Yes, he does get it. You've snipped out the rest of what he said. Essentially, he's saying, Yes, the sociobiologists are a "coherent enough group that their use of technical terms needs to be respected" If so, then they're coherent enough that you can't dismiss the racism and sexism of the rest.
Daniel's full quote, below:
>I have also read Wilson's book, but you are trying to have it both ways.
>If Wilson's book is to be a standalone entity, taken outside the context of
>the surrounding literature, then you can't claim that terms are "used" just
>because Wilson uses them. If we're going to say that the sociobiologists
>are a coherent enough group that their use of technical terms needs to be
>respected, then you can't dismiss the racists and sexists as isolated
>nuts. (DD)
essentially, Daniel isn't disputing what you say below, as far as I can tell. Rather, he's arguing that their racism and sexism is not likely an accident, but presupposed by the theory,itself.
Kelley
At 05:37 PM 2/23/02 +0800, Eric Franz Leher wrote:
>The terms
>under discussion (altruism, selfishness, genetic fitness etc.) are
>fundamental technical terms in evolutionary biology. They're standard
>concepts for Darwinism _in general_ (i.e. not particular to
>sociobiology). If you want to talk about evolution, you need to use
>these terms. It's the established technical vocabulary. In this context
>Wilson was an example. Any other biologist would have done equally well.
>They all have to use them when discussing certain things. That was the
>whole point of my simple and somewhat peripheral query to Carrol - he
>said they were 'useless for .. biological analysis.' I've never noticed
>Carrol make elementary gaffes, so he must have meant something else. So
>I asked.
>
>Repeating, it's technical vocabulary, right? It's broadly used. This is
>a fact. There's no point arguing with me about it. If you want to argue
>with me, you can rephrase your original post to show precisely what
>aspects of Darwinism you consider refuted by the existence of the
>demographic shift. Because there isn't any such refutation.