Epimenides Paradox (EP) was identified by the ancient Greeks and is one the oldest con tricks
in the book.
ocf.berkeley.edunottrue.htmlOpen ↗
EP is just a very simple _absolute_ self contradiction which is the equivalent to an epistemological
"black hole". Once any argument enters it, nothing can come out of it.
The following paper by Mario F. Heilmann available online provides many examples EP reasoning (my
thanks to Frank Forman for bringing the paper to my attention):-
The paper opens:- "The notion that we are basically rational beings still predominates intuitive and
popular thinking, in spite of proof to the contrary (Taylor, 1989, Taylor and Brown, 1988, Nisbett
and Ross, 1980)"
Presumably, Heilmann and the authors he quotes: Taylor and Brown, Nisbett and Ross were _not_ human
or just happened to be the only human exceptions to their own thesis, so they alone are "basically
rational beings". Such pointless arrogance is beyond belief. All Heilmann is dictating here is that
he is a superior being to any of his hapless readers and he does not have to provide any test re:
why this is the case.
Heilmann continues:- This paper endeavours to point out that the selfish interests of individuals
caused deception and countermeasures against deception to become driving forces behind social
influence strategies. The expensive and wasteful nature of negotiation and impression management is
a necessary and unavoidable consequence of this arms race between deception and detection. Natural
selection created genetic dispositions to deceive, and to constantly and unconsciously suspect
deception attempts. In a competitive, selfish, and war-prone world, these techniques, proven in
billions of years in evolution, still are optimal. Therefore they are reinforced by cultural
selection and learning. Conscious awareness of deception and countermeasures is not required, often
even counterproductive. This is so because conscious deception is easier to detect and carries
harsher sanctions. Humans not only deceive, but also deceive themselves and others about the fact
that they deceive, into believing that they do not deceive. This double deception makes the system
so watertight, that it tends to evade detection even by psychologists.
JE:- This is the sort of AEVASIVE argument that Peter Fellin has been attempting to provide. Note
that NONE of the above can apply to Heilmann (or Peter Fellin) otherwise Heilmann could never have
been able to write it! Note also that Heilmann's arms race is Van Valen's Red Queen view where
nature is "red in tooth and claw" and engaged in an endless arms race due to rampant Darwinian
selfishness. Hiding behind Heilmann's rhetoric (it is only rhetoric because it is absolutely self
contradictory )is just another biased altruist failing to understand or correctly apply an argument
to evolutionary theory.
Organism fitness selfishness (OFS) and organism fitness altruism (OFA) are exactly the same event.
This is because they are only the opposite ends of exactly the same logic where OFS gains = OFA
losses. You cannot have an altruistic form without an equal and opposite selfish form, otherwise
the altruistic form is just mindlessly donating stuff to nobody. Fitness is only moved (and not
created) from an altruistic form to a selfish form, i.e. ZERO fitness is being created. The only
way fitness can be created within any relationship is via the use of organism fitness mutualism
(OFM). It is OFM that logically contests OFA/OFS and nothing else. It is OFM that remains almost
entirely neglected because of the consistent misuse of Hamilton's rule for over 50 years. OFM does
not require any altruism and is fully compatible with Darwinian selection operating at just the
fertile organism level,
i.e. only Darwin's simple, _single_ level of selection is required to operate OFM.
Heilmann continues with quotes of like minded arguments: "A tantalizing conspiracy of cognitive
avoidance is common to the actor and his target. The actor does not wish to see himself as
ingratiating; the target wants also to believe that the ingratiator is sincere".
Now "cognitive avoidance" is a "conspiracy" which of course Heilmann himself is not involved
in....or is he...?
Welcome to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. I see the White Rabbit is now enjoying himself.
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]