tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6250649627721675314..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Should non-experts shut up? The skeptic's catch-22Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85600984669602041822010-10-15T14:12:56.049-04:002010-10-15T14:12:56.049-04:00Congratulations for this blog! I found here a clea...Congratulations for this blog! I found here a clear and accurate analysis of relevant problems. I have quoted and translated some of your posts in my blog. <br /> <br />But I must say I’m deceived about Julia’s arguments on this subject. I think you are not being honest. When you say: But when the foundational assumptions get more complex - like the assumption that we can reliably model future temperatures - it becomes much harder for an outsider to judge their soundness<br /><br />This statement is common to all the sciences, not the foundational assumption of any particular science. Your phrase can be translated as: climatology is a science, i. e., the climate variables are quantifiable, and it is possible to establish causal relationships between them. We call it equations, and with equations, we have predictions.<br /><br />I think the problem is related with the word "model". To model just means "put the equations together" to obtain predictions between certain limits. We can quantify how reliable models are in terms of uncertainty and predictability. Climatologists are used to manage with the limits of prediction, because is also possible to quantify how predictable a system is. If you look for "climate models predictability" in Google Scholar there are 63.000 scientific papers about. <br /><br />I’m not expert on social sciences, so I must agree with you about misuse of statistics in this area, but there is, precisely, the lack of expertise knowledge which produces misunderstandings.<br /><br />Julia, you must not fly on planes nor visit the doctor: Aeronautical engineers and doctors have been educated in a paradigm and have been trained for not to question it (or perhaps they prefer don't do it because they are coward and accommodative). But you fly in planes and go to the doctor, because you know that to become an expert does not betray your objectivity. Objectivity is related with honesty and with to keep an open mind, not with the level of your knowledge. You believe in atoms and evolution like I do just because the same reason: because scientific consensus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44555217730714270172010-08-01T10:06:50.509-04:002010-08-01T10:06:50.509-04:00Or... to let the variability of "economic exp...Or... to let the variability of "economic experts" speak for themselves, recall Nobel winner Von Hayek's 1974 acceptance speech - a speech that could just as easily been given today,<br /><br /> "[this economic condition] has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue. We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things."<br /><br />The Catch-22 of expert culture, indeed.John Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05642239691210008441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12782900224375402492010-08-01T09:53:23.965-04:002010-08-01T09:53:23.965-04:00It's probably been said dozens of times alread...It's probably been said dozens of times already in the comments (sorry I'm late) but the problem with "expert opinion" is that you can find any number of academically qualified experts who disagree. Economics is a perfect example. Economists can analyze the same data, but each has a slightly (or grossly) different model by which the analyze the data, leading to different interpretations and recommendations. Moreover, economic models draw from other disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, to which few economists are experts (and even if they were, we again must enter realms of differing interpretations among experts).<br /><br />Perhaps the best objectivity we can possibly hope for in the "soft sciences" is some sort of bell curve consensus, but that's often a moving target as well.John Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05642239691210008441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50695281398930962182010-07-27T20:44:17.205-04:002010-07-27T20:44:17.205-04:00ccbowers said...
