|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2002 : 16:48:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Boy, I'm sure glad this stuff is easy....
If it were easy everybody would do it--Jim Henson
Is this speculation, hypothesis, or well-supported theory?
It's not speculation. I've got a Ph D so it has to be at least a hypothesis  [self deprecating humor]
I haven't done any work on it yet so it's not a theory.
It's just that I was reading your thread.> Then last Friday Penny phoned me (we had both been in Honolulu at the same time and didn't know it) and was telling me some stories about work. >Then the Discovery channel reran a bunch of old shows about great apes showing clips of the one group of chimps that make hammers and anvils to open nuts. The shows went into the social structures of ape groups. >Then I watched a tape of a Woody Allen movie (Hanna and Her Sisters). That started me thinking about how Freudian Psychology would be viewed not in relation to mythology (as Freud started and Jung really got into) but rather in relation to modern primatology as it in turn would relate to early humans. >Which reminded me of Goodall's disruptive chimp.> Which got back to your thread, where I decided to hold the history of faith up to the lights of primatology & evolution instead of mythology as I usually do.
Where can you read about it?
Nowhere yet, I haven't started the study. It's an original thought (as far as I know)-I have them now and then. They're very disturbing to those around me
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2002 : 05:05:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is this speculation, hypothesis, or well-supported theory?
It's not speculation. I've got a Ph D so it has to be at least a hypothesis [self deprecating humor]
I haven't done any work on it yet so it's not a theory.
I don't think you did, but just to cover my bases, please don't take my question as an attack. I'm searching.
quote:
Then I watched a tape of a Woody Allen movie (Hanna and Her Sisters).
Oh. I'm so sorry...
quote:
Which got back to your thread, where I decided to hold the history of faith up to the lights of primatology & evolution instead of mythology as I usually do.
Where can you read about it?
Nowhere yet, I haven't started the study. It's an original thought (as far as I know)-I have them now and then. They're very disturbing to those around me
I'm quite glad you did. When you start the study, let me know, at least when there's something to read.
I can understand why they're disturbing to most (assuming you mean those with a religious bent), and to some extent even those without a religious bent, but these thoughts, while far more specific than mine, are along the lines of my own speculations. The one true surprise to me so far is the idea of gods as an intentional deception originally rather than as an honest if misguided attempt to quantify the unknown and scary. To be honest, I'm leaning in your direction, but I'm not totally there yet.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2002 : 06:25:48 [Permalink]
|
Well, let me test my memory on this--I haven't got a PHD. Really, I barely got out of high school alive. So, please excuse my brashness, and diminished communication skills. Anyhow, here goes....
quote:
That would have been Cro Magnon. Homo Erectus was a little guy who lived much earlier. (Hom O'Erectus was the ancestor of the Leprechauns ) He was the one who decided to stop walking on his knuckles and so leave me with this nagging lower back ache.
I think that the latest H. erectus fossils were turning up about the same time as the earliest H. neanderthalensis fossils, while the archaic H. sapiens overlapped each. I wouldn't care to speculate on if one species affected the evolutionary paths of another. I'll leave that to the Miss Cleo's of the world, unless some really intrigueing fossils show up giving a lot more clues to the social structure of early hominids.
Plus, weren't the Australipithecines, (golly, I can't spell), the first to pull their knuckles off the ground, freeing their hands for more important things like, well, let's not go there. I'll save that one for the Springer show.
quote:
Michael the gorilla was known to lie. He once ripped the door off a refrigerator and ate all the treats inside. When confronted with his crime he blamed it on one of the docents he didn't like, a rather frail, petite woman. (No one said that he was a good lier)
But just think of how big a brain you need to lie.
First you have to understand that your actions have consequences beyond the immediate.
Then you must construct a "separate reality" in your head that has never existed in your experience, in an attempt to alter the predicted future.
Our ability to lie was the first step in our ability to create.
