3 ms·

Can you explain this any more?

• perl4ever 8y ago
  I'm not sure I want to, because I vaguely remember being downvoted for similar comments in the past. But what I am referring to with "nature vs. nurture" is that you can't separate them. Take away the physical basis of a person, all the DNA, and there would be no person. Put a newborn in a box, i.e. no nurture, a person would also not develop. So you can't assign a fraction to either one. Similarly, there is no separating randomness from selection/merit, in my opinion, because the latter acts on the former and both pervade everyone's life. That is what I mean by a false dichotomy. It's not just that life involves both randomness and selection, but that they are not opposed things.
  • blastbeat 8y ago
    > That is what I mean by a false dichotomy. It's not just that life involves both randomness and selection, but that they are not opposed things. Ok but I don't see why the just world fallacy is a false dichotomy. It is precisely a fallacy, because people don't acknowledge randomness and selection.
    • perl4ever 8y ago
      The way a society organizes by merit is through the selection and ranking of qualities that arise randomly. So it doesn't make any sense to me to say the world is just rather than unjust, or vice versa. Thus, I reject the dichotomy, as applied to the world. Something specific could be just or unjust, of course.