"I have had these nonsense d...ccbowers said...<br />"I have had these nonsense discussions with Artie and Paisley before on the Neurologica website. I'm glad to see Massimo learned pretty quickly that it is a fruitless endeavour. Using vague terminology incorrectly, and inserting their own ideology while trying to hide that fact.<br />July 20, 2010 1:40 AM"<br /><br />I would like Mr.Bowers to explain how this was a nonsensical or deceitful discussion, and to show us the extent to which he determined that any discussions with us on another site related to the discussion here, and more importantly, have contributed to it. Otherwise, this remark has no apparent purpose except to slander those made reference to.<br /><br />Mr.Bowers has since been vocal on that other site, in aid of another poster, BillyJoe7, about how after they "defeated" us on that blog, we have similarly been using those defective arguments here. In effect, the slander here has become a vehicle for further slander there.<br />These tactics, to me, are reprehensible, and I request that Bowers either apologize or offer credible evidence that either I or Paisley have made nonsensical and deceitful arguments either here or there, and/or that theirs, his in particular, by contrast had somehow won the day..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44754163361347392502010-07-20T20:25:21.001-04:002010-07-20T20:25:21.001-04:00Paisley, I can't buy into what to me is a logi...Paisley, I can't buy into what to me is a logical perversion of the doctrine of "final cause," which has inferred causation as entwined with predestination. The telos, or "reason for which," was thus a universal purpose to be met, or to, as some would say, achieve a final goal. Final cause in that sense meant first purpose, and as far as I'm aware, still does. Or if it doesn't it still should. Because I can't believe that in an indeterminate universe, our future nevertheless exerts some predeterminate force upon the present. <br />Final cause/first purpose may still have meaning as a metaphor, but as a basis for some scientific hanging of the hat, the hook just isn't there.<br />And here's what the physicist David Albert has to say in a Big Think interview as to t-symmetry: <br />“Once again, it appears as if although the theory does an extremely good job of predicting the motions of elementary particles and so on and so forth, there’s got to be something wrong with it, okay, because we have — although we have very good, clear quantitative experience in the laboratory which bears out these fully time-reversal symmetric laws, at some point there’s got to be something wrong with them, because the world that we live in manifestly not even close to being time-reversal symmetric.”<br />And that's because, as one example, you can't reverse the sequential order in nature that these laws were universally self-designed to regulate. The lawfully acquired purposes of a self-designed universe, if you will.<br />Try reversing the purposes served by a nuclear explosion, for example, if not the sequential order of the phenomena itself.<br />In any case, the only person who in my view, could be rationally excused for taking Dean Radin seriously would be Dean Radin himself. And as far as I've observed from your otherwise superior grasp of logical analysis that can't be you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87086646537993626772010-07-20T17:37:06.202-04:002010-07-20T17:37:06.202-04:00Artie: "My short answer would be it means in ...Artie: "<i>My short answer would be it means in part that the universe acquires memory and experience, which serves the purpose of anticipating its future and "lawfully" regulating natures forces accordingly.</i>"<br /><br />I basically agree. However, I would hasten to add that Whiteheadian process metaphysics is a theistic one. So, this "universal memory and universal experience" would be attributes ascribed to the "World Soul" or "God." Moreover, the concept "prehensive unification" in the Whitehead scheme serves as the basis for psi phenomena (as well as a form of Lamarckian evolution).<br /><br />Artie: "<i>But even so, the future cannot be anticipated to the certainty that various versions of time travel would require. Dean Radin's versions in particular.</i>"<br /><br />Who is talking about "time travel?"<br /><br />Artie: "<i>You mentioned that: "Psi phenomena do not violate any known law of physics. (The laws of physics are time symmetrical)</i>"<br /><br />Yes, this is true. According to the theory of relativity, time is relative to the reference frame of the observer. But more importantly, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle holds that the past is as uncertain as is the future.<br /><br />"<i>There is nothing in the laws of physics that singles out one direction of time over another. The laws of physics work forward in time and backward in time equally well...[The] uncertainty principle works both ways in time. There's no doubt about this. If we make an observation of an atom in a certain state now, then its past is uncertain just as its future is uncertain.</i>"<br /><br />(source: "<a href="http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showarticle.php?article=23" rel="nofollow">We Are Meant to be Here</a>" by Steve Paulson of Salon.com - interview with physicist Paul Davies)<br /><br />Artie: "<i>I would have to disagree that this is certain, as not all physicists concur that the arrow of time can be reversed symmetrically.