Lexicon of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes Help us establish new Lexicons of Arguments
Psychology - Economics
History - Politics
Law - Social Sciences
Art Theory - Others

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 8 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Criteria Dawkins
 
Books on Amazon
I 372
Gene/Selection/Dawkins: under reasonable consideration, selection does not directly affect the genes! The DNA is spun into proteins, wrapped in membranes, shielded from the world and invisible to natural selection. (Like GouldVsDawkins.) The selection would also hardly have a criterion for DNA molecules. All genes look the same just like all tapes look the same! Genes show in their effects!
(S) effect creates identity.)

Da I
R. Dawkins
Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996

Da II
M. St. Dawkins
Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993

Darwinism McGinn
 
Books on Amazon
II 98
Design argument/William Paley: organisms have a brilliant design: We have not designed them, so we have to assume that a foreign intelligence did it. Let us call this intelligence "God". So God exists. ---
II 98
DarwinVsPaley: intelligent design does not require a Creator. Selection is sufficient. ---
II 98
Mind/Consciousness/Evolution/McGinn: evolution does not explain consciousness - nor sensations. ---
II 99
Reason: sensation and consciousness cannot be explained through the means of Darwinian principles and physics, because if selection were to explain how sensations are supposed to be created by it, it must be possible to mold the mind from matter. ---
II 100
((s) Consciousness or sensations would have to be visible for selection.) (Similar GouldVsDawkins).

McG I
C. McGinn
Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996

McG II
C. McGinn
Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001

Evolution McGinn
 
Books on Amazon
II 57
Human/Evolution/mind/McGinn: it is a remarkable coincidence that we are the only species on earth that is able to do science and philosophy. There could easily be a different species with a certain level of scientific talent, about the level of a ten year old. Or a species that is superior in biology but inferior in physics etc. The kind of intelligence that we have, is absolutely not necessary for living beings to survive.
---
II 79
Consciousness/evolution/McGinn: consciousness is not the pinnacle of evolution and also not the most impressive part of organism structures. It is biologically, comparatively simple. It is part of our oldest facilities. (Not self-confidence!). Consciousness is as common as blood and bone: Even octopus need consciousness for the interpretation of what they perceive with their eyes.
Consciousness is not a product of culture or civilization. (Self-esteem might be).
The problem with consciousness results from our way of thinking, not from the consciousness itself.
---
II 99f
Mind/consciousness/evolution/McGinn: evolution does not explain consciousness, nor sensation. Reason: sensation and consciousness cannot be explained with the means of the Darwinian principles and physics, because if the selection will explain how sensations are caused by it, it must be possible to shape the mind of matter. ((s) consciousness or sensation must be visible for selection. (Similarly GouldVsDawkins))

