>Humans are the exception that proves the rule, You know, this phrase actually means "an exception that makes the rule more specific," not "a counterexample th

>Humans are the exception that proves the rule, You know, this phrase actually means "an exception that makes the rule more specific," not "a counterexample that mysteriously makes the rule more likely." >To give the example I already gave in my essay, evolution may or may not have hit the lucky path, but if it did, because it disables perception of danger, the goofy lucky people would be quickly eliminated by Inspector Darwin. This is a post-hoc justification, not an advance prediction, and not a finding of a focused research campaign. As is the rest of this article. You haven't convinced me that any of those things are fitness-reducing! On the contrary, I think that to the extent that humans are fitness-maximizers rather than adaptation-executers, those things all increase fitness by rather a lot. >This is a very strong and specific prediction which seems to be doing well. Don't the legions of coked-up amphetamined-up professionals totally disprove this?