XPost: rec.arts.sf.composition   
   From: dsgood@iphouse.com   
      
   Please, you guys, move this to rec.arts.sf.misc   
      
   John W Kennedy wrote:   
      
   > David Friedman wrote:   
   > > In article <4924dc7e$0$4875$607ed4bc@cv.net>,   
   > > John W Kennedy  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > David Friedman wrote:   
   > > > > In article <49249422$0$4888$607ed4bc@cv.net>,   
   > >>> John W Kennedy  wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > > > And can you find any excuse in that talk for the response   
   > > > > > > it evoked? The  only explanations I can see are either that   
   > > > > > > the people who attacked him  don't believe in evolution   
   > > > > > > when it suggests politically incorrect  implications or   
   > > > > > > that they do believe it but want to suppress speech   
   > > > > > > pointing out those implications--want, in fact, to have   
   > > > > > > people believe  things that aren't true.   
   > > > > > Evolution is neither here nor there. On the one hand, plenty   
   > > > > > of folk  believed that women were intellectually inferior to   
   > > > > > men for thousands of  years before Lamarck introduced   
   > > > > > evolution to the world; on the other  hand, evolution can no   
   > > > > > more suggest that women have minds inferior to  men's than it   
   > > > > > can suggest that they have fewer teeth than men have.   
   > > > > I gather you didn't actually read what he said.   
   > > > The attempt to yoke the truth or falsity of evolution to the   
   > > > subject is  yours, not his.   
   > >   
   > > Correct. He commented on an empirical observation--wider tails for   
   > > male  than female distributions of many characteristices. Evolution   
   > > is  connected to that in two ways:   
   > >   
   > > 1. It implies that there is a reason to expect the distributions to   
   > > be  different.   
   > >   
   > > 2. It offers a reason to expect that particular pattern.   
   > >   
   > > Summers did not make that point, although he may well be aware of   
   > > it.   
   > >   
   > > > My refutation of it would actually remain cogent even if  what he   
   > > > said had been, "I like squashy bananas." Neither "Evolution is   
   > > > true," nor "Evolution is false," nor even "Evolution is of   
   > > > indeterminate  truth," implies "Women are inferior," or "Women   
   > > > are superior," or "Women  are neither inferior nor superior." The   
   > > > two sets of propositions are  mutually orthogonal.   
   >   
   > > Evolution is true does, however, imply that it is quite unlikely   
   > > that  the distribution of traits for women is the same as for men.   
   >   
   > As I said two or so posts ago, that applies equally well to   
   > Aristotle's notion that women have fewer teeth than men. This is   
   > simply going in circles.   
   >   
   > > > [Heroically wresting this stupid subthread back on topic] I   
   > > > realize that  science fiction has a long history of treating   
   > > > evolution  unscientifically -- as an alternate to handwavium, or   
   > > > as an  unacknowledged ersatz religion -- but in real biology, it   
   > > > is neither of  those things. It is a process, sans intentions,   
   > > > sans directions, sans  implications for anything but itself.   
   >   
   > > You might want to read _The Selfish Gene_ in order to see some of   
   > > the  reasons why that statement is false.   
   >   
   > Really? Evidently, then, David Stove was in the right when he accused   
   > Dawkins of starting a new religion. (Not really new, of course.   
   > Bergson and Shaw beat him to it.)   
      
      
      
   --   
   Dan Goodman   
   .sig under reconstruction   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)