> >Can I ask just
> >what you're trying to do, in pushing
> >"parationality"?
>
> Evolutionary biologists usually start with the
> assumption that evolution is a rational designer,
> then try to figure out what traits are for by
> working backward from that. e.g. "there must be
> some *reason* these males don't fight to the death
> over the females of the herd, I wonder what it
> could be?".
>
I dare say some do use that assumption, but as
the critics of evolutionary psychology point out,
it is a very dangerous assumption, and in fact,
strictly speaking, wrong, because evolution is
not a designer (far less a rational one!) -- all its
developments occur purely by chance. Thus
you get spandrels, which have no value, and
side-effects, whereby features that were
initially beneficial in one way, and survived for
that reason, turn out also to have other uses.
(Is there a techical term for that?) Viewing
evolution as a rational designer is a path
full of pot-holes. That's not to say it should
never be taken, but you have to be aware of
the problems, and to go that way is essentially
a matter of pragmatics -- at the theoretical
level, it's plain wrong. You seem to using the
concept for theoretical purposes, so I say
you're wrong.
Robin