<br />And the problem again involves the purposes served by natures regulatory forces. In short, the forces can be reversed with symmetry, but particular purposes that they serve cannot.</i>"<br /><br />I think you are having a problem with one particular psi pheonomenon - "precognition." And I would readily admit that <i>precognition</i> is paradoxical. However, Radin addresses this issue in an article which I have listed below. Moreover, he employs the concept of <i>teleology</i> or <i>final causation</i> to resolve this apparent contradiction. (Keep in mind, teleological or final causation implies causation emanating from the future. So, time-reversed causation does not threaten teleology. It actually provides a basis for it.)<br /><br />"<i>FINAL CAUSE is dismissed entirely [by modern science] because TELEOLOGY is thought...to suspiciously resemble theology...But here, of course, I mean<br />more than goals created by our capability to inferentially forecast the future. I<br />mean GOALS that actually COME FROM THE FUTURE, through TIME-REVERSED processes.</i>" (emphasis mine)<br /><br />(source: "<a href="http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/timereversed.pdf" rel="nofollow">Time-reversed Human Experience: Experimental Evidence and Implications</a>" by Dean Radin)Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85132295329945772522010-07-20T15:10:53.590-04:002010-07-20T15:10:53.590-04:00Massimo wrote: "teleology (actual purpose) co...Massimo wrote: "teleology (actual purpose) comes about where consciousness appears in the universe (humans). And no, I don't think that the origin of actual purpose in humans creates any problem at all for naturalism."<br /><br />Richard Dawkins wrote: "Neo-purpose is true, deliberate, intentional purpose, which is a product of brains. My thesis is that neo-purpose, or the capacity to set up deliberate purposes or goals, is itself a Darwinian adaptation with an archi-purpose.<br />Neo-purpose really comes into its own in the human brain, but brains capable of neo-purposes have been evolving for a long time. Rudiments of neo-purpose can even be seen in insects. In humans, the capacity to set up neo-purposes has evolved to such an extent that the original archi-purpose can be eclipsed and even reversed."<br />http://cashumn.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:dr-richard-dawkins-the-purpose-of-purpose&catid=1&Itemid=69<br /><br />Even Dawkins finds the rudiments of actual purpose in the no-brainers among us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50474784957266946502010-07-20T12:38:04.314-04:002010-07-20T12:38:04.314-04:00JP: "My point about Hyman was that he was app...JP: "<i>My point about Hyman was that he was apparently quoted out of context by Radin to make it appear that he supported Radin's point of view while in fact he didn't. However I may misinterpret what Rudin actually said (I am relying only on Paisley's comment). That others (Utts) have different views is not disputed.</i>"<br /><br />This is typical of skeptics. You didn't bother to watch the video presentation - to actually investigate the data and give it a fair hearing; and yet, you feel that you are qualified to speak on the matter.<br /><br />Radin simply stated the Hyman admitted that something other than chance was going on. He did not say that Hyman believes that ESP had been established. Here is the full quote...<br /><br />"<i>4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.</i>"<br /><br />(source: "<a href="http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html" rel="nofollow">Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena</a>" by Ray Hyman)<br /><br />Also, CIA itself concluded that a "<i>statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory</i>." (source: "<a href="http://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Ejutts/may.pdf" rel="nofollow">The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's Star Gate Programs: A Commentary</a>" by Edwin C. May)<br /><br />JP: "<i>The larger question here is what would it take for science (or skeptics) to accept the existence of psi?</i>"<br /><br />It really doesn't matter what skeptics think. Parapsychology is acccepted as a science by the "American Association for the Advancement of Science" - the largest scientific society in the world.<br /><br />JP: "<i>This is not a question of Hyman versus Utts (in fact, their disagreement about a single experiment is largely irrelevant) or generally of skeptics against believers. This state of affair is recognized within the psi community itself: see for instance The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi published in the The Journal of Parapsychology.</i>"<br /><br />This has everything to do with "skeptics vs. believers" for the reason I have already stated. Scientific data (especially statistical data) is subject to personal interpretation. And each respective group will interpret the data according to their own tendentious views. If you had actually read the article (like I have), you would have learned this. Also, you would have learned that, because of the nature of the subject matter, we cannot dismiss "skepticism" and "belief" as factors possibly influencing the outcome. Parapyschology is one of the social science - a.k.a. the "soft" sciences. And the <i>soft</i> sciences are held to a different standard than the <i>hard</i> ones. The very fact that this distinction is made testifies to the fact that different standards are held.