcast, and he said Darwin was an Atheist! I continued to listen for about five minutes until Lew and Ball started talking about the politics of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and ended up turning it off shortly after.
I guess every person has his breaking point where the areas of the brain responsible for logical deductive thinking is simply too overwhelmed by emotions.
Like this?
Blueline976: I was actually gonna make a thread on LRC's latest podcast with Dr. Tim Ball, but I couldn't post from my phone or iPod. Ball started to talk about Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin early on in the podcast, and he said Darwin was an Atheist! I continued to listen for about five minutes until Lew and Ball started talking about the politics of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and ended up turning it off shortly after.
Hitchens is practically a neocon now and Dawkins is an ultra-liberal, but I don't see how atheism is a culprit of either of those. I haven't listened to the podcast, but I assume that's where it leads into: "Man tries to replace Gawd with the State!" As if religious fundies don't have an affinity for the State to start with. It seems to me that most former conservatives who become disenchanted with faith tend to become libertarian than liberal.
I first encountered this ignorance via a Fred Reed article where he offhandedly mentioned Darwin and I was just thinking, "uhh...Okay, how is this relevant to the piece?" After a wiki search and a visit to his Web site, his anti-evolution stance is very populist and typical of what you'd hear from a Creationist (although I believe he isn't a creationist). He was saying how "evolutionist's" theory about female eye color and hair color was fallacious because most people want a at-least decent looking women with some common ground. Um, that's not the point; the point is how evolution works on a subconscious and mass scale. As in how humans lose body hair, it was evolutionarily advantageous to have fewer hair since the advent of clothes took care of what hair was supposed to solve, minus the pestilence. Simple explanations like this are lost on ultra-religious types like Rockwell.
The point is that evolutionary hypothesizing can kind of work like praxeology can: We know evolution is fact (99.9% sure anyway, gotta accomodate the problem of induction people ). Since we have this bit of starting information, we can make hypotheses about why certain traits in organisms came about, since we have the "end-result" of evolution (at least in its current state).
Yup, called it
The phony question centers around, "who is in control: God or the State?" The answer, for me, is neither; I would prefer to be in control, thank you. Swapping one dictator for another who puts you in an eternal frying pan that would put Adolf Hitler to shame if you don't grovel and tell him how great he is is not something I would want to be a part of. The difference being Christians and other religious folk think you deserve to be annihilated by God because you deserve it, without being able to prove this claim. It is assumed from the get-go that God is all-good when, if Goodness is a part of God and not separate from him, there is no way to evaluate this claim and you're basically taking God's word for it that we deserve to be eternally tortured. He could be an evil mastermind and there would be no way to tell the difference, if the concept of Hell disagrees with your intuitions.
/rant of my opinion of how religious libertarians are hypocritical in their promotion of liberty.
Yeah, I've noticed this before, too. Fortunately, actual Austrians don't seem to have this hang-up (Hoppe and Mises accept evolutionary theory, not sure about Rothbard, Walter Block has used evolutionary reasoning, etc.) On LRC, it doesn't bother me too much because LRC is kind of a smorgasbord. But I've seen a few Mises dailies that had this anti-evolution bent to them some time back and that bothers me quite a bit. If LvMI is supposed to be the scholarly weapon of classical liberalism in the modern world, then it had better be scholarly. While considering alternatives to evolutionary theory is not necessarily anti-scholarly, because of the motivated nature of most such discussion, it happens that it usually is. And a scholarly association such as LvMI built around the Austrian tradition of social science is not the proper forum to raise questions about biology. If you want to raise alternatives to Common Descent because you think it doesn't work with your social theories, you need to work with philosophers of science and the leading figures of biology to air out your concerns, not "preach to a choir" in Auburn, AL. If it sounds like I'm being harsh, it's only because I would like to see LvMI succeed in its mission and it can't do that through shoddy scholarship or through parroting political or religious stances dressed up in the language of an alternative social scientific method.
</rant>
Clayton -
And anti-vaccine lobbyists. And David Koresh sympathisers. And 9/11 truthers.
Okay, I love LRC for the great articles to which it links. But Lew Rockwell loves fringe characters and loves bringing their views on board. Why do we think Pete Boettke distanced himself from those who used to be his good friends, colleagues, and intellectual allies?
