It seems to me that in at least some of these examples you are confusing the map with the territory. Take genetics:
Genes don’t proliferate by being good for the species; they win by being good for themselves.
Failing to be “good for the species” is not a fact about evolution, or genes. Thinking that evolution was supposed to be “good for the species” was just a heuristic humans used when trying to understand evolution. The “selfish gene” does not say anything meaningful about the phenomenon of evolution, it just shows that we have refined our understanding of evolution.
Now take politics:
Why do governments inevitably end up run by career lawyers and politicians instead of scientists and economists?
What does the phenomenon of government actually look like, in reality? Well, it looks like a system of human hierarchical organization in which career lawyers and politicians have a natural propensity to be on top. Thinking that the phenomenon of government has anything to do with understanding nuanced social issues is confusing the map with the territory.
I don’t think I understand either of your points. In the genetics case, are you disagreeing with the contention that a species could proliferate more with a skewed gender ratio?
Or are you saying that whether or not it would is just uninteresting or the wrong question to ask for some reason?
It seems to me that in at least some of these examples you are confusing the map with the territory. Take genetics:
Failing to be “good for the species” is not a fact about evolution, or genes. Thinking that evolution was supposed to be “good for the species” was just a heuristic humans used when trying to understand evolution. The “selfish gene” does not say anything meaningful about the phenomenon of evolution, it just shows that we have refined our understanding of evolution.
Now take politics:
What does the phenomenon of government actually look like, in reality? Well, it looks like a system of human hierarchical organization in which career lawyers and politicians have a natural propensity to be on top. Thinking that the phenomenon of government has anything to do with understanding nuanced social issues is confusing the map with the territory.
I don’t think I understand either of your points. In the genetics case, are you disagreeing with the contention that a species could proliferate more with a skewed gender ratio?
Or are you saying that whether or not it would is just uninteresting or the wrong question to ask for some reason?