Here’s something I said which you said is false: “If the rules had been different, the causal relationship would have been between different things.”
You said that’s false.
What does it mean to say this is false?
It means exactly this and nothing else: that even if a society made different rules than the ones we typically make in our own, nevertheless, the causal relationship would still hold–genetic fatherhood would still cause social fatherhood.
That in turn implies the following; even if a society had different rules about social fatherhood, nevertheless even in that society the social father would be the genetic father.
That’s the “pretty basic logic” you were looking for.
What I said you were telling me is what you were telling me, then–whether you realized you were doing this or not. What I said you were telling me is a basic logical consequence of what you actually said. If you don’t like the consequence, you need to revise what you’re saying.
I addressed the question of a third factor causing the correlation in my previous post.
We’re talking about facts here and not norms, though the discussion has been mostly about norms. Let’s be clear about that from the outset.
Regarding the facts, I would have thought this is blatantly obvious, actually: The correlation between genetic fatherhood and social fatherhood (i.e. the correlation that tends to hold between facts of the form “X is the genetic father” and “X is sanctioned by his social group as the one obligated to take on the father role” which btw I’m not sure is as strong a correlation as we’ve been assuming in this conversation but certainly there’s a correlation) is best explained as being caused by facts about the way natural selection has shaped human psychology and sociology.
That explains the correlation, and also gives us a way to understand how there could be ways of dealing with the parenthood issue that don’t take their cue from genetics. Natural selection may have caused us to tend to do things that way, but it doesn’t force any particular individual or society to do things that way.
(I’m uncomfortable with saying there’s “no causal relation whatsoever,” since in my view social rules can create causal relations. I don’t mean anything wonky or fru-fru by that–just think about economics for example. Social rules about money create causal relations between financial variables, etc etc.)
No, it isn’t. All you are doing is asserting that if you had wheels I would be a shopping cart.
You are asserting that you can blithely determine social parentage using criteria that are utterly unrelated to parentage. That’s no argument at all.
You are are forced to resort to divorcing your determination *method *from the actual determination that you arrived at. There is absolutely no rational argument in there.
Point out exactly where I make the mistake in the derivation, quoted below:
I admit I have no idea what you’re talking about here or with your previous frog example.
We know for a fact that there have been cultures in which people did not understand the relationship between sex and childbirth.
Yet you are saying that it’s impossible to “blithely” determine social parentage using criteria unrelated to parentage.
If people in a culture don’t know that sex has something to do with childbirth, and if (social) parentage can only be determined by criteria related to (genetic) parentage, then people in this culture are unable to determine (social) parentage.
That’s a clear logical consequence of what you’ve said. But it’s an obviously false conclusion–of course people in these cultures determined social parent roles in some way. They weren’t using genetic criteria, so they must have been using some other criteria.
You’re saying things that lead, through basic logical derivations, to clearly false conclusions. You’re either wrong or failing to communicate clearly.
The problem is that you are talking about facts without any reference to an actual argument. You are simply asserting that you can link two utterly unrelated facts and arrive at some sort of valid determination.
That is not an argument
Sorry, but this is the worst analogy I have ever seen.
Economics is a purely subjective field. Those “financial variables” do not exist except in people’s minds and are an agreed upon fiction and they have no objective existence or causation outside those minds. If all the people on Earth ceased to exist tomorrow those rules about money would also cease to exist and the causative agent would no longer be applicable. Visiting aliens would not be asking what is causing the decline in house prices because house prices would no longer be declining. House price trends would have ceased to be.
In stark contrast, a baby is an object. It objectively exists and it comes from somewhere. If all the people on Earth ceased to exist tomorrow the baby would continue to exist and its causative agent would still be just as applicable. Visiting aliens would ask what caused the a baby, ie what is its parentage.
You are trying to argue here that rules about money cause dollar bills. You are not arguing that demand can cause somebody to build a machine that prints more bills, you are trying to argue that the rules spontaneously create the bills ex nihilo.
Social rules don’t create parentage and they don’t cause parentage, any more than “rules about money” create dollar bills and cause dollar bills.
The people I’m actually talking to in this thread aren’t actually seriously engaging my arguments, so this is kind of a waste unless there are lurkers who feel like they are getting something out of this.
My position: You don’t get certainty about social parentage from certainty about genetic parentage for free.
My argument:
If my position were false, then in every case, once you’ve established genetic parentage, you’ve thereby established social parentage with equal certainty. Yet we often legitimately assign social parent roles to people who are not genetic parents. Hence, in those cases, establishing genetic parentage with certainty did not also establish social parentage with equal certainty.
