Megan McArdle@asymmetricinfo I sometimes get a feeling that solid majority of Americans who aren't creationists believe in Lamarckian evolution or ID by some other name
Dom Narducci@dnathe4th @asymmetricinfo I'll take Lamarckian over ID any day. At least soft-inheritance can be debated against Darwinism, without a "just because".
Megan McArdle@asymmetricinfo @dnathe4th I'm talking about what you might call "Gaian ID"--concept that animals/ecosystems evolve in some direction for benevolent purpose
Dom Narducci @asymmetricinfo Oh ... I thought Lamarckian was the concept that organisms can pick up traits to pass on during their lifetime?
Megan McArdle@asymmetricinfo @dnathe4th Yes, it is. I hear both--a lot of people read evolution in strange ways, including those who think creationists are crazy.When is Lamarkianism not Lamarkianism? When Megan McArdle says so.
But at least McArdle isn't one of those silly liberals! They think creationists are crazy to believe in ID but they believe crazy things too! Sadly, McArdle does not let us know who actually believes in "Gaia ID" but they must be out there somewhere because McArdle says she heard them say it. And we all know that people frequently tell McArdle things that supports her negative image of liberals. And "urban" people. And teachers.
McArdle didn't learn much science at school but she did learn how to cover her ass. And it wouldn't be a McArdle whoopsie without some friend trying to help with the ass-covering.
Timothy P Carney@TPCarney @asymmetricinfo you are correct. First time I was called a creationist was b/c I denied creatures could "evolve" on demand.
rdle didn't learn much science at school but she did learn how to cover her ass.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is what MBA school is all about, along with learning corporate-speak.
~
Ironically, the best argument against Evolution Theory is the idiot people who "don't believe" in it.
ReplyDelete"Some of us change. Others mutate." Hill Street Blues
ReplyDeleteEvolution on Demand? Do I have to pay the cable company extra for that?
ReplyDeleteIf evolution on demand worked, I'd be an X-man right now.
ReplyDelete@Susan of Texas
ReplyDeleteHave you considered devoting more time to tearing apart authoritarian writings the way you've deconstructed Rand? It's been very entertaining.
Speaking of which, I need to get back to Rand. It takes a lot of time so I've been slacking off.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any suggestions? Now that McArdle is confined to 140 characters I've been deprived of a lot of motivation.
Over at one website I hang out at they call that the "credible friend." A credible friend always shows up to save some poor poster from ignominious defeat.
ReplyDeleteaimai
If you don't get Rand done now, you'll end up on that project at the same time you're reviewing Megan's book.
ReplyDeleteTry doing the next chapter of Atlas McArdle style. Don't bother reading it, just make stuff up.
McArdle is very fortunate in her friends. And patrons.
ReplyDeleteDownpuppy, you're probably right.
ReplyDeleteWorse of all, I want to go on book leave too. My YA novel's outline is half done and I'm doing a lot of research but I can't do the blog and the book at the same time. I don't want to stop blogging but I really want to write this book.
Also, the election season will be tough. I don't support Obama because of his bank giveaways, persecution of whistleblowers, drones, etc. And it is too soon to advocate starting over from scratch politically-that will not happen unless/until the economy crashes again. There's no solution here.
Plus I am still looking for a job when I have been out of the market for years and there are very few teaching jobs.
I should have been a libertarian. They can always get a writing job and who needs a soul anyways?
@ Susan of Texas
ReplyDeleteJonathn Haidt's The Righteous Mind is in serious need of deconstruction because it is being used to justify conservative/authoritarian mis-deeds and mis-thinking. It pomotes accepting authoritarianism because "authority" is important to conservatives and we should understand their concerns are as important as anyone's.
Expect David Brooks to repeatedly reference the book.
Megan's attempts at coming off like an intellectual always remind me of watching my 8- and 9-year-old nieces trying on their mother's make-up. They so want to be like the big kids, but haven't quite arrived. At least they're capable of maturing and learning from mistakes.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the novel, Susan! I do hope you'll alert us when it's done.
Susan, don't overdo the research. Your readers are 15. What they want is drama, romance, sex, cliff-hangers, emotion. No one is going to read it and say, "Hey, that's not historically/scientifically accurate."
ReplyDeleteHeh, you are so right.
ReplyDelete@Mr. Wonderful,
ReplyDeleteThat's true; the core of any successful YA book is its ability to satisfy the childish desire to be the center of the universe. Do that and you get a movie deal as well
It would be a very interesting experience for someone to write a book on the web so people could watch the process. (Someone who is not me.) Although the only art I don't like is art that's about the process.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the only art I don't like is art that's about the process.
ReplyDeleteGenerally agree, although I thought "Heart of Darkness" was infinitely more interesting than "Apocalypse Now."
I wish this 'fish' character had a blog so he could discuss this idea in more depth.
ReplyDeleteA new fake libertarian woman has been being pushed by Sullivan lately. There were others. I'm too lazy to go back to read her dreck again.
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/archives/2012/06/25/no-to-nukes
De Rugy is awful.