I think some brakes need to be put. Even I got too angry about the whole global warming thing, with some friends telling me it is better I just go by scientific consensus. But even there, I respected work of scientists on one level. What I did oppose was sweeping political legislations that would somehow solve the problem. Where science sells uncertainty, politics sells certainty. I disliked the politics of global warming far more than the science of it. So did many scientists, including those involved in climate research that indicated global warming. Annie Leonard, environmentalist, said cap-and-trade was a scam.
Same for Ron Paul. He didn't mind endorsing the writer of Creature of Jekyll Island, a man of dubious character. The problem with Rockwell and Paul is that they are "movementarian", and like making allies in the movement, down to Gerald Celente and Paul Craig Roberts. Conservatives and American Republicans already made that mistake and the result was the rise of neoconservatives. And a huge damage to conservative credibility forever. The New Left also made that mistake, even allying with Black Panther style characters, some of whom treated white leftists very badly.
You know who else made this mistake?
Subject of this topic: Joe Sobran.
A great man who destroyed whatever was left of his journalistic and literary career by going to Mark Weber's Institute for Historical Review. Joe Sobran was a brilliant man who showed dubious judgment.
Here is his piece. http://www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html
Those who actually read this piece will know that Sobran was no anti-Semite or Holocaust denier. But who would actually read it? Once Sobran did this, Patrick Buchanan's financially strained magazine, TAC, refused to run Sobran's pieces. Sobran is correct here when he says that he is no more a leftist for having been a friend with leftists, but it's never the same when you join with a controversial man like Weber, who is "threatened with death", as it says.
StrangeLoop:This anti-science sentiment is not reserved for Darwinism; if you haven't noticed before, LRC houses some of the wackiest AIDS-HIV denialists I've ever seen.
Not to derail this thread or anything, but are you claiming that the work of e.g. Peter Duesberg is without any scientific merit whatsoever?
Prateek Sanjay:And anti-vaccine lobbyists. And David Koresh sympathisers. And 9/11 truthers.
I see, so any and all "fringe" opinions (as determined by "social consensus") should not be discussed -- indeed, should be actively suppressed.
Is that really what you're saying?
The notion of "consensus science" is a problem when the emphasis is placed on "consensus" instead of "science". When that happens, the standard yardsticks of science (valid reasoning and evidence) can go out the window when people agree on something for whatever reason. It turns science into something akin to religious dogma. I, for one, will not stand for it.
but clearly, not all religious people believe in hell or that everyone, who disobeys god should burn for eternity. That should be pointed out too.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Autolykos:Not to derail this thread or anything, but are you claiming that the work of e.g. Peter Duesberg is without any scientific merit whatsoever?
All testable hypotheses, no matter how heterodox, have scientific merit. Of course, endorsing disproven hypotheses even while thousands die is inexcusable. Dissent can be productive, hence one should always apply skepticism to one's own views, as well; the HIV-AIDS denialists have shirked this scientific responsibility.
Autolykos: I see, so any and all "fringe" opinions (as determined by "social consensus") should not be discussed -- indeed, should be actively suppressed. Is that really what you're saying?
Since we libertarians (and especially we anarcho-capitalists) harbor radically nonconformist beliefs, I'm not sure we're the audience that would suppress dissent; but, fairly, if articles from David Icke or other world-is-run-by-reptiles conspiracy theorists appeared on LRC, then I think we would be right to question the judgment of its editors. Furthermore, if LRC hosted articles by promiment Darwinists (e.g., evolutionary psychologists), then I think we would all be much more tolerant of the psuedoscientific fringers. Fundamentally, I believe the problem to be that such fallacious arguments (e.g., humans have "minds" thus we are distinct from the animal world) throws large doubt on what else LRC hosts, so we don't want libertarianism to be weakened by ties to poor philosophy.
P.S. LvMI seems to have a large amount of Christian (particularly Catholic) believers, so don't expect them to care about our scientific criticisms. (And that's not necessarily a problem--I was raised Catholic and plan to raise my own children in that same tradition.)
I agree that we should challenge dogma, but we should also bring strong argumentation and investigation from that end.
Otherwise, we are just internet contrarians.
Some chimps can be perform more complicated calculations and can communicate more effectively than severely mentally-retarded humans; I wonder if these humans lack "soul," according to Sobran?
