| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with
> science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever did--My point
> was the exact opposite--aspects of emotions are *outside* scientific
> purview, and to further my point--are they less valid? Do they not exist?
See? This is why I only skim your replies...
Bruce is talking about a debate technique called an "emotional appeal" --
usually this takes the form of something that stirs the emotions of a reader
or listener but that also tends to lack a logical premise, so it is a weak
rhetorical technique used by itself and stronger if it can be supported by
logical grounds also.
You have taken the above to mean that Bruce thinks that science is unable to
explain the existence of emotions. Frankly, I have no idea what Bruce
thinks about that, but I am pretty sure he has stated no such thing so far.
FWIW, let me assert that science can and does explain the existence of
emotions at least at a primitive level -- the more complicated the emotion,
the more particularized the issue, and the more difficult it becomes to
explain the emotion by any means.
For example: the emotion identified by many as "love" is probably a creation
of natural selection and has a lot to do with getting human beings to mate
for the propagation of the species. Anthropologists have discovered that
the human species seems to favor "love" relationships that last in the main
from 4-6 years, usually just enough time to have a few kids and bring them
into the stages of later childhood. When children are at thier youngest,
nature needs the parents to stay together for the benefit of the children --
for protection, for the gathering of food, to be their transportation
system, etc. Once children are out of these earlier stages of childhood and
can move well on their own and generally fend for themselves, nature cares
less whether parents stay together or not. As a consequence of children's
greater autonomy, loving relationships that create children tend to last
between 4-6 years in our species and this has been the case it is thought
for several thousand years -- in the exact same way that your physiology
matches that of human being best described as a "hunter/gatherer." Marriage
as you may know it and think of it is a relatively new thing -- something
that came into fashion more strongly during the industrial revolution.
Elsewhere, people hookup and break up on the 4-6 year cycle described above.
Yes, there is slippage. Some people stay together for briefer relationships
and still others stay together for much longer ones. Do these facts
disprove the theory? No, because it is well known that nature tries
everything in a "shotgun approach" and doesn't put all of her eggs in one
basket. If nature tries everything with each species -- each species is sure
to continue. But I am just speaking metaphorically, there is no "nature"
there is only natural selection.
Science DOES have a theory that explains emotions. Keep in mind that
science knows that you are a walking and talking DNA sample with a very
complicated nervous system and a VERY big brain. Some of the things that we
do are likely to be evolutionary "extras" -- in that we don't seem to
specifically require the behavior or trait for the survival of the species,
but at the same time, the behavior may be the outgrowth of another related
but necessary adaptation for survival. Our big brains may have to do with
the way we see and having complicated visual structures. Bigger brains
means that we created language and that in turn gave us the ability to
transmit knowledge through the generations of the species. Etc. etc. etc....
There now, you can go back to whatever crazy thing you were trying to say...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) This hominid-centric viewpoint that we are the sole custodians of emotions baffles me. Richard you do a great job at explaining the possible origins of them as have several others in this thread. (...) The albatross which is the oldest living (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Really? Do you have a convenient cite for this? I did some google searching, and only found 2nd or 3rd hand references of dubious quality. I have heard the 4-6 year thing before, but never from a particularly qualified source. It's also never (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Love to read it, and I'll get to it. (...) Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