Wow, that really blew me away. I never actually thought about it that way. I can find no rational reason to doubt it, but I would like to float this one by a Fundy. Just think, his ability for perceived immorality gave him a leg up in the competition for supernaturalism. Or is that a leap?
Anyway, Slater, I would be very interested in your views or speculations on whether this ability to lie is a learned behavior in gorillas, or is a parallel evolutioary trait to us, or perhaps it evolved as far back as the hominid split with Ramapithecus or earlier. Has anyone seen any work in this area, ie. books, papers or whatever?
I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2002 : 10:50:20 [Permalink]
|
Anyway, Slater, I would be very interested in your views or speculations on whether this ability to lie is a learned behavior in gorillas, or is a parallel evolutionary trait to us, or perhaps it evolved as far back as the hominid split with Ramapithecus or earlier. Has anyone seen any work in this area, i.e. books, papers or whatever?
This is speculation but I think the ability to lie is inherent in chimps and gorillas because of brain size. Bonobos in the wild obviously lie because you can observe blatant trickery in their behavior. As you also can to a lesser extent in chimps. You don't see it so much in gorillas, but when they are taught to speak it comes out. (They also make jokes) But when you get to Orangutans you neither see the behavior nor can you teach them to speak. So there seems to be a pretty clear cut off point in brain size and lying in the living anthropoids. It would seem like you could interpolate these observations and apply them to early humans. But there wouldn't be any way that you could actually prove the validity of your findings.
Of course these apes being raised in a lab and nurtured by humans changes their behavior. For that matter so does simply being observed by humans in the wild (imagine how your behavior would change if a gorilla sat behind the water cooler and stared into your cubicle all day). But the intellectual potential is there.
Here's a very disturbing story. Koko was born in the SF Zoo but Michael was an orphan baby from Africa. The first thing that he wanted to tell people, as soon as his vocabulary was large enough, was that his mother had been murdered.
The roots of our myths go back much further than it is comfortable to imagine.
Never mind that the "Jesus the savior" story can be easily traced to another savior story a few hundred years older. All the savior stories are duded up descriptions of the male hierarchy in gorilla society. It's a safe bet (because of their size, diet and the environment in which they lived) that the animal behavior / social structure of our direct ancestors was similar to that of present day gorillas.
That isn't Professor Marvel hidden behind that curtain it's a Silverback male.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2002 : 02:21:38 [Permalink]
|
Slater, that sounds good to me. Perhaps, it is the ability to reason on some higher level due to increased brain size, that gives us and the 'higher' apes this creative ability.
quote:
It's a safe bet (because of their size, diet and the environment in which they lived) that the animal behavior / social structure of our direct ancestors was similar to that of present day gorillas.
I would agree to this point concerning the more primitive Australopithecines, like A. boisei or A. robustus. If I recall correctly, there was a very pronounced size difference in gender, and their teeth were large and built for grinding, making them predominately gatherers similar to gorillas. However, I would think that gracile Australopithecines may have been more similar to the bonobos in social structure. A. afarensis and A. africanus had to compete with the larger Australopithecines, and probably would not have outlasted their larger cousins with the same social structure. Plus, the graciles, I think, would have done a bit more cooperative hunting, (dental patterns, more omnivorous). These traits may have helped them to outcompete the robust Australopithecines, thus evolving the early Homo genus. I think that the physical evidence would suggest that the gracile Australopithecines, and H. hablis could have had widely varying social structures akin to the variable social characteristics of the bonobos.
But, just speculation on my part. I'm certainly no expert, and I wasn't there. And if I was there, Nobody would believe me. (Nobody's one of our dogs, and to him I'm god, so he believes whatever I say)
We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It [terrorism] is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.
-- Pat Robertson |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 01:04:05 [Permalink]
|
I think the following is a good example to help answer one of the original questions: What harm is it if people believe silly things? Well, you can end up in a situation where the police will not perform functions they usually do for a ridiculous reason...
