tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post4383501353630079702..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: A Response to Seven Commentaries, Part 2Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-58184538814391194242008-08-12T17:30:00.000+01:002008-08-12T17:30:00.000+01:00And you do a brilliant job of laying out that conf...And you do a brilliant job of laying out that confusion about cultural evolution and its relation to nature and reason. <BR/><BR/>In some ways I found that discussion to the highlight of the book.<BR/><BR/>Trouble is, Hayek enthusiasts don't seem to have taken any notice or made any response. What's up with that?Kent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-52068034972890969002008-08-12T17:04:00.000+01:002008-08-12T17:04:00.000+01:00Kent,Yes, it will be good for readers to see all o...Kent,<BR/><BR/>Yes, it will be good for readers to see all of the commentators' statements so that they can judge for themselves whether I have responded properly.<BR/><BR/>From my experience, the Hayekians are open to Darwinian reasoning, just as Hayek was. But there's a lot of confusion over what to make of Hayek's account of cultural evolution. As I indicate in the book, I think Hayek was mistaken in elevating culture to the exclusion of nature and reason.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-49165980989007102062008-08-12T16:08:00.000+01:002008-08-12T16:08:00.000+01:00Great stuff, as always. It will be a pleasure to s...Great stuff, as always. It will be a pleasure to see these crucial questions discussed in the open where everyone can see everyone's cards.<BR/>Have you seen any comments from Hayekians regarding your analysis of Hayek's strengths and weaknesses? I have tried without success to get a response from some of them. What is your sense of their 'position'?Kent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-17380177313609328682008-08-11T22:56:00.000+01:002008-08-11T22:56:00.000+01:00Probably, by sometime early in 2009.Probably, by sometime early in 2009.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-42226927545989938282008-08-11T22:51:00.000+01:002008-08-11T22:51:00.000+01:00I picked up a copy of Darwinian Natural Right over...I picked up a copy of Darwinian Natural Right over the weekend. When will this reprint of Darwinian Conservatism be published?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-7453298192427727202008-08-11T12:32:00.000+01:002008-08-11T12:32:00.000+01:00Yes, you're right. Your formulation really does c...Yes, you're right. Your formulation really does capture the rhetorical strategy of the intelligent design proponents.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-87150883096210313802008-08-11T07:36:00.000+01:002008-08-11T07:36:00.000+01:00You're too hard on Intelligent Design. I've laid ...You're too hard on Intelligent Design. I've laid out ID theory several times over the years. It runs like this:<BR/><BR/><I>Sometime or other, some intelligent agent (or agents) designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the presence, or even the existence, of the intelligent agent(s).</I><BR/><BR/>See? Simple. Now clearly there's a little fussy work left to do to replace those placeholder variables with actual empirical and conceptual content, but that's a mere technicality: the explanatory power of the theory is very clear.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.com