With the LRC's obvious cultural biases aside, I don't see it as "anti-darwinist" as much as I see it as a "machine gun" approach to "anti-statism". If government funded schools are adamant about evolution vs private sectors that are not than it becomes an issue to LRC. If the government is using tax money in the education system to say lizard men don't run the NWO, LRC would probably publish articles as to how lizardmen run the NWO, etc.
I think concerning oneself with "darwinism" on LRC is probably missing the "gist" of things. People love to get all puffed up every time the issue is sprung it seems, which is kind of amusing I guess to see "secular humanists"(for lack of a better term) get all bent out of shape at the drop of a hat.
Same for Ron Paul. He didn't mind endorsing the writer of Creature of Jekyll Island, a man of dubious character.
I stumbled on G. Edward Griffin's website last year, which is the whole reason I became interested in Austrian economics and the Mises Institute. While Griffin is certainly a "fringe" character, he appears to back up controversial claims with research and evidence. The Creature was also praised by Mark Thornton of the Mises Institute, which is unsurprising since the books presents a compelling case for free markets and sound money.
What about Griffin's character or views do you find dubious?
StrangeLoop: P.S. LvMI seems to have a large amount of Christian (particularly Catholic) believers, so don't expect them to care about our scientific criticisms. (And that's not necessarily a problem--I was raised Catholic and plan to raise my own children in that same tradition.)
^ This. As a Christian, I find Ussher's Chronology (one of the main theological texts that attempts to show a "6,000 year old earth") to be a huge theological fallacy as a whole. At its very theological core, it is erroneous hypothetical garbage that says nothing about the Bible. So to see Christians go so far as to deny the rigorous scientfic process so many scientists spend their entire life dedicating themselves, close their ears, and treat them with disrespect I find to be one of the most non-Christian acts ever.
Methodological dualism is to accept the empirical method for the natural sciences...yet this is how they treat that method and the results that come from it?
*facepalm*
Regardless of my own beliefs on the existence of a soul, op is right, isn't Lew Rockwell a political site?
I have different comment though. I find it very ironic how the words "survival of the fittest" or social darwinism is thrown at the free market, but at the same time, didn't Marx respect Darwin, as well as some other socialists? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Marx wanted to dedicate a book to Darwin but Darwin declined that particular "honor." So I infer from that that the answer to your question must be yes, he did.
"Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.
William:With the LRC's obvious cultural biases aside, I don't see it as "anti-darwinist" as much as I see it as a "machine gun" approach to "anti-statism". If government funded schools are adamant about evolution vs private sectors that are not than it becomes an issue to LRC. If the government is using tax money in the education system to say lizard men don't run the NWO, LRC would probably publish articles as to how lizardmen run the NWO, etc. I think concerning oneself with "darwinism" on LRC is probably missing the "gist" of things. People love to get all puffed up every time the issue is sprung it seems, which is kind of amusing I guess to see "secular humanists"(for lack of a better term) get all bent out of shape at the drop of a hat.
Fantastic post William. Easily the best of this thread thus far.
It's disappointing that Lew puts up this creationist drivel from Sobran to try to honor him.
No Sobran, the big religions were not Marxism and evolution, but Marxism and .. religion.
A soul independent from the brain..
Nielsio:It's disappointing that Lew puts up this creationist drivel from Sobran to try to honor him.
What difference does it make what Lew puts up?
liberty students wrote: What difference does it make what Lew puts up?
Because it discredits the whole lewrockwell.com operation and alienates a lot of readers who stand to learn about economics/politics and are put off by this.
Essentially, mixing in things like this forces other libertarians to disassociate from them and create their own site/information networks. So are they going to evolve or die out?
Don't let to door hit you where the good Lord split you.
William: LRC would probably publish articles as to how lizardmen run the NWO, etc.
LRC would probably publish articles as to how lizardmen run the NWO, etc.
Lizardmen do run the NWO. Alex Jones told me so.
So why don't you take the article down point for point? Refutation works much better than ad hominems.
Or are you just taking the fact that it's 'creationist drivel' on authority? Yes, let us act like those in the dark ages who thought that they knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the sun revolved around the earth.
We ought to persecute those that don't follow along with consensus, am I right?
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here. I just want to keep things in perspective.
MrSchnapps wrote: So why don't you take the article down point for point? Refutation works much better than ad hominems.
Okay, sure.