McG I
C. McGinn
Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996

McG II
C. McGinn
Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001

Evolution Mayr
 
Books on Amazon
I 43
Evolution/Mayr: Unit of evolution is the population (or species) and not the gene or the individual. (MayrVsDawkins).
I 183
Evolution/Mayr: Species is the decisive entity of evolution.
I 230
Evolution/Progress/Mayr: Cohesion: an expression of the fact that the system of development has become very narrow.
Evolution: proceeds very slowly in large, member-rich species, and very quickly in small peripheral isolated groups. (Speciation, >interrupted equilibrium, Gould).
A start-up population with few individuals and therefore little hidden genetic variation can more easily assume a different genotype.
Macroevolution: is most strongly determined by the geographical factor (isolation).
I 234
Evolution/Mayr: the concepts: 1) Rapid evolution: (transmutationism): type jump. Even after Darwin some researchers (including his friend Huxley) could not accept the concept of natural selection and developed saltationist theories.
2) Transformational evolution (transformationism) gradual change of the ice to the organism. Ignored by Darwin.
I 235
3) Variation Evolution (Darwin)
I 235
Darwin (early): adaptation modification. Vs: can never explain the enormous variety of organic life, because it does not allow for an increase in the number of species.
I 236
Darwin/Mayr: The Origin of Species: 5 Main Theories 1) Organisms are constantly evolving over time (evolution as such).
2) Different species of organisms are derived from a common ancestor.
3) Species multiply over time (speciation)
4) Evolution takes the form of gradual change. (GradualismVsSaltationism).
5) The evolutionary mechanism consists in the competition among numerous unique individuals for limited resources that leads to differences in survival and reproduction (natural selection).
I 234
Evolution/Mayr: the concepts: 1) Rapid evolution: (transmutationism): type jump. Even after Darwin some researchers (including his friend Huxley) could not accept the concept of natural selection and developed saltationist theories.
2) Transformational evolution (transformationism) gradual change of the ice to the organism. Ignored by Darwin.
I 235
3) Variation Evolution (Darwin)
I 235
Darwin (early): adaptation modification. Vs: can never explain the enormous variety of organic life, because it does not allow for an increase in the number of species.
I 236
Darwin/Mayr: The Origin of Species: 5 Main Theories 1) Organisms are constantly evolving over time (evolution as such).
2) Different species of organisms are derived from a common ancestor.
3) Species multiply over time (speciation)
4) Evolution takes the form of gradual change. (GradualismVsSaltationism).
5) The evolutionary mechanism consists in the competition among numerous unique individuals for limited resources that leads to differences in survival and reproduction (natural selection).
I 377
Evolution of life: a chemical process involving autocatalysis and a directing factor. Prebiotic selection.
I 237
Pasteur: proofed the impossibility of life in oxygen-rich atmosphere! In 1953, Stanley Miller grew amino acids, urea and other organic molecules in a glass flask by discharging electricity into a mixture of methane, ammonium, hydrogen, and water vapor.
I 238
Proteins, nucleic acids: the organisms must form these larger molecules themselves. Amino acids, pyrimidines, puridine do not need to formed by the organisms themselves.
I 239
Molecular biology: discovered that the genetic code is the same for bacteria, which do not have nuclei, as in protists, fungi, animals and plants.
I 240
Missing link: Archaeopteryx: half bird half reptile. Not necessarily direct ancestor. Speciation: a) dichopatric: a previously connected area is divided by a new barrier: mountain range, inlets, interruption of vegetation.
b) peripatrically: new start-up population emerges outside of the original distribution area.
c) sympatric speciation: new species due to ecological specialization within the area of ​​distribution.
Darwin's theory of gradualism
I 243
VsGardualism: cannot explain the emergence of completely new organs. Problem: How can a rudimentary wing be enlarged by natural selection before it is suitable for flying?
I 244
Darwin: two possible solutions: a) Intensification of the function: E.g. eyes, e.g. the development of the anterior limbs of moles, whales, bats.
b) Functional change: E.g. Antennae of daphia (water flea): additional function of the swimming paddle, which is enlarged and modified under selection pressure.
E.g. Gould: Feathers probably first for temperature control before any animal could fly.
Function/Biology: Functional differences are also related to behavioral patterns, e.g. feather cleaning.
Competing theories on evolutionary change
I 247
Salationism: Huxley later Bateson, de Vries, (Mendelists). The saltationist emergence of new species only occurs poyploidy and some other forms of chromosomal restructuring (very rare) during sexual reproduction. Teleological theories: assume that nature has a principle: Osbron's arsitogenesis, Chardin's omega principle. Should lead to perfection.
Lamarck's Theories: Changes go back to use and non-use, environmental conditions. Until the 1930s!
I 248
Def "soft inheritance" (acquired characteristics). Was refuted by genetics. Def "hard inheritance" (so-called "central dogma"): the information contained in the proteins (the phenotype) cannot be passed on to the nucleic acids (the genotype)! (Insight of molecular biology).
I 256
Macroevolution: after saltationism, soft heredity and autogenesis, had been refuted with evolution, macroevolution had to be explained more and more as a phenomenon on the level of the population, i.e. as a phenomenon directly attributable to events and processes during microevolution. (Speciation: faster in isolation). (>Gould, Eldredge, 1971: "interrupted equilibrium, "punctuated equilibrium", punctualism).
I 281
New: we know today that the cycles of herbivores elicit those of the predators and not vice versa! Coevolution: E.g. the Yucca moth destroys the plant's ovules by its larvae, but pollens the flowers.

Ma
E. Mayr
Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998

Foundation Rorty
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
VI, 246f
Foundation / Dawkins / RortyVsDawkins: (thesis, that people are just vehicles for genes) - an inadequate thought of foundation - RortyVsKant: you should not hold on to an ahistorical "human nature" as well.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Genes Rorty
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
VI 241 ff
RortyVsDawkins: thesis that people are just vehicles for genes: is an inadequate foundation of thought. The claim that one knows something which is itself not intuitive morality, but probably could correct our intuitive morality.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Order Dennett
 
