Much pop SB is like this, but this is not true in general or in principle or in this case,
There is
> nothing wrong with the proposition that mental or
> cognitive characteristics
> are biologically determined,
Sure there is. "Biologically determined" is a nonsensical notion. That's the point of my mantra, repeated most recently in an email to Yoshie.
the problem is how it
> is argued.
>
> The particular argument in question is an example of
> the fallacy known by
> its Latin name as petitio principii - i.e. the
> argument resting on the
> assumption that is either not supported or a part of
> what is to be proven.
I'm quite as knowledgeable about logic as you (I have graduate training in it and used to teach it), and you might just have said that the argument begs the question. No need to drag in Latin. But that is not what you mean anyway, as explained below.
> Specifically, there is no empirical evidence that
> offspring of less
> attractive women have a greater chance of survival
> that the offspring of
> more attractive ones, or even that the former have
> more offspring than the
> latter. When you think about this proposition by
> itself, it appears rather
> ludicrous.
You are confused. That is not the explanation at issue. This is because you still don't correctly state the concept of evolutionary fitness. That is, roughly, a matter having more babies with a given trait than without it. So stated, it is not absurd to say that women who appear fertile are more attractive to men than women who do not because that is a preference that gets selected for. Please notice that "appearing fertile" and not "attractiveness" is the trait in women; the "attractive to" is the trait in men (that is selected on this explanation). Indeed, far from being absurd, it is highly probable, unless "appearing fetile is not positively correlated with being fertile.
>
> It start "making sense" only when you assume as
> valid the point that is
> being argued, namely that there is a connection
> between fertility and
> perception of beauty.
So what you really mean is that the argument is an enthymeme (if we want to bring in ancient languages and terms from Medieval logic), an argument containing a suppressed or unstated premise. This is not begging the question and it is not a fallacy. It is just an incomplete statement of the argument.
Only when you assume that
> conclusion as valid, the
> assumption on which that conclusion is made rings
> true.
Correct, you do need taht premise for the argument. Thank you for pointing that out. But the premise is not implausible and (as I said) may be true. Probably is.
>
> This line of 'reasoning' is frequently used to
> justify and legitimate the
> status quo and for that reason it is particularly
> obnoxious to someone who
> is cognitively predisposed toward left-wing
> weltanschauung.
>
So, you say that people of leftist persuasion should not entertain SB arguments because people of right wing persuasion often misuse these arguments to support conlusions leftists disagree with. This contains so many fallacies it is mazing that you can get them all into one sentence:
1) the assumption that right wing arguments that justify the status quo must be wrong (this is genuine question begging)
2) The idea that idea politically repugnant to the left should not be given serious consideration because we do not like the conclusions (confusing fact and value)
3) The idea that because some people misuse SB as a kind of explanation for bad purpose, that no one should ever use it for any purposes (fallacy of assuming that the whole of SB is like some parts of it
And some others.
Sigh.
jks
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com