Which learned science, our species or our individuals?

[MonDie]

If my question hasn't been answered, it might be interesting to other people who can apply their knowledge to it. If it has been answered, that answer will be interesting to me.

 

I'll elaborate on the title. Humans can understand the scientific method, and evolution obviously enabled this understanding in some way. However, did random mutation endow random rules of logic until it endowed the correct rules of logic, or did evolution give individuals the capacity to learn the correct rules of logic? One thing I think of is the way babies are taking in so much information.

 

Perhaps this thread would have been best for an interdisciplinary forum including both evolution and developmental psychology, but there is no such forum, so I chose genetics as a compromise.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[the asinine cretin]

I am not a scientist of evolution, psychology, and/or anthropology. Just an internet rando/ignoramus.

 

My understanding:

 

1. Evolution by natural selection is not "random," and I suppose in the case of our ancestors the capacity to reason was a survival advantage. Hunting, tracking, cataloging useful plants and materials, making tools, planning for the future, et cetera. I think there also may have been a feedback with increased social complexity driving greater cognitive ability which in turn drives greater social complexity (hopefully I'm not bastardizing the idea; I recall reading about such things anyway).

 

2. The scientific method and being logical are not innate but require training and discipline (I think these are more cultural artifacts than products of biological evolution). Our psychology has evolved with a great many flaws from this point of view and science was invented partly to mitigate human irrationality.

 

Being off-the-cuff here, I suppose I see the emergence of scientific methodology as analogous to the emergence of a physical toolkit.

 

But since you were hoping for educated opinion I'll just shut my yap. Cheers.

[MonDie]

I agree that individuals learn logic to a certain extent, but I thought each side might have some backing.

 

 

Also consider the dimensions of space. Could it be that we evolved to reason about a three dimensional physical world because it was simpler? Maybe vertebrates would have evolved to understand space differently if they were traveling at super high speeds, and we would understand space that way even if we were raised moving at low speeds.

 

 

EDIT: How is it that a person can know proper logic when it is shown to them? For example, if I made up a phony logical rule, you would be able to tell that it was phony. Is that because you judge whether it fits your observations, or is it because you have a genetic predisposition for identifying proper logic?

Edited May 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Ophiolite]

In my experience most people are very bad at recognising logical fallacies, or sound logic. Only time will tell which group are favoured by natural selection.

[D H]

However, did random mutation endow random rules of logic until it endowed the correct rules of logic, or did evolution give individuals the capacity to learn the correct rules of logic?

This is a false dilemma. Both of your two alternatives are false. The rules of logic are not random, and there is no such thing as a logic gene. There is a third choice to your false dilemma, learned knowledge. That learned knowledge is imparted rather than inherited.

[MonDie]

This is a false dilemma. Both of your two alternatives are false. The rules of logic are not random, and there is no such thing as a logic gene. There is a third choice to your false dilemma, learned knowledge. That learned knowledge is imparted rather than inherited.

How do you know there aren't genes that influence the course of one's attempts at logical thinking?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[D H]

How do you know there aren't genes that influence the course of one's attempts at logical thinking?

Double negatives. Triple negatives. We have to be taught that a double negative is a positive. In many languages, English included, a double negative strengthens rather than negates the first negation. A triple negative adds even stronger emphasis. A fictional snippet of a conversation in a Texas bar, to illustrate my point:

 

"Well I ain't never used no toothbrush!" exclaimed the gap-toothed cowboy.

 

"So is that why you're missing those teeth?"

 

"Heck no. I lost this'n in a flight, and that'n, I ate some chili with beans, only one of them beans was a rock. From then on, I swear by the adage 'real chili ain't got no beans!'."

[CharonY]

In my experience most people are very bad at recognising logical fallacies, or sound logic. Only time will tell which group are favoured by natural selection.

 

One could argue that time has shown that throughout time has shown that mechanisms for positive correlation-type thinking has been favoured by natural selection so far.

[Ophiolite]

I think I just spotted a logical fallacy in your post. Or was it just improperly edited?

[CharonY]

Quite possibly both. Hard to tell because the sentence is worded so badly so that I do not really know what it was supposed to mean. I do think I meant that up to this point evolution has favored mechanisms that result in the use of positive correlations rather than logic.

[MonDie]

Are you saying that individual responses to the environment are more effectively 'implemented' through conditioning rather than reasoning?

Conditioning can help something respond to what might be about to happen, but logic can help something manipulate what is about to happen.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die