Re: Social Evolution

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Peter Stott: "Funding Available from National Center for Preserv. Technology"
• Previous message: Tracy Brown: "Re: Social Evolution"

> Tracy, you don't like social evolution. Can you offer a reasonable alternative?
> I'm serious about this, and here's the reason why. I identify around me an
> increasing number of people who think that by raising questions like "Why
> is it that people argue for X....." they have actually made some progress.
> In this case, I'd have to ask, do youseriously mean to say that what you
> think is important is an argument ad hominem instead of addressing the
> relation between the theory and facts of the case?
>
> John McCreery (JLM@TWICS)

The relation between the theory and facts in this case have been argued
extensively here on Antho-1 already. It is a fair question to ask why
people are so interested in this argument.

I never said I didn't like social evolution -- if by social evolution we
simply mean change. If we mean progress, then yes, I have a problem with
that. According to Dave Rindos, no one in their right mind argues this
anymore. If this is true, than I suppose we have nothing to worry about.
Tracy Brown

• Next message: Peter Stott: "Funding Available from National Center for Preserv. Technology"
• Previous message: Tracy Brown: "Re: Social Evolution"