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89060252344963300122010-07-20T02:26:26.076-04:002010-07-20T02:26:26.076-04:00Massimo: "see my parallel discussion with Art...Massimo: "<i>see my parallel discussion with Artie about meaning, purpose, etc. I'm not conflating anything, I think pseudo-purpose (teleonomy) is compatible with natural selection; teleology (actual purpose) comes about where consciousness appears in the universe (humans). And no, I don't think that the origin of actual purpose in humans creates any problem at all for naturalism.</i>"<br /><br />But simply saying that "there isn't any problem" really doesn't qualify as an argument. You are obligated to give a rational justification why this is so. Hitherto, you haven't.<br /><br />On the materialist view, human beings (as well as all living organisms) are biological machines - or more specifically, "organic robots." There is no final causation, only efficient causation. There is no teleology, only teleonomy. We do not have free will, only the illusion of it. Indeed, we are nothing more than a conglomeration of electrochemical reactions <i>blindly</i> playing themselves out according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Mental states are simply epiphenomenal. They are incapable of exerting any causal efficacy; and therefore, they must be deemed purely illusory.<br /><br />You are what Daniel Dennett calls a "Cartesian materialist." You presuppose the dualist worldview (the one you profess to hold with utter contempt and disdain) while masquerading around as a materialist. You imagine yourself capable of creating a "purpose" when your worldview precludes the very possibility. On the materialist view, you are not an active participant in life, only a passive observer.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46092022539121526702010-07-20T01:40:52.501-04:002010-07-20T01:40:52.501-04:00I have had these nonsense discussions with Artie a...I have had these nonsense discussions with Artie and Paisley before on the Neurologica website. I'm glad to see Massimo learned pretty quickly that it is a fruitless endeavour. Using vague terminology incorrectly, and inserting their own ideology while trying to hide that fact.ccbowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686910795750392419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55093617682350896022010-07-19T16:42:38.566-04:002010-07-19T16:42:38.566-04:00Paisley, had I stayed in the parallel discussion, ...Paisley, had I stayed in the parallel discussion, it would have been my position that consciousness in humans is NOT fundamentally different from awareness in other forms of life.<br />And that pseudo-purpose is a neo-Darwinian dodge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52859916255880102382010-07-19T16:12:02.203-04:002010-07-19T16:12:02.203-04:00Teleonomy is the false version of teleology when t...Teleonomy is the false version of teleology when true push comes to false pull.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89212689303112159782010-07-19T15:47:12.397-04:002010-07-19T15:47:12.397-04:00Paisley,
see my parallel discussion with Artie ab...Paisley,<br /><br />see my parallel discussion with Artie about meaning, purpose, etc. I'm not conflating anything, I think pseudo-purpose (teleonomy) is compatible with natural selection; teleology (actual purpose) comes about where consciousness appears in the universe (humans). And no, I don't think that the origin of actual purpose in humans creates any problem at all for naturalism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85955289992913339232010-07-19T15:27:53.306-04:002010-07-19T15:27:53.306-04:00Massimo: "absolutely not. Science includes te...Massimo: "<i>absolutely not. Science includes teleological explanations at two levels: non-intelligent (natural selection is teleological though not the result of intelligent design), and intelligent (in the case of human beings). If the latter were not the case, all the cognitive sciences would go down the drain. They don't, and they don't represent any threat whatsoever for naturalism.</i>"<br /><br />What scientists employ as an explanation or don't employ is actually irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether the explanation as such is compatible with "scientific materialism" - a term which is not interchangeable with the term "science". Teleological explanations are incompatible with <i>scientific materialism</i>.<br /><br />You are conflating "teleonomy" with "teleology." <i>Teleonomic</i> (pseudo-purpose) explanations are compatible with the scientific materialism; <i>teleological</i> (true-purpose) explanations are not. I defined both terms in my previous post (partially, because you requested it.) You apparently choose to ignore these definitions.<br /><br />"<i>Teleonomy is the quality of APPARENT purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, or generally, due to the operation of a program.<br /><br />The term was coined to stand in contrast with teleology, which applies to ends that are planned by an agent which can internally model/imagine various alternative futures, which enables intention, purpose and foresight. A teleonomic process, such as evolution, produces complex products without the benefit of such a guiding foresight.</i>" (emphasis mine)<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy" rel="nofollow">Teleonomy</a>")Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10725511754808853732010-07-19T15:23:39.966-04:002010-07-19T15:23:39.966-04:00But just like not all evolutionary biologists are ...