By: Keith Tayler

Keith Tayler — Sat, 26 May 2012 16:29:00 +0000

Well put. Tweaking the chemicals in our brains to make us more loving is what you did each night in the bar. Of course we laugh at the drunk that professes undying love because we know it is the alcohol talking. If we were to take another drug that did much the same we would also find it laughable (it would no doubt also have side effects that would not be so funny) . Not sure whether we should laugh or cry at the suggestion that chemical fixes can fix the world. What separates Savulescu and Sandberg from 1960s Hippies? No doubt they would say they are doing science, but then a lot of Hippies claimed that. Although I agree with you, I am always a little uneasy about entering into debates with ’strong’ evolutionary psychologists and their apologists. Should we consider the ethics at the point you discuss? If we do, should we not make it clear that it is only a silly thought experiment? I have the same problem with AI. If I debate the ethical issues that are invented by the AI fantasists, am I giving credence to their delusions? I am reasonably happy to debate with theists even if they do try to import a little dodgy science. I have also had long discussions with economists about their forecasts knowing full well, as Gulbraith quipped, that ‘the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.’ But EPs and those that believe in what boils down to ‘the survival of the fitted’ is more difficult. I agree with John Dupre that strongevolutionary psychology is the paradigm of scientific imperialism. Scientific, in this case, means simplistic speculations on past, present and, most bizarrely, future human behaviour. The Just So stories and hokum is founded upon an old and incorrect understanding of the relation between the genes and phenotypes. The theory that there is a Stone Age man inside every modern man is as credible as the reverse notion that there is a 1960s American in every Stone Age man (this often looks like the view of evolutionary psychology but it cannot see the mirror). Women figure more highly in the Flintstone version of the theory, but in both cases they do tend to be mere passengers. I guess we should keep the discourse going even if it is painful. evolutionary psychology is the paradigm of scientific imperialism. Scientific, in this case, means simplistic speculations on past, present and, most bizarrely, future human behaviour. The Just So stories and hokum is founded upon an old and incorrect understanding of the relation between the genes and phenotypes. The theory that there is a Stone Age man inside every modern man is as credible as the reverse notion that there is a 1960s American in every Stone Age man (this often looks like the view of evolutionary psychology but it cannot see the mirror). Women figure more highly in the Flintstone version of the theory, but in both cases they do tend to be mere passengers. I guess we should keep the discourse going even if it is painful.

Comments on: Is Julian Savulescu Channelling Bryan Ferry?

By: Keith Tayler