It’s as simple as that, really. That’s the entire argument. I honestly can’t see how anyone could disagree, once they’ve read and understood the above.
So dozens of people all find your arguments utterly mistifying and illogical. They all point out that you are not actually constructing an argument at all. And they are all failing to take you seriously?
Do you think perhaps there is might be another reason for this common reaction to your arguments?:dubious:
What’s the difference between the biological notion of parentage and the genetic notion of parentage? (Both of which, I take it, can be distinguished from the social notion of parentage.)
See my previous post. My argument is very simple, there’s nothing complicated in it.
I’m not mystified by the lack of comprehension because:
I know I appear to be denying something that seems instinctively basic to a lot of people
I know people aren’t used to taking logic seriously, even here on the dope. They typically reach for alternative explanations of a person’s text rather than simply taking it on its own terms and dealing with the logic within it. This is pretty usual. It’s something I have to beat (metaphorically!) out of my students every day, so it’s no surprise to me if I run up against this problem outside the classroom as well.
This woman is just a freelance UK rent-a-mouth columnist scrabbling to churn out another ‘look at me, look at me’ piece of crap for this week’s paycheck. Not someone whose views we need to take seriously and certainly not representative of anything other than her own desire to get paid.
Your father (in the social sense) is the man who married your mother. But why? In this culture, it’s not because he had sex with your mom, but rather, simply because he’s the one married to her. His having sex with your mom was completely irrelevant to your having been born. That was caused, rather, by the spirits of the dead.
I haven’t seen yet what you mean by reference to biology as opposed to genetics, but this would seem to fit the bill in any case. Fatherhood is determined by people in this culture based on ceremonial matters, and not based on biological matters.
Do you honestly not see why this reasoning is flawed?
*I claim that social parentage is caused by biological parentage.
You claim that once you’ve established biological parentage, you’ve thereby established social parentage with equal certainty.*
*I claim that heart attacks are caused by a lack of exercise.
You claim that once you’ve established the level of exercise, you’ve thereby established with equal certainty whether they have had a heart attack.*
Do you really not understand that “Where A then B” does not allow you to assert that “Where B then A”?
Maybe it’s because it is based on an easily proven logical fallacy?
“Where A then B” does not allow you to conclude " Where B then A".
“Lack of exercise causes heart attacks” does not allow you to conclude “We know for certain that he doesn’t get any exercise, so we can be certain he will have heart attack”.
“Biological parentage causes social parentage” does not allow you to conclude "We know for certain his biological parentage, so we can be certain of his social parentage.
There are also a handful of polyandrous societies where women may marry a man and his brothers. The exact fatherhood of the child is likely unknown and considered irrelevant. The important male in a child’s life is his or her maternal uncle, and the child “belongs” to that uncle in pretty much the same way a child “belongs” to a father.
Looking at evolution, I can sort of see the author’s argument. Contrary to popular belief, cheating has evolutionary advantages for women as well. They can have a child with the genes of the “alpha male” while raising that child in the stability of a less agressive man. Is it fair? Of course not. Few things are.
But my discomfort with DNA tests stems from a different place. Basically, it’s kind of sad for me to see the complex social relations we’ve built over the last ten thousands years be reduced to “pay and DNA.”
As in, you’re not licensed to make the following inference: “g-parent is x, therefore s-parent is x.” There are counterexamples to that inference, as I go on to indicate in the body of the argument.
Forget about causes; you’ll note that my summary argument contained no claims about what causes what.
I did at one point say g-parenthood doesn’t cause s-parenthood, and that’s where you came into the conversation, but it’s not what I’m centrally arguing for. When I said that, I had in mind (because of who I was talking to at the time and what I believed him to be saying to me) exceptionless causation a la mechanics, not statistical causation a la evolution. You and I got into a communication problem due to that fact.
Like I said, don’t worry about what causes what. What I’m saying is just this: having established that X is the genetic parent of someone, you are not licensed thereby to infer that X is the social parent of that person. You need more information before you can draw that conclusion.
Unfortunately not at the moment–it looks like I’m going to have to look at an actual book. I don’t see this information (concerning specifically the assignment of fatherhood roles) online except for in a blog post in which someone is summarizing findings from an anthropologist in the 1910’s. I’ve seen much more recent info than that. I’ll tell you when I find it.
Post edit: I don’t understand how you’re getting that. The line you quoted says that in this culture, fathers aren’t considered relatives. How could the culture say “fathers aren’t relatives” unless it had the concept of father?