<i>But just like not all evolutionary biologists are atheists, so not all climate scientists are flaming liberals. The same kind of ideological pluralism is hard to claim for the other side in either debate... </i><br /><br /> Your missing my point, I am not claiming the bias comes from scientist being "flaming Liberals". That is not in fact what I believe. I am saying the bias comes from the funding itself (which comes comes from flaming liberals)-i am partially joking there, partially.<br /> Oganizations like IPCC have interwoven science and government into a religion onto itself. Lets say for instance that a new discovery or type of data stream that flies in the face of CC is discovered. I believe they have purpose and bias enough to intentionally travel down a different path. <br /> Science should be to let the chips fall where they may. I am not sure organizations like the IPCC have that option. I am sure you feel differently. Lucky for me, the people that share my sentiment are growing rather than shrinking. People are aware this has reached the level of religion over science.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38168649693946392312010-07-19T13:53:11.367-04:002010-07-19T13:53:11.367-04:00Agreed.Agreed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65700487934852443772010-07-19T13:41:50.782-04:002010-07-19T13:41:50.782-04:00I think we have reached the end of productive disc...I think we have reached the end of productive discourse and are going in circles. Not my favorite way to spend an afternoon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16539171083272886632010-07-19T13:26:20.067-04:002010-07-19T13:26:20.067-04:00Massimo:
About whether the organism's experien...Massimo:<br />About whether the organism's experience is fundamental to the selective process. And apparently about whether consciousness in humans is fundamentally different from awareness in other forms of life. And about whether all forms of life, with their acquired purposes, have or have not effectively contributed to the process of their evolution. And about the purposes served by all and sundry - more apparently than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Dude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90532413415209385692010-07-19T13:11:47.103-04:002010-07-19T13:11:47.103-04:00Jim,
The "field" is climate science, or...<i>Jim,<br /><br />The "field" is climate science, or atmospheric physics, not AGW per se, so there is no built-in bias.</i><br /><br /> So it does not matter that massive amounts of funding in these fields come from the political agenda's that use the fields results as a means for legislation?<br /> For example: the cap and trade bill. It is obvious that just a tax on emissions will cut emissions. And will do so while allowing congress to find out exactly what it costs to cut emissions. For example: If you tax 1 dollar for each unit of CO2 emission. Then the company doing the emitting cuts its emission by 25%. then you know it cost the company less than 1 dollar per unit to cut the emission for up to its first 25% of reduction. Anything over that 25% of reduction would obviously cost the company more than 1 dollar (or they would do it). Then you change the tax to 2 dollars per unit the company would cut its emissions by another 8% achieving an overall reduction of 33%. then you know the 2nd 8%reduction cost the company less than 2 dollars a unit and the first 25% less than 1 dollar a unit. I am over simplifying, but you get my drift. Since there is really no such thing as a tax to a company (it is the consumers of energy that actually pay the tax), we can figure out a compromise of what the people can safely pay without damaging the economy to the point that suffering would be more than ACC would cause. As I said earlier, any rational person has to agree that zero pollution would be very bad to the well being of the planets population. This system of variable tax to discover the true cost of CO2 reduction would be the obvious common sense approach. <br /> Yet the funders of most of this research are not looking to find out what the true cost of CO2 reduction is and take steps to reduce it. They want Cap and Trade, which is basically a means for redistribution of wealth while reduction of emission will take place right up to the tipping point of where it is cheaper for the company to pass the tax along to its consumers than it is to reduce further. But then using that consumer of energy tax to redistribute wealth from the energy consumers to the non-energy consumers, thus eventually making more energy consumers and more need for energy. A theoretical net increase of CO2 production. Of course in the mean time it will be such a burden of regulation and economics that it will bring us to a less wealthy state over all and porhaps reduce CO2 emission through depression. <br /> And even though this Science has failed Julia's simple test, even though it recieves massive funding from government wanting to use it as political weapon. We are all supposed to sit idly by without comment as to its legitimacy. <br /> I dissagree with you Massimo. I dont see how there cannot be a bias to something that if the main stream scientists pull away from, it will loose most of its funding. You dont think that the fact that many scientist livelyhood depends on the outcome puts in a bias?