| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » NSAdvantagism
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| g |
 Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Let it be noted that this poster is not "anti-NS." He is only opposed all
the anti-science, pseudo-science, agenda-biased, naive, simplistic,
counter-productive LEGEND which is MISTAKEN for science by many inside and
outside the formal disciplines of scientific research.
"Advantagism" would be a great term of reference for that misleading LEGEND;
so let this layman disambiguate what he would mean by it.
Poster's proposed definition:
ADVANTAGISM (n.) --
1. Action, process or practice of mistaking advantage for cause (ex:
John became an Olympic champion runner because he enjoys the wind in his
face, coming in first in competition, and showing off his collection of gold
medals).
2. In evolutionary theory, any post hoc analysis of the provenance of a
morphological characteristic as being a
need-based, or advantage-based outcome (ex: Birds have evolved wings
because wings enable them to fly away from ground-dwelling predators).
3. Attribution of an advantageous state, condition or quality which
pertains to a limited scenario as being generally superior (ex: Man is the
most highly evolved organism on Earth, as a result of his possession of the
"superior" among all brains, his fine dexterity, his propensity to populate
all the earth, and his will to dominate over all other life forms).
4. A state or condition resulting from an excess of rationalization that
an advantage self-derived (ex: Those who are born multi-millionaires are
the kinds of people who, had they been born paupers, would promptly have
become multi-millionaires regardless).
5. An attitude of prejudice against any victim of perceived disadvantage
(ex: The snake is condemned to a wretched state of existence in this world,
wherein it cannot stand up, cannot speak, cannot hold its food in its hands,
cannot sing and is disgustingly cold to the touch).
This old layman perceives *ADVANTAGISM* to be an earmark of scientific
illiteracy, yes, even if it be relied upon by a many an elementary textbook
alleging to teach children to appreciate "the sciences," and even if it be
relied upon by adults pretending to be empirically objective, and pretending
to be capable of discerning between
empirical cause and affect, on the one hand, and fanciful speculation, on
the other.
g |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:35 pm
|
|