Lubos wrote [motls.blogspot.com/2012/06/steve-pinker-vs-group-selection.html]:
“the dominant advocates of group selection in the present world are leftists ... such as Sascha Vongehr, a Maoist and trained physicist from whom I learned about Pinker's essay. …”
First: I never advocated group selection! Second: I am no leftist (no self-identifying lefty group treats me as anything but a right wing fashist)! Third: I am not sure what a Maoist is nor do I care, but I know Lubos, so I am 100% sure about that Lubos has no idea at all about what a Maoist is, because his grasp of such issues is non-existent. Lubos' mind is unable to grasp that even people who the left usually accuses of being Nazi bastards, say luminaries like Niklas Luhmann, would never descent down to the stupidity it takes to fail realizing Karl Marx as a figure at the beginning of sociology. Materialism was not so much “left” as it was the first serious attempt at bringing the scientific method into complex social issues (more complex than idealized market situations), in order to seriously explore social structure as dependent on the evolution of physical constraints. Lubos and similar self-identifying “conservatives” are just anti-science in not recognizing such! There is still a difference between teabaggers and right leaning intellectuals. Lubos doesn't cut it for the latter group, so if he is "conservative", surely it is tea party lady level.
“Vongehr just likes the idea of evolution that is applied at many levels – multilevel selection – but he doesn't offer any truly rational argument for his sentiment … ”
Here is why I don’t offer any argument for multi-level selection: Because I do NOT like the non-reductive multilevel selection idea; I have never advocated it wholesale anywhere, dear Lubos! Rejecting weak arguments against XYZ is not equivalent to advocating XYZ!
Lubos goes on to unintentionally reveal the real problem:
“and he also claims that … It's not clear to me why Vongehr thinks so … his text is pretty much unintelligible so that's everything I want to say about it.”
Precisely – Lubos did not even make the effort to understand something about which he is no expert on, something that obviously went over his head, that left his naive perception having no pattern recognition exercised to pick up on the presented. This is precisely the difference between Lubos and serious people. Maybe nothing of my writing has any value for anything that others find valuable, but at least there is one thing that I do not do, namely talking crap about stuff that I don’t even care to first understand! A mature thinker performs a sympathetic reading, the Principle of charity, which at the very least needs the honest attempt, failure or not. And as much as I may fail to deliver understanding, at least the honest attempt is what distinguishes me from Lubos Motl’s misogynic, anti-scientific shots into the dark.
Dear Lubos – I wish I could talk science here - but you seem it fit to not take on a single scientific issue from my text and instead called me publicly by names you do not know what they refer to. Let me tell you yet again: It is never too late. There are people and medicines that can help you. Try to get your act together. Please refrain from distributing complete crap about other people. Stick to hitting people like Joy Christian who sell smoke screens around trivial math mistakes, since there you are able to grasp the issue, but please, since you have no background in other sciences (contrary to the people you hate on), and neither any ability nor willingness to spend some effort, you will never grasp anything social, so if you want to behave, as you claim, in accordance with the idealized scientific method, it is highly suggested that you shut up.