RE: [OPE] Science and scientology

Date: Mon Jun 08 2009 - 07:51:57 EDT

>> You are right. But what Darwin thought is no longer crucial for the
>> progress of the Darwinian research program. A new researcher can enter
>> and contribute to it without ever having read Darwin or Huxley in the
>> original.
> I have just been reading Darwin's 'The expression of the emotions' and
> I am amazed at how 'Lamarkian' it is.
> It has quite a sophisticated theory of reflexes and of what we would now
> call conditioned reflexes ( he calls them habitual reflexes). But what
> is striking is that he asserts that reflex actions were all originally
> voluntary, then became habitual and as such were then fixed by
> inheritance. Looks very like the inheritance of acquired characteristics
> which standard presentations of Darwin having him rejecting.

Hu Paul C:
OK, but evolutionary biologists wouldn't accept the idea that what
Darwin's perspective was on this question could be taken as evidence
either for or against a particular perspective on reflexes. It's a
history of thought question which, by itself, doesn't shed any light
on the actual scientific subject. At most, it can shed light only on
what Darwin's perspective was or wasn't - a hermeneutic and
secondary question.
A danger of over-reliance on the perspectives of an founding authority
figure is the possibility of a cult emerging. since there have been
many Marxist cults in the past, this is a danger that Marxists - and
socialists who don't like to be called Marxists - should be aware of
and take active steps to avoid.
In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
Received on Mon Jun 8 07:53:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT