[lbo-talk] Kenneally, some notes and background

[Carrol Cox]

It seems to me that both Michael and Miles are, in part, battling over
alternative slippery slopes. And I tend to believe that Miles's slippery
slope is, on the whole, the more dangerous. His position is the core of
a theoretical rejection of Bell-Curve viciousness, evolutionary
psychology, rational choice individualism, Magg Thatcher's "society does
not exist, only individuals," and so forth. Now, I'm not sure of this,
but doesn't Miles's argument _also_ tend to oppose Gould's insistence on
the reality of species. Gould has a vigorous defense of "essence" in the
first chapter of SET -- aimed in particular against Dawkins's tendency
to see species as a smear, with no clear demarcations.

I think somehow Michael and Miles ought to be able to work towards a
shared formulation of wht they are trying to say.

Incidentally, not only is it impossible to "prove" the evolution of
language; it is impossible to define what that phrase could conceivably
mean.

Carrol