home

Copernican erotics

Joe wrote:

Lord Norton wrote:
Really? Optimal fertilization constitutes preference now? Flies have preferences? Did the fly say I really enjoyed getting more load inside of her rather than rough sex? There is no way to measure preferences in this regard.
Lord Norton wrote:
my suspicion about flies in general is that they do not do a considerable amount of thinking before they decide to procreate.
Lord Norton wrote:
Male flies are not doing any thinking. They are acting on what is traditionally referred to as instinct. It's a survival mechanism. Whether you want to mix up this jargon of preference with human behavior is your problem.

Lord Darwin (from the Descent of Man) wrote:

"The males (passing over a few exceptional cases) are the more active in courtship; they are the better armed, and are rendered the more attractive in various ways. It is to be especially observed that the males display their attractions with elaborate care in the presence of the females; and that they rarely or never display them excepting during the season of love. It is incredible that all this should be purposeless. Lastly we have distinct evidence with some quadrupeds and birds, that the individuals of one sex are capable of feeling a strong antipathy or preference for certain individuals of the other sex."

As above - by Norton's converting the standard-meaning of a bio-term - preference - into mentalistic farce, the theory of Sexual Selection is refuted. Other theories (too) may be over-thrown - despite their not having been supplanted by scientists, who present counter-data and devise counter-theories. If this linguistic sleight-of-mind is permitted, every currently viable scientific theory is but one word-spell from falsification. Two examples (from astronomy and physics) follow.

(1) Since Copernicus, astronomers - who rely on evidence - strongly suspect that the Heliocentric theory has been confirmed; that is, the earth is revolution about the sun. One might well jar the Heliocentric theory out of the orbit of scientific viability - by forcing the word "revolution" to apply in politics-only contexts.

A nortonism results:

"Since the earth produces no "revolutionary manifestos, proclamations or acts", Copernicus was wrong! The earth is not in revolution regarding the sun! Did the earth say: "Working planets of the solar system unite! You have nothing to lose but your gases!"? My suspicion about planets in general is that they do not do a considerable amount of thinking before they decide to engage in revolution. Anyone who affirms that the earth is in revolution with the sun is imputing a human-level of political consciousness to a freakin' planet!"

The appropriate response to the equivocator should be: It's not possible for a planet to launch an armed, political struggle against a star or utter revolutionary slogans. The science meaning of the word "revolution" has been confused with the political meaning of the same word, then the political word-meaning used as if it applied in its original (science) context. There is no possible relationship between the sweep of the earth around the sun and the episodic political upheavals, shot-through human history. To assert that either a planet produces "revolutionary manifestos, proclamations or acts" or it's not in revolution regarding its own star is a false dichotomy. Likewise, the dichotomy that non-human organisms either engage in "thinking before they decide to procreate" - OR - they have no mate preferences is false - in spades.

(2) Newton's theory of universal gravitation proposes that all physical objects in the universe exert a gravitational attraction on one other. This theory, like Darwin's and Copernicus's above, could be wrenched-away into a norton-like, jargonized pottiness by confining the word "attraction" - to a human understanding of love, infatutation - or lust.

The resulting nortonism becomes:

"Universal gravitation is a fairytale! Inanimate objects cannot be attracted to one another! Only humans of the opposite (or the same) sex can attract each other and fall in love! Did the moon say: "Sister Earth, you stir my manhood! How's about a date?"? Anyone who insists otherwise is attributing erotically charged impulses to atoms, molecules, moons, planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies!".

A sound rejoinder might be: But what have you been smoking lately? Or, your wacky assimilation of love-attraction with non-love-attraction cannot refute a scientific theory. To replace Newton's theory, you need to produce disconfirming evidence against it - as Einstein's theory garnered. Likewise - to polish-off the theory of Sexual Selection, powerful counter-evidence is required.