On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:50:53 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-07-26 12:08:46 +0000, Jonathan Gresham said:
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:25:53 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-07-26 10:56:12 +0000, Jonathan Gresham said:>> > Without a
scientific/intellectual movements, a radical and positive> > future is
not possible. That is the only way that we can cultivate a> >
scientific and altruist culture without reproducing spiritual social> > >> contagion. The more of these SIM's the public is exposed to and that> > >> the public takes part in, the more internationalist and altruist the> > >> culture will become. Nationalism, aside from certain tribal> >
peculiarities, arises on the basis of the original development of> >
spiritual and intellectual culture; and, it causes economic
dependence.> > Nationalism is collective egotism. Examples of
nationalism include,> > Nazi Germany, the United States, and Russia.>
REFERENCES> > BEKHTEREV, VLADIMIR MIKHAILOVICH. Collective
Reflexology: The Complete> > Edition. ROUTLEDGE, 2018.
And this has what to do with talk.origins?>>> --> athel cb :
Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
It was supposed to be a science related post. Isn't this a science
board? Why can't I voice my opinion about SIMs?
If you regard reflexology, psychology, etc. as sciences then yes, you
can claim your post as science-related.
Just back from a writing retreat in the Highlands where we had no Internet whatsoever, so a bit late to this and the original post was deleted. From what is still there in the above, my interest would have been piqued.
But the text is a bit odd - Bekhterev has nothing to do with the theory of SIMs, and as he died in 1927 would not have written anything about "Nazi Germany" either. He was keenly interested in modernising the Russian university system though.
You may have been mislead by the term "reflexology" here - this is not about the massage technique, Bekhterev was a pioneer in neuroscience and physiologist - an early critic of Pavlov in particular. His CV is interesting and fits TO in a way- started
with a theology degree, got quickly bored and changed to physics and math, eventually specialising in neurology. Even though the book is from 2016, that too is misleading - he died in the 1927, possibly on the order of Stalin. He did discuss Darwin and
contributed to the Russian Darwin reception, which was more mixed than that in Germany or the UK say - a choice quote: "It should be obvious to anyone that what is universal is not the struggle for existence among individuals of the same species, or of
different species, but rather struggle for the right of life generally, for the acquisition of the necessary conditions of existence
from surrounding nature". He supported the "mutual aid" theory of Kropotkin and significantly contributed to its dominance in Russia, and the important studies on mutualism that came out of this (Gould admired Kropotkin, as did Douglas H. Boucher who
also mentioned Bekhterev)
I'm not sure how SIMs come into this - they are a (reasonably influential) school within the sociology of science - essentially thy try to back up Kuhn's often very abstract speculations about "paradigms" and probe them for empirical evidence. Founding
father I think was Neil Gross- better known for his studies on the political leaning of US academics (more liberal than conservative, BUT with no evidence that that influences research or teaching)
While I don't think Gross ever discussed Darwin and the ToE directly, quite a bit of their research is of relevance for TO I'd say - theory analysis of intellectual movements e.g. also shows just how far off e.g. Ron Dean's nonsense about Darwin's
motives is, while accounting for the "intellectual movement" character of "evolutionary thinking" in Mayr's terms, that went far beyond biology .
Some of his studies are even more directly TO relevant, e.g. on religious beliefs among US academics - with a similar finding as that for liberalism: US academics are more religious than it is often thought (so still less religious than society as a
whole) but it does not significantly impact on their work.
As I said, I can't see what the original post argued, and having SIM and Bekhterev together is a bit odd, but in principle both could be, in very different ways, be very interesting for TO (and infinitely better than the tedious nonsense our current crop
of TO creationists and their sympathisers produce imho)
But this group doesn't exist to
promote any old science-related idea you want to promote, but
specifically origins (whether of life or of the universe).
I see that Matt Gresham (relative of yours?) said this about
Bekhterev's book at Amazon: "It was nice. my first book on sociology
and man was it good." No one else has posted a review.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)