tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-511872729119650516.post2908747583853905503..comments2023-08-29T10:32:26.194-04:00Comments on A Skeptic's Creed: The Sentiments TrapBob Kirkmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08399898787113410391noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-511872729119650516.post-90665928155146509272009-06-07T15:10:43.448-04:002009-06-07T15:10:43.448-04:00In addition to all that, the thing I never underst...In addition to all that, the thing I never understand about arguments that seem to be based on evolutionary psychology (call it that) is how and why they're supposed to be predictive of the behavior of any given individual person. I haven't studied evolution in any great degree, but my rough grasp of it is that one can't really separate evolution from ecology and species. Traits that are not selected against carry on, in principle for the whole species, in the ecological context in which those traits evolved. But that doesn't determine the traits, let alone the behavior, of any particular individual of the species. <br /><br />I guess I'm suggesting one of two things. Either (a) [to be somewhat Foucauldian] we're looking at a failure to recognize the normativity inherent in empirical scientific observation and theorizing - the "ought" being not only applicable to moral but also "empirical" reasoning, or (b) we're looking at a failure to be empirical <i>enough</i> - to see that individuals vary. <br /><br />These are both pretty satisfying to me, since after all, the "moral" arguments Hume was discussing were also about matters of fact. Hume's reputation should be hipper.Doc Nagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07240297041650481905noreply@blogger.com