(01-24) 04:29 PST PENRYN, Pa. (AP) -- The police department has refused to direct traffic at a YMCA triathlon because it says the club promotes witchcraft by reading Harry Potter books to children.
Penryn Fire Police Capt. Robert Fichthorn said the eight-member force voted unanimously to boycott the 20th running of the triathlon, scheduled for Sept. 7.
"I don't feel right taking our children's minds and teaching them (witchcraft)," Fichthorn said. "As long as we don't stand up, it won't stop. It's unfortunate that this is the way it has to be."
The Lancaster Family YMCA began reading chapters of the Harry Potter books to children enrolled in an after-school program in November.
In a letter to the township and the YMCA, Fichthorn challenged the religious integrity of the YMCA, and questioned whether it was "serving the will of God" in using the books.
The wildly popular children's books by J.K. Rowling chronicle the fictional adventures of the young Harry Potter as he attends a boarding school for wizards and battles his nemesis, the evil sorcerer Voldemort.
The YMCA's executive director, Michael Carr, said he was disappointed by the department's decision, but doesn't expect it to stop about 600 triathletes from participating in the race.
Township Supervisor Ronald Krause said the YMCA may have to hire police from another community to direct traffic for the race.
The course includes a one-mile swim, a 25-mile bicycle route and a 6.2-mile run. About 200 volunteers are needed to run the event, which passes through Penryn, a small community about 66 miles west of Philadelphia.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 04:51:25 [Permalink]
|
I'm beginning to think that there is a purpose to Evang. Skep., and it is what has been expressed by so many posters here.
I suppose the next question, though, is does it confer an evolutionary advantage? Are we on the winning team?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 09:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are we on the winning team?
I'd like to think so.
Unfortunately, it has been shown in the past that the uneducated masses can be so uneducated that they can be driven into a murderous frenzy, killing the so-called evangelical skeptics.
This is very bad for survival. 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 05:06:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are we on the winning team?
Though, I do not care to think of this as a contest, I do believe that we are on the winning team. At the same time, I think that we are going to loose a lot of very important little contests in the near future. However, the lessons of history seem to point toward a slow trend toward rational thought. The problem is if belief is a survival trait, then the road ahead will be very long and difficult. Ever tried to show a dyed in the 'Shroud' fundy how illogical hers/his ideas are?
quote:
does it confer an evolutionary advantage?
I'd like to think so, but that's only because I'm "an elitist, self-centered and close-minded, Darwinist," as I was refered to only yesterday. And, all I did was ask a few very simple questions about fulfilled prophesy. OK, maybe I am self-centered and close-minded, but elitist? Gimme a break!
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 16:05:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think the following is a good example to help answer one of the original questions: What harm is it if people believe silly things? Well, you can end up in a situation where the police will not perform functions they usually do for a ridiculous reason...
(01-24) 04:29 PST PENRYN, Pa. (AP) -- The police department has refused to direct traffic at a YMCA triathlon because it says the club promotes witchcraft by reading Harry Potter books to children.
Yikes!! And just where is this trend likely to lead....?
July 1, 2004
To: Godless resident
From: Chief of Police
Our department has determined that you are involved in poisoning the minds of young people by disseminating the subversive doctrine of evil-ution. The department has therefore voted 189-3 against interfering with any righteous residents who might want to burn your house down.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 16:49:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I suppose the next question, though, is does it confer an evolutionary advantage? Are we on the winning team?
I think it does. The less skeptical out there sometimes resort to all kinds of quakery when they get sick and may hurt themselves trying to be "healthier" by sampling some of the weird products out there.
But consider this, skepticism has a lot to do with a lot of the technical advancements we have seen. Skepticism is not science but a skeptical mind is more scientific or at least so I think. If we did things the same way we always did without questioning the way things are done and have always been done there would have been no plow, no wheel, no fire, no crop rotation, no modern medicine(we'd still be using leeches)...I could go on and on.
