From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:45:08 GMT

In article <328294C6.545D@ix.netcom.com>,
Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>a. the evidence supporting the theory of natural selection with
>its implication that the dominant motivation in our species
>should be the pursuit of our _physical_ well-being (DNA being
>the physical stuff that it is) and
>
>b. the introspective evidence (assuming that my own mind is not
>atypical) that the dominant motivational factor in our species is
>not the need for _physical_ well-being, as a standard physicalist
>interpretation would lead us to believe,
>but rather the need for _emotioanl_ well-being, i.e., the pursuit
>of a sense of self-worth.  This evidence is further corroborated by
>the schism which exists between natural science and the
>humanities, a schism which goes right down the middle of
>psychology itself, as a matter of fact.

You seem to have a very odd conception of what constitutes evidence and what
serves as a support relationship between evidence and a theory or hypothesis.

>> and led to Dan Dennett's disgust, something not easy to extract
>> from him.
>
>Not always.  His review of Popper and Eccles (Journ of Phil, 76, 91-97)
>was one of the most mean spirited I have read.

A good example of such a failure, in this case an attempt to negate "not easy"
with "not always".  As Aaron Sloman would say, some is not all.

--