<br /> Although the data supports climate change. It is also a science of extreem complexity, where building more and more complex models has the less likelyhood of being accurate (as we have seen from previous predictions). And even assuming it is accurate. Prediction of what that actually means to humans and animals is even less accurate. <br /> My take is that you dont have any right telling the lay man not to get involved. You have failed his simple test "Science was wrong" and you want him to keep his nose out. This is much different than evolution. the study of science generally brings out new and great inventions for man. This science reaches out and grabs us from the neck and threatens to pull us backwards into depression.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21260640147403441602010-07-19T12:46:48.306-04:002010-07-19T12:46:48.306-04:00Dude, what on earth are you talking about? Right, ...Dude, what on earth are you talking about? Right, all functions have a purpose. My point (and all naturalists' point) is that only some of those (as far as we know, the ones originating with human consciousness) are, well, conscious. No problem for naturalism, no mystery. What the hell have we been disagreeing about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23730636928541709152010-07-19T12:44:32.073-04:002010-07-19T12:44:32.073-04:00Massimo,
Aha, you said conscious purpose. All fun...Massimo,<br />Aha, you said conscious purpose. All functions have a purpose, consciously so or not. That's elemental. Read up indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53559818423729208012010-07-19T12:36:16.272-04:002010-07-19T12:36:16.272-04:00Artie,
it is an elementary notion in philosophy t...Artie,<br /><br />it is an elementary notion in philosophy that function most certainly is NOT equivalent to purpose (in the same of conscious purpose). Read up, and you will discover a darkness of your own making.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92010563280947440262010-07-19T12:34:30.492-04:002010-07-19T12:34:30.492-04:00Yes, I had followed your progress as a biologist, ...Yes, I had followed your progress as a biologist, which is why I took an interest in your philosophy. But where as a biologist you learned quite well how things work, as a philosopher, you have not discovered at all well the whys of the matter. Your failure to grasp that to ask for the why without an eye to the purpose is to search in a darkness of your own making.<br /><br />And one meaning of correspond is to be analogous or equivalent in character, form, or function. Function implies purpose. If as a scientist, you discover an equivalency of purpose, you would do well to look for some equivalency in their operational results or successes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41117654526798104732010-07-19T11:39:34.912-04:002010-07-19T11:39:34.912-04:00Paisley,
absolutely not. Science includes teleolo...Paisley,<br /><br />absolutely not. Science includes teleological explanations at two levels: non-intelligent (natural selection is teleological though not the result of intelligent design), and intelligent (in the case of human beings). If the latter were not the case, all the cognitive sciences would go down the drain. They don't, and they don't represent any threat whatsoever for naturalism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47049877633527087242010-07-19T11:31:23.419-04:002010-07-19T11:31:23.419-04:00Massimo: "That depends who you ask, I'd s...Massimo: "<i>That depends who you ask, I'd say it's a medium size disagreement. Proponents of the Extended Synthesis, such as myself, see it as a significant advance, but not a revolution.</i>"<br /><br />Okay, fair enough. I'm not familiar with the "extended sysnthesis," but I'll research it to learn more about it.<br /><br />"<i>It depends on what you mean by teleological. Natural selection clearly gives the impression of teleology. Human conscious thought is clearly teleological, but I don't see what on earth that has to do with a refutation of naturalism.</i>"<br /><br />"<i>teleology: 1 a: the study of evidences of design in nature b: a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c: a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes<br />2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose<br />3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena</i>"<br /><br />(source: Merriam-Webster: "<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology" rel="nofollow">teleology</a>")<br /><br />"<i>telonomy: the quality of apparent purposefulness of structure or function in living organisms due to evolutionary adaptation</i>"<br /><br />(source: Merriam-Webster: "<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleonomy" rel="nofollow">teleonomy</a>")<br /><br />Teleological explanations are anathema to scientific materialism. The evolutionary biologist (at least to the extent that he or she is given to methodological and philosophical naturalism) is really not permitted to give teleological explanations to biological phenomena, only teleonomic (apparent purposefulness) explanations. Therefore, while you may think that human thought is <i>clearly</i> teleological (and I would agree), the fact remains that your commitment to methodological and philosophical naturalism precludes this possibility. On the materialist view, human beings are nothing more than "organic robots with consciousness." They do not have free will and they are not capable of purposive-behavior. Volition, intentional acts, and creative thought are completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. Any purposive-behavior that we or any other living organisms appear to display must be deemed purely illusory. Logical consistency demands this.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.com