Books on Amazon
I 94
Design/Dennett: there is no quantitative measure of Design. It is not undisputed that a car contains more design than a bicycle, a shark more than an amoeba, etc.
I 95.
E.g. plagiarism contains no less design than the original (> forgery).
I 172
Design/Dennett: since each newly emerging crafted thing contains a huge design effort somewhere in its origination, the most economical hypothesis will always assume that the design is essentially a copy of an earlier design. Design/Dennett: can it be measured? Can we calculate the speed with which the genetic drift accumulates deviations? There is a cap to the speed, the actual evolution is much slower.
I 316f
The "products" are not the gene strings, but the creatures themselves. DennettVsDawkins. Complexity/design/Dennett: what is the relationship between the two? It's about the right combination of simplicity and complexity. It is about "opportunities for simplicity".
E.g. a simple Seagull outboard motor is famous for the fact that it never breaks down. Of the paddle we rightly don t think so highly.
Design/Dennett: if you know something about the design of a device, you can predict its behavior without having to worry about the basic physical properties of its parts. E.g. operate a VCR. E.g. construction of a VCR: only here one must observe the basic laws of physics.
I 85f
Design/Dennett: Needs a creator - Order: needs no creator - Darwin: reduced design to order - there is no quantitative measure of design - not undisputed whether a bicycle has more design than a shark.
I 95
Plagiarism: no less designed than the original.
I 94
Design: great investment - hence theory: most design are a copy of previous design.

Den I
D. Dennett
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Den II
D. Dennett
Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999

Selection Dawkins
 
Books on Amazon
I 38
Selection/Dawkins: Thesis: selection occurs at the lowest level. (Not species, not individual, but genes, unit of heredity).
I 42
Selection/Dawkins: earliest form of selection: simply a selection of more stable molecules and rejecting unstable ones. It would not make sense to shake the right number of atoms and the right amount of added energy to expect a human to come out. The age of the universe would not suffice for that.
I 73
"The cards themselves survive the shuffling." Selection/Dawkins: If genes always mixed, selection would be absolutely impossible.
I 158
Def Degree of Relationship/Dawkins: generation span: steps on the family tree. To Uncle: 3 steps: the common ancestor is e.g. A's father and B's grandfather. Degree of Relationship: per generation span ½ multiplied by itself.
For g steps (1/2) g.
But that is only part of the degree of relationship. In case of several common relatives they must also be determined.
I 158
Selection/Relationship/Altruism/Dawkins: Now we can correctly calculate the chances for the multiplication of genes for altruism: E.g. a gene for the suicidal rescue of five cousins ​​would not become more numerous, but probably one for the suicidal rescue of five brothers or ten cousins.
VIII 162
Family Altruism/Dawkins: parental care is merely a special case of family altruism. The fact that siblings do not exchange genes is not relevant, because they have obtained identical copies of the same genes from the same parents.
Family Selection/Kin Selection/DawkinsVsWilson, E.O.: transfers the concept of group selection to family. Now, however, the core of Hamilton's argument is that the separation between family and non-family is not clear, but a question of mathematical probability.
Hamilton's thesis (?) does not imply that animals are selfless towards all family members and self-serving to all outsiders.
VIII 164
DawkinsVsWilson: he does not consider offspring as relatives! (VIII 461: Wilson has now withdrawn that).
VIII
Def Group Selection/Dawkins: different survival rate in groups of individuals.
I 164
Kin Selection/Dawkins: Of course animals cannot be expected to count how many relatives they are saving!
I 462
Kin Selection/Dawkins: frequent mistake for students to assume that animals must count how many relatives they are saving.
I 165
Kin Selection/Dawkins: to determine the degree of relationship actuarial weightings can be used as a basis. How much of my wealth would I invest in the life of another individual.
I 166
An animal can behave as if it had done this calculation. E.g. just as a human catches a ball as if he had solved a series of differential equations.
I 372
Gene/Selection/Dawkins: under reasonable consideration, selection does not directly affect the genes! The DNA is spun into proteins, wrapped in membranes, shielded from the world and invisible to natural selection. (Like GouldVsDawkins.) The selection would also hardly have a criterion for DNA molecules. All genes look the same just like all tapes look the same! Genes show in their effects!
(S) effect creates identity.)

Da I
R. Dawkins
Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996

Da II
M. St. Dawkins
Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993


The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Dawkins, R. Dennett Vs Dawkins, R.
 
