From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 17:13:56 -0500

In defense of his criticism of views expressed by me (see URL below) 
Jim Balter wrote:
>  
> As Dennett says in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, "... panadaptationism [has] been
> routinely shunned by Darwinians ever since Darwin himself."  

Actually, panadaptionism is Gould and Lewontin's crusade with Dennett arguing
that it is a straw dog.  Dennett is and has always been firmly in the Dawkin's
camp, as am I for that matter.  Perhaps it might be referred to as constrained 
panadaptionism, i.e., the assumption that while all biological features are 
the product of natural selection, not all are necessarily adaptive, such as 
the five fingered bone structure in a whale's fin, the Panda's thumb (which it 
isn't) and my poor eyesight. 

As you may recall, the explanation for emotional need and disorder I have 
offered is that it is a by-product of the evolution of rationality, which 
itself is adaptive, at least in man's particular ecological niche. This is 
highly compatible with constrained adaptionism.  On the other hand, Rey and 
Matthews (see URL below) have argued that my theory is unnecessary on the 
grounds that anomalous emotional behavior has already been "explained" by 
the theory of kin selection, i.e., that Evel Knievel's behavior has been 
directly selected for at the group level due to its beneficial effects to 
other close copies of his DNA.  This is an example of flaming panadaptionism 
if there ever was one.  So is the "theory" cited by Oliver Sparrow earlier 
in this thread.

> Georges Rey asked
> in his review of your paper "What contradiction?"  The implication is not, as
> you would have it, that he never considered the question, but rather that it
> remains your responsibility to show that there is one.
> 

I would say that if you don't have at least a little curiousity about why 
there is a species of naturally selected organism exerting huge quantities 
of effort and energy on the survivalistically bizarre objective of 
maximizing self-worth that perhaps you should consider another line of work.

-- 

Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of
So-Called Cognitive Science

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476

P.S.
The SPP's conclusion (Rey and tacitly four members of the executive committee)
is that my theoretical views are so infantile that the only proper solution 
would be a beginner's course or two in appropriate subjects, a conclusion 
you apparently agree with.  Any other deficiencies you can point to which 
might justify such an extreme conclusion would be most appreciated.