Posted on 03/04/2006 4:35:36 PM PST by Antonello
To note and measure cooperative tendencies is science. Real science. To then add marketing for evolution is not science, it is boosterism, or more likely -- evanglism for Darwinism.
What marketing for Darwinism? The article starts with the observation of cooperation being inborn in humans and then surmises that it may have evolved. The actual evidence for evolutionary theory has nothing to do with this.
Also, do you view all scientific evidence as "marketing?"
I view strawmen as strawmen, how about you stop stuffing that straw effigy you've made of me, eh?
My previous post consisted of 2 questions and 2 statements on the nature of the article. Where is the strawman in that?
Ah, but is it real science they are bashing, or just a flawed study? One experiment does not a consensus make. I'll say it again...there is no such thing as real altruism, only the illusion of altruism...we only do things that help us gain pleasure or avoid pain. That's life.
As far as kids are concerned, they just mimic each other...it's just the way kids are...they aren't considering the philosophical implications of their actions, they are just going with the herd.
Ah, but is it real science they are bashing, or just a flawed study? One experiment does not a consensus make. I'll say it again...there is no such thing as real altruism, only the illusion of altruism...we only do things that help us gain pleasure or avoid pain. That's life.
As far as kids are concerned, they just mimic adults and each other...it's just the way kids are...they aren't considering the philosophical implications of their actions, they are just going with the herd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.