|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 解构芦大师的“自私是生命的存在方式”学说 |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
I can't express myself clearly in -- 芦笛 - (1622 Byte) 2005-2-23 周三, 下午11:08 (404 reads) |
芦笛
[博客]
[个人文集]
论坛管理员
.gif)
加入时间: 2004/02/14
文章: 31805
经验值: 519217
|
|
|
作者：芦笛 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
Sorry I was in a hurry so that I made loads of stupid mistakes. Let me correct them first:
“Throught the development of sciences, his efforts to remedy his theory has been repeated for countless times. In general, that is the fate of all scientific hypothesis. They were proposed, tested, questioned, then modified to meet the challenge. If they could still work in the current conditions, they would be treated as concensus or generally-accepted theory like Darwinism, but if they failed to explain new phenomena even after modification, they had to be disgarded.”
Should be
“Throughout the development of sciences, his efforts to remedy his theory have been repeated for countless times. In general, this is the fate of all scientific hypotheses. They were proposed, tested, questioned, and then modified to meet challenges. If they could still work in the current conditions, they would be treated as consensus or generally-accepted theories like Darwinism, but if they failed to explain new phenomena even after modifications, they had to be discarded.”
See, once a foreigner, always a foreigner. God, I wish I could command English as skilfully as you do.
Now your second point:
“2. 我看过无业游民的帖子，似乎是你老对他所说的有误解，但这不要紧。请你再看清楚，我提出中美洲howler monkeys的例子，是要解释为什么在一些特殊环境下，胆小鬼绝对会比英勇者有更大可能存活，这似乎不是你的理论所可以解释的。”
I am sorry that you misunderstood. First, 无业游民 proposed a hypothesis trying to explain the origin of selfless behaviour by following Darwin’s track. He imagined that “selfless gene(s)” originated as a result of random gene mutations and were then selected by competitions. That’s what he meant, isn’t it?
Now he has got two problems here. First, he confused “selflessness” with “bravery”. I have pointed out this to him in my poster.
Second, his theory suggests that the environmental pressures select brave ones, which, in my view, cannot stand. So I pointed out that contrary to his theory, it would be more likely that cowards would stand more chance to survive and thus pass down their genes.
The way by which I refuted him is the most common way of reasoning. So much so that I did not have to explain it in details as I am doing here. Surprisingly, you failed to get it and thought that I reached a wrong conclusion by deduction of my theory!
I am afraid that your current argument does stand, either. My proposal is that sole purpose of the existence of all living things is to keep their individual species surviving and not to be extinct. For this sole purpose, they do not choose means, whether it looks “selfish” or “selfless” in our opinion. So your refutation just serves to prove I was right. To keep the species going, the apes would rely on whichever way. If being brave helped them to survive, then only brave ones could survive. If being timid helped them to survive, then only cowards could survive. In short, “for the species to survive at whatever cost and by whatever means” is the sole purpose of the existence of all living things.
I do hope you understand my points now. I promise I will write a Chinese piece to express myself better. Thank you for your interest!
作者：芦笛 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