Books on Amazon
I 172
The "products" are not the gene strings, but the beings themselves DennettVsDawkins. DennettVsDawkins: no analysis of the isolated genome can open the dimension at issue in living beings. that would be like trying to judge a novel by how frequently letters occur.
I 346
Dawkins: "... In genetic hyperspace exists a smooth path connecting the prehistoric bony fish lying on its side with the flatfish with twisted fish - but no such path that connects these ancestors with flatfishes that ly on their stomach." Explanation / DennettVsDawkins: Does Dawkins KNOW that?
I 510
Mem / Dawkins: we have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and our education. As the only living beings we can oppose the tyranny of the selfish replication. DennettVsDawkins: this "we" is a myth. This grants also Dawkins.

Den I
D. Dennett
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Den II
D. Dennett
Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999
Dawkins, R. Deutsch Vs Dawkins, R.
 
Books on Amazon
I 167
Environment: the genes do not experience the environment! They have neither sense nor experience. It is a simulation without an audience. In addition, the organism is not only simulated but made​​. (VsDawkins, per Gould).

Deu I
D. Deutsch
Die Physik der Welterkenntnis München 2000
Dawkins, R. Gould Vs Dawkins, R.
 
Books on Amazon
GouldVsDawkins:Gene sind für die Selektion nicht sichtbar (nur Individuen sind es) daher reagiert die Selektion nicht auf sie. I passim
Richard Dawkins These: Gene die relevanten Einheiten der Selektion, GouldVs.
VsDawkins: Setzt an bei Butlers berühmtem Aphorismus Z "eine Henne sei nur die besondere Art und Weise, in der ein Ei ein zweites Ei hervorbringen."
GouldVsDawkins: in Dawkins Angriff auf die darwinistische Theorie steckt ein fataler Fehler: Ganz gleich, wieviel Macht Dawkins den Genen zusprechen möchte, eins kann er ihnen nicht geben, nämlich die direkte Sichtbarkeit im Prozeß der natürlichen Selektion. I 94
GouldVsDawkins: er wird sich anderer Metaphern bedienen müssen. Er wird darauf zurückkommen müssen, daß Gene sich versammeln, Bündnisse schließen, einander Achtung zollen, einem Pakt beitreten, und eine mögliche Umwelt auskundschaften. Doch das daraus zusammengesetzte Objekt bezeichnen wir als einen Körper. I 94
GouldVsDawkins: die Theorie des egoistischen Gens und der egoistischen DNA sind sehr verschieden.
Nach Dawkins nehmen die Gene an Häufigkeit zu, weil sie Auswirkungen auf den Körper haben - die DNA aber aus genau dem umgekehrten Grund, weil sie keine Auswirkungen!
VIII 434
Gen/Selektion/Dawkins: bei vernünftiger Betrachtung wirkt sich Selektion nicht direkt auf die Gene ein! Die DNA ist in Proteine eingesponnen, in Membranen eingewickelt, von der Welt abgeschirmt und für die natürliche Auslese unsichtbar. (Wie GouldVsDawkins.) Die Selektion hätte auch kaum ein Kriterium für DNA-Moleküle. Alle Gene sehen gleich aus, wie alle Tonbänder gleich aussehen! Gene zeigen sich in ihren Auswirkungen! VIII 372
Dawkins, R. Pinker Vs Dawkins, R.
 
Books on Amazon
I 263
Mem/PinkerVsDawkins: none of the procedures of the so-called mem-selection (success of musical themes, commercials, etc.) resembles natural selection. You just need to compare the input and output, e.g. design number 5 and design number 6 of an artist: they did not differ by a few randomly exchanged elements. The added value ensues, because mental faculties concentrate on it! And not because it is copied thousands of times.
I 264
Cultural Evolution/Pinker: to call it a Lamarckian is to admit that you have no idea how it works. The outstanding features of cultural products result from mental calculations. Fallacy: the products of evolution need not look like evolution at all! I 265 E.g. The stomach has stopped trying out acid combinations that might be better. Its evolution is complete. In a very similar manner, the human mind does not have to understand the process of evolution to come up with a good idea. Mem/PinkerVsDawkins: The analogy rather comes from epidemiology than from evolution. Ideas are infectious diseases. A spirit that passively takes up all freely floating memes would be an easy victim of exploitation for others and selection would eliminate him quickly!

