It’s certainly not just sci-fi writers who go for this sort of reasoning. I knew a theology professor who would make mistakes like this on a consistent basis. For example, he would raise questions about whether there was an evolutionary pressure for babies to evolve to be cute, without even considering the possibility that we might evolve to find babies cute. It struck me as being much worse than the sort of unthinking assumption that goes into Attack of the Fifty Foot Whatever sci fi stories, since his preconceptions were actually hindering him in fairly serious attempts to understand the real world.
In case you hadn’t noticed, this is a general problem. And you’re right, the observer is not some guy speaking from some immutable “neutral point of view” but it’s an error made very commonly by certain “scientists” every day. His error was not one of theology, but one commonly made by “evolutionary psychologists”. But let’s consider this case: if evolution has free dibs on everything, and it lacks any teleological component whatsoever, then what are we to say about your status as a rational being?
First, welcome to Lesswrong! If you’d like to introduce yourself, the 2010 thread is still active.
You’ve asked some interesting questions on this thread—unfortunately, Desertopa is the only one of your potential interlocutors I know to be active on this site. Even Desertopa may be reluctant to respond because your tone (“In case you haven’t noticed”) could be construed as combative, and we try to avoid that because emotionally identifying with one side of an argument leads to biases.
Regarding your question in the last sentence: there are a few posts addressing the rationality of intelligences generated by a blind idiot god on LW: The Lens That Sees its Flaws is one of my favorites.
Surely the pressure would be for adults to find babies cute, whatever they look like. In fact, isn’t that what “cute” means, evolutionarily speaking, just as “attractive” means “what good breeding material looks like”?
Of course, as in the sexual selection case, you can then get feedback, with babies evolving to look even more like they look.
It’s certainly not just sci-fi writers who go for this sort of reasoning. I knew a theology professor who would make mistakes like this on a consistent basis. For example, he would raise questions about whether there was an evolutionary pressure for babies to evolve to be cute, without even considering the possibility that we might evolve to find babies cute. It struck me as being much worse than the sort of unthinking assumption that goes into Attack of the Fifty Foot Whatever sci fi stories, since his preconceptions were actually hindering him in fairly serious attempts to understand the real world.
In case you hadn’t noticed, this is a general problem. And you’re right, the observer is not some guy speaking from some immutable “neutral point of view” but it’s an error made very commonly by certain “scientists” every day. His error was not one of theology, but one commonly made by “evolutionary psychologists”. But let’s consider this case: if evolution has free dibs on everything, and it lacks any teleological component whatsoever, then what are we to say about your status as a rational being?
First, welcome to Lesswrong! If you’d like to introduce yourself, the 2010 thread is still active.
You’ve asked some interesting questions on this thread—unfortunately, Desertopa is the only one of your potential interlocutors I know to be active on this site. Even Desertopa may be reluctant to respond because your tone (“In case you haven’t noticed”) could be construed as combative, and we try to avoid that because emotionally identifying with one side of an argument leads to biases.
Regarding your question in the last sentence: there are a few posts addressing the rationality of intelligences generated by a blind idiot god on LW: The Lens That Sees its Flaws is one of my favorites.
There may also be evolutionary pressure for babies to evolve to be cute.
There’s certainly evolutionary pressure for males to be sexy. Some species have pretty bizarre looking males.
Surely the pressure would be for adults to find babies cute, whatever they look like. In fact, isn’t that what “cute” means, evolutionarily speaking, just as “attractive” means “what good breeding material looks like”?
Of course, as in the sexual selection case, you can then get feedback, with babies evolving to look even more like they look.