The evolution of beauty: Face the facts

The Economist ^ | November 16, 2013 | The Economist

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Getting beat up, never smiling, bathing or combing hair has something to do with that I think.

And then there is the concept that before 40 you have the face you were given, after 40 you have the face you made.

Some of those guys have their clock on fast forward.

[goat granny]

****40 you have the face you were given, after 40 you have the face you made.******

Ouch, I don't recognize that wrinkled old face that stare's back at me in the mirror...:O) I know who I am unless I look in the mirror..Yikes

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Years ago I had a lady council me not to ever smile because it would result in wrinkles. I laughed at her.

I would bet that over the years you have built a nice face.

[Texas Songwriter]

The evolution of beauty. So, most evolutionists are metaphysical naturalists which is essentially one who affirms physicalism is all there is in the universe. Physicalism says all there is in the universe is energy and matter. So, what is beauty made of? What is the physical makeup of beauty or ugly. Are these physical constructs or simply perceptions of sentient beings? Do those sentient beings have to have properly functioning cognitive faculties in order to determine what is what? If so do we need a cognitive apparatus to function normatively. Normative function says the noetic makeup functions the way is was designed to function. It is not a statistical bell-shaped range of function. Now, this is easy to understand if we were to examine an artifact such as a carburetor on an engine. But if knowledge is warranted true belief, then how do we warrant the notion of beauty? If knowledge presupposes warrant and warranted beliefs produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties (noetic faculties), then warranted true belief presupposes the notion of being designed, then knowledge presupposes a designer.

This is the issue: if knowledge exists and if properly functioning faculties are necessary conditions for knowledge, then if the notion of properly functioning cognition require the existence of a designer of those faculties and cannot be understood in naturalistic terms. This does not argue that evolutionary naturalism is false, but that even if true it is irrational to believe it, and fails to offer epistemic explanation for warranted true beliefs.

Beauty is a subjective analysis of a cognitive perception and does not (cannot) offer any survival value. Vice, virtue, beauty, love, hate, etc. are invariant abstract entities which are made of no matter. Metaphysical naturalists must, in order to be consistent, deny their very existence. So for those metaphysical naturalists who say to their wives, " I love you." has no more meaning than for that man to tell his wife, "I have a gastrointestinal pain, or an itch".

[BroJoeK]

Talisker: "But in social science, these “scientists” wave their hands and talk about “beauty” and “desirability” and other vagueries and then thrown in hard science “genetics” and voila’ - a published paper that AMCNBCCBS vomits out in the news and everyone freaks out about."

Friend, your problem is obvious -- you're making the wrong comparisons.
The exactitudes & precision of analyses in the social sciences should not be compared to natural sciences, but rather to political science -- and now, the light comes on, right?

I mean... compared to political science where, "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" means precisely... means exactly... means certainly... means conveniently... means amazingly...

Means whatever it is it means, whenever it is meant to mean it.
I mean, compared to that, social sciences are exact, well defined and rigorously practiced, wouldn't you agree?

;-)

[BroJoeK]

Texas Songwriter: "This is the issue: if knowledge exists and if properly functioning faculties are necessary conditions for knowledge, then if the notion of properly functioning cognition require the existence of a designer of those faculties and cannot be understood in naturalistic terms.
This does not argue that evolutionary naturalism is false, but that even if true it is irrational to believe it, and fails to offer epistemic explanation for warranted true beliefs."

FRiend, that surely deserves some kind of prize as one of the biggest pieces of nonsense ever posted on Free Republic.
What, did you pull those big words at random out of some dictionary?
Did you even use a dictionary?

[Talisker]

...wouldn't you agree?

LOL, you nailed it!