Pi I
St. Pinker
Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998
Dawkins, R. Verschiedene Vs Dawkins, R. VIII 457
VsDawkins: Menschen haben mehr als 99 % der Gene gemeinsam, dann müssten sie sich doch auch alle altruistisch zueinander verhalten.
VIII 310
DawkinsVsVs: das ist ein Missverständnis: ((s) 99% der DNA?). VsDawkins: einige Autoren glauben, diese Darstellung des Überlebenswertes des Gott-Mems sei zirkulär.
DawkinsVsVs: diese Autoren wollen immer wieder auf die "biologischen Vorteile" hinaus. "Psychologische Anziehungskraft" reicht ihnen nicht, sie wollen wissen, warum das so ist.
Dawkins: Psychologische Anziehungskraft ist Anziehungskraft für Gehirne, und diese werden von Genen geformt.
VIII 314
Darwinismus als Mem: in allen Köpfen etwas bestimmtes - das Wesen Bsp des Darwinismus vorhanden. Mem/(s)VsDawkins: die ganze These wird problematisch, wenn sie nicht ohne die Annahme eines "Wesens" auskommt. Aber vielleicht kann man das vermeiden.
Dennett I 457
((s) Mem-Theorie führt zum Essentialismus.) Mem/(s)VsDawkins: Problem: Bsp Prämissen und Konklusionen müssen wohl als getrennte Meme angesehen werden, aber wenn eine Argumentation besonders zwingend ist, könnte man sie vielleicht auch kurz formulieren und dann stellt sich die Frage der Zahl und Abgrenzung der Meme.
Gene/Selektion/VsDawkins/Dennett: die häufigste Kritik an der Genzentriertheit lautet: Gene könnten einfach keine Interessen haben. (Auch Gould). Dennett: selbst wenn sie ihre Interessen nicht vertreten können, können sie doch welche haben! Und zwar eindeutig! Dennett I 457





Den II
D. Dennett
Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999
Evolution Theory McGinn Vs Evolution Theory
 
Books on Amazon
II 99
Mind / consciousness / evolution / McGinn: evolution does not explain consciousness! Also, not sensation.
II 100
  Reason: sensation and consciousness cannot be explained by Darwinian principles and physics , because if the selection explained how sensations are caused by it, it must be possible to mold the mind from matter.   ((s) Consciousness or sensation should be "visible" for selection!. (Similar GouldVsDawkins)).

McG I
C. McGinn
Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996

McG II
C. McGinn
Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001
Various Authors Dawkins Vs Various Authors
 
Books on Amazon
Aggression/Lorenz: (The so-called evil): Thesis: Aggression is a species-preserving function. Thus only the most suitable individuals propagate
DawkinsVsLorenz: Sample example for a circular conclusion. Circular. It is also contrary to Darwinism, which he does not seem to have noticed.
Animal/Lorenz: (The so-called evil) Thesis: stresses the moderate and fair character of the battles between animals. They practically fight according to rules and prefer the bluff to the deadly blow. Submission gestures are recognized by the victor. Animals fight with a "gloved fist."
DawkinsVsLorenz: this interpretation can be disputed, and man is not the only creature that kills his own fellow-human beings.
 In fact, unreserved fighting rage also entails costs
 DawkinsVsLorenz: the "gloved fist" turns out to be an ESS. The "open-minded redeemer". VIII 135
DawkinsVsAxelrod: the distinction between "simple" and "repeated prisoner dilemma" is too simple.VIII 358
SterelnyVsDawkins: assumes that a similarity of 5 % is better than one of 4 %! Is the selection really so fine-grained? Dennett I 347

Da I
R. Dawkins
Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996

Da II
M. St. Dawkins
Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993
Various Authors Mayr Vs Various Authors
 
Books on Amazon
Typen, typologisches Denken: MayrVs.: geht auf Platon zurück, ist für die Evolutions- und Populationsbiologie ungeeignet: hier hat man es nicht mit Klassen, sondern mit Gemengen einzigartiger Individuen zu tun: Populationen. Also gibt es auch keine "Essenz" (VsEssentialismus) V 15
Vitalismus: eigenartiges Phänomen: unter den Physikern des 20. Jahrh. Kamen vitalistische Vorstellungen auf . Bohr: in Organismen könnten bestimmte Gesetze wirken, die n unbelebter Materie nicht anzutreffen seien.
Bohr suchte in der Biologie nach Belegen für seine Komplementarität und zog einige verzweifelte Analogien heran.
MayrVsBohr: da gibt es wirklich nichts, was in Betracht kommt.(Unschärfe nur im subatomaren Bereich).V 38
Evolution: Einheit der Evolution ist die Population (oder Art) und nicht das Gen oder das Individuum. (MayrVsDawkins).V 43

Ma
E. Mayr
Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998
Various Authors Pinker Vs Various Authors
 
