Re: Homosexuality---A reply to the discussions' tone

I guess I thought I was clear that, by writing "discussions'
tone" rather than "discussion's tone," I was including more
than the last debate between Brown and Anonymous.But since
apparently I wasn't clear, I'll say that I was addressing
what seemed to be the subtext of the whole section except
for Klein's. I was addressing "tone," rather than any specific detail in itself.

Also, I did not say that evolution was a fact without
qualification. I said "apparently" it was a fact. There are debates over the meaning of evolution itself.
If I remember Stephen Jay Gould correctly
(it's been a while) and am not doing him an injustice with
my memory, I have been going with his definition of evolution as "change taking place over time," and it does seem that change occurs in life over time. Other people's definitions seem to include a disguised form
of Divine Purpose, and those definitions also seem to have
variety depending on what the person's idea of Divine Purpose is. And I'm sure that there are definitions of
evolution that I haven't come across.

There was also, last I knew, a debate about the meaning
and extent of adaptation. If I remember correctly, one
popular form of adaptation theory was parodied by the idea
that people needed something to hold their eyeglasses, so
they came up with the adaptation of noses.

Truth is definitely the question, but then comes the basic question how do we know what is truth. We are required to pay attention to our own possible prejudices, even ones that could easily pass as good thinking simply because no one else sees them as a prejudice. It isn't possible to know what "all questions" are because we have been limited
by our culture (which includes politics) to think of only
certain questions. I'm guessing that, in l00 years, that
generation will be thinking questions about humanity and science that our generation will not think, simply because they will have a different cultural environment that suggests new ideas to them as "natural."

Our own pasts come into what we as individuals think and
hope, and it isn't possible to make ourselves "Pure without
a past" when we come to science with our questions. Of course we can compensate the best we can, a continually
ongoing process that may lead us to revise earlier thoughts.

Also science wouldn't remain pure, even if it were pure to
begin with, because it is put to use in a community of humans. If I remember Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD
correctly (haven't read it in years), that book is the source of the image of Einstein on a leash like a dog,held
by Brute Power as controlling master.

In at least one theory, natural selection becomes a test
for Winners and Losers, as if it's a species' fault it became extinct. And in that context, I have heard homosexuality described as Losers condemned by Nature
because no progeny issued.

Also, we would have to ask ourselves why we as individuals are discussing homosexuality
at all when we could be discussing Homer vs. Hesiod or
Hellenistic Greek vs. Attic Greek. We didn't just throw
a marker on infinite choices and just by accident come up
with homosexuality as a topic to discuss.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.