2) Does "one" refer to "a bizarre double standard"?

This is the suspect part, Oris:

Quote:

If I am, in effect, advertising the direction of my eyes, I must be in a social environment full of others full of others who are not often inclined to take advantage of this to my detriment...

He's basically saying that the reason we don't always wear sunglasses (to conceal the direction we are looking from others) is because we trust others to "cooperate" with us rather than exploit us.

"Advertisin the direction of my eyes?" I aint buyin it, sorry.

In a poker game, some guys wear sunglasses, to make sure nobody "reads" them when they look at their cards. Good poker players will NOT hide their "emotions." They will use their facial expressions to deceive the other players instead. Run a game on them, ya know?

We cooperate to build our house, we cooperate economically so that we can survive, we cooperate intellectually so that we know more about life and become wiser... We cooperate often to benefit each other while we play not often poker games in some leisure time to make fun... In former, we trust others so that they will trust us; in latter, we make fun of others and they would return us with tease and joy...

Quote:

We cooperate to build our house, we cooperate economically so that we can survive, we cooperate intellectually so that we know more about life and become wiser... We cooperate often to benefit each other while we play not often poker games in some leisure time to make fun... In former, we trust others so that they will trust us; in latter, we make fun of others and they would return us with tease and joy...

Sure, of course I agree with that.

But the argument about "evolution" is still quite silly. We all have eyes. People can see them, and our facial expressions in general, if we don't wear KKK hoods over our faces, topped-off with dark glasses. So what?

We weren't born wearing hoods. Is that how "evolution" and "cooperation" are supposed to enter the picture? Like, if other people couldn't generally be trusted, then we WOULD have evolved to be born with hoods over our faces?

These "evolution" arguments are specious, if you ask me.

Evolution theory works. Pinker is one of the members of Project Reason co-founded by Sam Harris.

Pinker argues that the radical declines in violent behavior that he documents do not result from major changes in human biology or cognition....Pinker also rejects what he regards as the simplistic nature versus nurture argument, which would imply that the radical change must therefore have come purely from external ("nurture") sources.

I looked at your link. You don't have to read very far to see that Pinker is NOT talking about evolution as a cause or explanation:

Quote:

Pinker argues that the radical declines in violent behavior that he documents do not result from major changes in human biology or cognition....Pinker also rejects what he regards as the simplistic nature versus nurture argument, which would imply that the radical change must therefore have come purely from external ("nurture") sources.

Instead, he (Pinker) argues: "The way to explain the decline of violence is to identify the changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand."[3]

That is exactly why British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene coined the word meme, "a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena."

Quote:

That is exactly why British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene coined the word meme, "a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena."

Well, ya know what Karl Popper said about that, eh, Oris? Natural Selection, like communism and Freudian psychiatry, can be used to explain EVERYTHING.

Which is an indirect way of sayin it don't explain nuthin.

So you have no clue about what is epigenetic inheritance via DNA and protein methylation...The hick complaint of yours reveals that your knowledge is outdated.

Certain biological traits appear to have been shaped by, and to have further enhanced, the human capacity for cooperation. For instance, unlike the rest of the earth'screatures, including our fellow primates, the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual attention.

..the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual attention.

Quote:

So you have no clue about what is epigenetic inheritance via DNA and protein methylation...The hick complaint of yours reveals that your knowledge is outdated.

You seem to get immensely presumptive, arrogant, and condescending when it comes to pronouncing what "scientific truth" is, Oris.

Epigentic and/or regulatory factors in inheritance have NOTHING to do with natural selection, per se. They address the origin of genetic variation.

Natural selection, by definition, does NOT creates variation. It merely acts upon what has previously been created by other methods.

Natural selection can only be a major driver of evolution IF variation is primarily undirected, random, and unregulated. If variation (mutation) is directed then THAT (not natural selection) is what controls the direction of evolution.

Put simply, you are confusing and conflating natural selection with genetic variation, but they are two entirely different things.

Do you always think your own misunderstandings prove ignorance on the part of anyone who don't share them with you?

(1) Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Here's the claim, again:

Quote:

Certain biological traits appear to have been shaped by, and to have further enhanced, the human capacity for cooperation. For instance, unlike the rest of the earth'screatures, including our fellow primates, the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual attention.

The claim is that "the human capacity for cooperation" SHAPES biological traits.

How does that work, exactly?

These very same "biological traits" that are "shaped by" human cooperation, also ENHANCE the "capacity for human cooperation." Could ya get a little more circular you think?

So, what's an example of this "shaping" and "enhancement?" Here's one:

Quote:

..the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual attention.

This is the most confused linking of "human capacities" with the creation of "biological traits" that I've run across in a while. Some people think that "evolution" answers all questions, however ridiculous the "answer" might be. This guy seems to be one of those people.

This has nothing to do with either "natural selection" or "random variation." The variation is not random--it is caused by the capacity for cooperation. The desirable biological traits are not selected by "nature," they are selected by the human organism that wants to shape and enhance his capacity for cooperation.

What makes the whole argument triply feeble is that there is no real connection between human between whites of the eyes and human cooperation. The attempt to make one is prima facie absurd.

What's the reasoning here? That because cooperation is a "good thing," our eyes have whites in them? Really? Someone should have told Rudyard Kipling, eh? That would have made a good story...NOT.

(Sure in Layman's version, "natural selection and genetic variation " are two entirely different things.")

The guy has very well used up-to-date research findings, the knowledge of which you terribly lack. That is why you feel that he is circular.

Quote:

(Sure in Layman's version, "natural selection and genetic variation " are two entirely different things.")

Sho nuff. Not only my version, but the "version" of Darwinian theory that anybody who knows anything knows, eh? You're confusing the guy at the restaurant with the menu.

If it suits your religious needs, Oris, you're quite free to posit "evolution" as your omnibenevolent God with omniscience and omnipotence. Such a "force" can in fact do ANYTHING and "explain" ALL things.

But don't kid yourself and start believing that your views are consistent with "up-to-date research," eh?

Quote:

The guy has very well used up-to-date research findings, the knowledge of which you terribly lack. That is why you feel that he is circular.

You're simply displaying how little you know, Oris, all while thinking you understand. Get over yourself, fool.

A is able to offer a clear definition about a scientific issue; B fails to do so.

Quote:

A is able to offer a clear definition about a scientific issue; B fails to do so.

Exactly.

Fool.