Books on Amazon
I 26
Robots Basic Laws/Asimov: 1) A robot may never hurt a human being,  2) it must obey the orders of humans, unless the orders conflict with the first law 3) It must protect its own existence, unless this conflicted with the 1st or 2nd law.
I 27
PinkerVsAsimov: he was not able to position himself outside his own thought processes. The ability of humans to do evil is not considered, and their support is not excluded by the laws.
I 458
Brain/Emotion/Tradition: "Triune brain": Unity of the cerebrum as evolutionary palimpsest of three layers: 1) Bottom: base ganglia (reptiles), seat of the primitive and selfish emotions
2) Limbic system: softer, more social emotions (parent feelings etc.)
3) The two are surrounded by the modern mammalian brain, the neocortex, which grew rapidly during evolution and is home to the intelligence.

PinkerVsTrinity Theory (with Paul MacLean): the evolutionary forces do not simply accumulate layers. Although our bodies are witnesses of the past, they only possess few parts that have not been modified. Even the appendix is now conceded a function in connection with the immune system. Not even the circuits for emotions remain unaffected. (i.e. ​​also: VsDennett?).
I 459
Emotions are easy to reprogram! E.g. after less than 1,000 years of breeding dogs include Pitt Bulls and Saint Bernards.  Furthermore, the cortex is not riding piggyback on the prehistoric limbic system. The systems work hand in hand. The amygdala dyes our experiences with feelings. It liaises with virtually every other part of the brain.

I 62
Def SSM/"Sociological Standard Model": separation between culture and biology. Thesis: biological evolution was replaced by cultural evolution. (E.O.Wilson, later became victim of angry protests). LewontinVsWilson.
I 63
Incorrect quotes of the opponents: E.g. Dawkins: "Genes created us, body and mind." (correct).
VsDawkins: wrong quote: "genes control us, body and mind."
- -
I 324
Seeing/PinkerVsGombrich, Ernst H.: contrary to popular belief, we do not see what we expect to see.
I 342
Seeing/Marr: completely ignores the backs, and even the surfaces. He analyzed the form of animals as if they had been made of pipe cleaners. Seeing/BiedermanVsMarr: assigns to every e.g. animal multiple geone combinations for different views.
PinkerVsBiederman/PinkerVsGeones: it is precisely this concession that opens the possibility that forms are recognized in a completely different way. Why should we not think the idea through and assign many memory elements to every form, one for each position? Such memories do not need an exotic object-centered frame of reference, but can use the coordinates of the two-and-a-half dimensional sketch as long as there are so many memories that all perspectives are covered.
Pinker: that was dismissed for many years from the outset. It took perhaps 40,000 aspects for each subject (memory elements). But this does not cover the positions outside the center of the field of vision yet!
 In recent times, it was considered, however, that for each object at most 40 aspects are sufficient when interpolating between views.
I 343
Direction/Up/Down/Seeing/Pinker: People adjust themselves to the top down direction: if Africa lies on its side, it is not recognized, a square is not a diamond. This brings a further dilution of the geone theory: relations such as "over" or "above" must come from the retina, and not from the object.
 This limitation is likely to be indispensable, because often there is no way to define the "up" in an object before you recognized it!
 We can also turn objects in our mind (VsGeones). This makes a frame of reference of geones oriented to the object even less necessary.

Pi I
St. Pinker
Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998

The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
VsDawkins Rorty, R.
 
Books on Amazon
VI 247
RortyVsDawkins: (Dawkins thesis: that humans are only vehicles for genes) as an inadequate foundation idea.
  VI 248
  The claim that one knows something which is, in turn, no intuitive morality, but probably could correct our intuitive morality.

The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of an allied field of specialization.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Sozio-Evolut. Wilson, E.O.
 
Books on Amazon
Pinker I 62
Def SSM. "Sozialwissenschaftliches Standardmodell": Trennung zwischen Kultur und Biologie. These: die biologische Evolution sei von der kulturellen Evolution abgelöst worden. (E.O.Wilson, wurde später Opfer wütender Proteste). LewontinVsWilson.
I 63
Falsche Zitate der Gegner: Bsp Dawkins: Gene schufen uns, Körper und Geist." (Richtig).
VsDawkins: falsches Zitat: "Gene kontrollieren uns, Körper und Geist".
I 72
E.O.Wilson: These: Männer neigen stärker zur Polygamie. Steven RoseVsWilson . Buch: "Die Gene sind es nicht": Wilson wolle sagen: Mädels, werft euren Partnern nichts vor...

Pi I
St. Pinker
Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998