That is a classic cultural argument for Darwinism, as here :
In trying to make sense of the world around us, our brains have evolved to do some very odd things. The more we learn about our cognitive processes, the more it seems we have inherited a very weird wetware set, filled with bizarre and misleading foibles.
While most of the cognitive errors I reference here work against us — especially as investors — today’s example of a cognitive process works strangely in the brain’s favor: Spelling don’t matter. Comprehension remains essentially unchanged, even when all letters of a word are totally mixed up — just so long as the first and last letters are in their proper place.
Here is an example:
Here are others.
But why is this skill evidence of “very weird wetware,” as opposed to evidence of a sturdy system that can cope with a variety of challenges to gaining information?
What exactly is weird about such adaptations? Why should we not expect them?
This sort of thing is one of the reasons I keep saying that Darwinism is a cultural mood today, not really a contribution to science.
It is a mood in which skills can be treated as defects, as long as the claims continue to support the basic story about accidentally evolved big brains. The mood bypasses careful thought and appeals to emotional needs. Which is all the followers want anyway.
See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away
Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?
Follow UD News at Twitter!