Well, it may be, as I specifically noted, that this is not a design defect, as it were, but just evidence that the human, or at least the female, capacity for sexual pleasure did not evolve because it enhanced fitness but exists for some other reason,as a spandrel or whatever. Another explanation is that it is a design defect -- that capacity evolved to increase fitness, but not with ideal structures -- a point I took to be evidence in favor of the random, undesigned character of evolution. A third explanation is the sociobiological explanation about mate selection that I suggested. There are others.
You think this is stupid and reactionary thinking. Fine. But a great deal of biology consists in asking stupid and reactionary questions like, Why does organism X have Trait Y? So it seems to follow that you consider biology to be a stupid and reactionary science that concerns itself with unimportant questions for politically bad reasons. Now, assuming I have explained this clearly and you can follow the issue, at least you understand why I raised the question and advanced the hypothesis. Others chose to pursue this aspect of the discussion, not I.
God go with you, friend, we're done.
--- Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 01:42, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
> > My guess, perhaps mistaken, is that
> > you are attempting to hint at a subtle attack on
> SB
> > explanations are vulgar ideology. However, this
> will
> > only work for ideological SB explanations,
> arguments
> > that uphold the status quo, which the ones I have
> been
> > advancing do not
>
> Very true. But I think that's a spandrel case.
> Sociobiology
> evolved for other reasons and as a byproduct offered
> opportunities
> for lefties to speculate too.
>
> I've been thinking a bit about 'why' questions
> lately. Consider
> these:
>
> 1) Why is the sky blue?
>
> 2) Why were the rulers of Austria-Hungary named
> Habsburg?
>
> 3) Why is the quantum of action equal to
> 6.6260693 * 10^-34 J*s?
>
> 4) Why does e**(i*pi) + 1 = 0?
>
> 5) Why is none of my friends named Bacigalup?
>
> 1) gets what we normally think of as a scientific
> explanation;
> there's a physical principle behind it (higher
> frequency light
> is more scattered by the atmosphere).
>
> 2) gets a "how it happened" explanation; you recount
> the history.
>
> 3) isn't incoherent, but we don't know the answer;
> probably never
> will know the answer; and I suspect in some real
> sense it doesn't
> have an answer. Although of course we can speculate
> as much as we
> like.
>
> 4) has an analytic answer; you show how the concepts
> are related.
>
> 5) is the oddest; it sort of presupposes that maybe
> I _ought_ to
> have at least one friend named Bacigalup. If the
> question isn't
> actually senseless, the only possible answer is, I
> just don't, or
> that's just the way it is, or some such.
>
> Now. Why is the clitoris of the human female where
> it is? Which
> of the above kinds of 'why' question is this?
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com