I think the above have increased our chances for survival signicantly.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 17:15:37 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, but I just came upon this interesting thread here on SFN. I do not have a lot of time for the web. I am stuck with polite trolling. The web has too many delights and I have little time for everything I would like to accomplish.
I, myself, have been a skeptic for as long as I can remember. I find it exceedingly boring to tilt against the anti-scientific windmills of the poor adult souls who somehow missed the scientific boat. I believe in promoting a scientific attitude to the nth degree, fully realizing that people exist (and will always exist) who are congenitally opposed to science. I am more interested in getting science across to those whose minds are open to it. I thoroughly enjoy attending science lectures given by universities where wonderful people congregate. I think that talking and writing positively about science (in my case, astronomy and physics) is the only valid way to promote science.
Regardless of what anyone does or says, nothing is going to change the attitudes of the ill-informed or un-informed. So why waste time? Arguing with such unfortunates is extremely boring. I spend a lot of time around interesting people who are scientifically knowledgeable. I get involved with my friends and their children (by buying books, computers and computer programs, magazine subscriptions, encyclopedias, telescopes, etc.) I do not attempt to force anything upon them (or upon their parents).
Presenting a negative attitude toward the public gets nobody anywhere. Promote science positively. Challenge the media when they goof miserably about science (and misinform the public). Join an astronomical society where more than just *find that star* is offered. Enjoy life. Avoid the absurd anti-scientific quicksand. It is unhealthy to remain continually negatively focused.
ljbrs  
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 17:25:39 [Permalink]
|
That's absolutely true ljbrs and I don't like the term evangelical skepticism because it does conjure up vissions of going door to door and forcing things down people's throats.
Skeptics should just provide resources and discussion for those that are interested in hearing it.
At the same time I see no problem with the occassional fight on some of the battlfronts out there like creationism and prayer in schools. These are not exclusively skeptical battlefronts but I think they are important.
If someone doesn't draw the line and decide to fight for what they think is right then who knows what could happen. Of course, it goes without saying that the other end of the ideological spectrum feels exactly the same way.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 17:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Regardless of what anyone does or says, nothing is going to change the attitudes of the ill-informed or un-informed. So why waste time?
This has come up a few times before, and I still must say that this attitude is extremely disappointing in fellow skeptics.
It's sounds arrogant and elitist. "Oh, poor pitiful stupid little people, I have no time for you!"
This is not the way to teach anybody anything other than to reinforce the unfortunate stereotype that skeptics are cynics and arrogant know-it-alls.
We are a minority. The only way we can become a majority is through education. You may have been a skeptic all your life, ljbrs, but many people here have not. We used reason and rationality to reject the superstitions that were foisted upon us by our parents and family and friends. This wouldn't have happened if skeptics took the same attitude as yours.
Yes, very disappointing... 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2002 : 20:18:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Regardless of what anyone does or says, nothing is going to change the attitudes of the ill-informed or un-informed. So why waste time?
This has come up a few times before, and I still must say that this attitude is extremely disappointing in fellow skeptics.
I have to agree that it is a disappointing attitude for Skeptics to have.
I think that there was only one of us who said that they were raised in a family of Skeptics. That means that all of the rest of us changed. I know that the only reason that I changed was because a Skeptic challenged me to prove that what I held to be true actually was. To be honest he didn't actually challenge me, I was just in the group that was listening to him talk to a fellow believer.
In trying to prove it I found out that I was wrong. I had been both ill and un-informed. But thanks to this Skeptic I did something about my short comings.
I never did get a chance to thank him. The only way I can show my gratitude is to pass his challenge along. Prehaps someone on the sidelines, some lurker at this site, will say "Those Skeptics are insufferable. I'll PROVE that they are wrong." It would be wonderful if that happened.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 01/26/2002 20:21:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
