It Is the Theorist Who Makes the Rules "Followed" by Animals, Not the Animals

By -
Jonathan Finegold claims: "Thus, saber-toothed cats adopted evolutionary social rules, just like humans do."

No: the cats just behaved the way they behaved. They could not have "adopted" a rule, because they lack the means (language) necessary to even formulate a rule.

That cat behavior was somewhat consistent, however, and due to that consistency, the theorist can abstract a rule (since he does have language at his disposal).

Understanding this is a crucial part of avoiding the great rationalist error, which is believing that reality is only comprehensible through abstractions.

For more on this topic, see this paper.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell10:07 AM

    If I understand this correctly, then this would mean that common libertarian claims like presuppositions of property rights and "true" ownership are only in their heads, correct? So, for instance, PDAs are not merely following Rothbard's rules but generating them, correct?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more