His central thesis is that there is some kind of categorical difference between human animals and other animals. All the things he mentions however are blatently false. So that leaves him with no argument against evolution. He also tries to invoke the concept of soul, without ever defining it, which is un-scientific as can be, yet totally standard for religious people.
Even the most basic look into the theory of evolution debunks all the straw-men that Sobran brings up in his article.
This hasn't made many waves because they didn't actually *create* synthetic life. At most, it amounted to incredibly indepth recombinant DNA cloning--nothing that really hasn't been going on in insulin factories for many decades. It's a highly glorified plasmid...
Now, if they had synthetically created a cell membrane and then placed synthetically created DNA within it an caused it to thrive, grow organelles, etc....then we'll talk about creating synthetic life from nothing but "four jars of chemicals".
Nielsio:Because it discredits the whole lewrockwell.com operation and alienates a lot of readers who stand to learn about economics/politics and are put off by this.
Oh come on Niels. If you put something goofy up on vforv, does that discredit voluntarism or alienate the growth of ideas?
You look at who he is not catering to, not who he is. You're also maintaining an impossible standard for Lew, that he has to bear the cross for the entire reputation of libertarianism and anarchism. Which we both know is nonsense. Lew Rockwell represents only Lew Rockwell, and LRC represents only LRC.
Voluntarism is about tolerance, is it not?
Nielsio:Essentially, mixing in things like this forces other libertarians to disassociate from them and create their own site/information networks. So are they going to evolve or die out?
No one is being forced to do anything. You are responsible for your decisions.
And what is wrong with more than one center of ideas? What is wrong with them dying out, or encouraging others to create new networks?
I still made this thread to ask one question.
Why are many methodological tools of economics treated as broader philosophical or scientific ideas? Often, it is the opponents of "vulgar bourgeois economics" who dislike the supposedly greedy individualism or the supposedly pseudo-theological dualism, except they were intended as methodological.
But sometimes, even the proponents start making it non-methodological.
This Darwin piece is one example. Because many strands of human thought rely on the idea of man being responsible for his actions, some feel we must reject even the scientific notions that possibly make man deterministic and natural. Hence, if a theory of evolution contradicts human action in any way, it must be rejected!
But there is the other extreme: you have seen the disastrous effect of the pseudo-science used by the local Marxist, Robheusdens, who tried to use physics to validate labour theory of value; yet, if his point, "There is no free will", were true, then it is true. But that simply does zero, and only zero, for economic analysis, because we know what Black, Scholes, and Merton did to economics through mathematics.
PS: You guys should really see the elementary linear programming problems that communists draw out to make their plans of organized communes. You just know they have made too many assumptions and made too many simplifications for those linear programming problems to ever be implemented. It's pitiful that they think communism will succeed through high school algebra.
liberty student wrote: You're also maintaining an impossible standard for Lew, that he has to bear the cross for the entire reputation of libertarianism and anarchism.
You're also maintaining an impossible standard for Lew, that he has to bear the cross for the entire reputation of libertarianism and anarchism.
As with anything, these resources are scarce. When you are running a site that has lots of good libertarian resources and is known, then you carry the responsibility to keep it reputable and retain a level of rigour.
If Mises.org started posting horoscopes and dailys about the power of prayer, should we be silent out of 'tolerance' or should we be critical?
Nielsio:As with anything, these resources are scarce. When you are running a site that has lots of good libertarian resources and is known, then you carry the responsibility to keep it reputable and retain a level of rigour.
So now you want a say in how Lew manages his scarce resources?
Nielsio:If Mises.org started posting horoscopes and dailys about the power of prayer, should we be silent out of 'tolerance' or should we be critical?
Have critics ever changed the world?
As MrSchnapps indicated, these are opportunities known as teachable moments if you feel you have a case to make. I just don't see criticism, boycotts, complaints, etc as market solutions. Compete with better ideas!
That’s why M. Rockwell, in his managerial genius, had the sense of adding such thing into LRC, as separate form the LvMI website. He trying to get to two, quite different, target groups.
Because evolutionists are annoying. If you read the "anti-evolution" articles on Lew Rockwell they are very rarely such. They do not go after evolution as much as its militant and hysterical proponents.
You are not supposed to actually ask very specific questions about evolution either to try to challange it or just to play devil's advocate. Else you quickly find yourself tagged as a fundamentalist religionist when that is exactly how they behave.