|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 9, 2011 3:16:12 GMT
Meanwhile, contra Fodor, we have a biologist, J. Scott Turner, who holds that we need to revive the notion of teleology in biology. For this, he has been called, per the usual denunciation of heretics, "a known creationist." Much to his surprise, as he is not. After 400 years of philosophical squid ink, Aristotelian concepts have been making a quiet comeback, and this is one of them. People whose fear of magic men in the sky coming to get them so overwhelms them may overlook that Aristotle did not derive a God from the telos he saw naturally in nature. Turner's basic theme is that living organisms have a telos, that is, they exhibit "goal-seeking behavior" by which they build their own environments. This may be as simple as going somewhere else where they can prosper, or as complex as altering their present physical environment to suit themselves. He says, "What I have tried to do is cut through the metaphors a bit, to get to the actual mechanisms whereby adaptation works." The metaphors are things like "natural selection." [More intriguing is the reaction of some colleagues to his latest book. He writes, "There has been some private correspondence from colleagues that, to put it mildly, surprised me. So the issue itself does seem to unhinge people a bit." Heresy must be punished!] He is interviewed here by John Farrell, who also wrote The Day Without Yesterday about Fr. Lemaitre and the Big Bang theory: blogs.forbes.com/johnfarrell/2011/02/08/evolution-and-embodied-physiology/A few quotes from the interview: - the whole issue of purposefulness and teleology has been at the heart of evolutionary thought since before Darwin
Before Darwin yes, after Darwin it's been a big no no. [/li][li] While there is clearly a radical materialist/Neodarwinist school of evolutionary thought, evolutionary biology is not monolithic in this regard. Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is probably the most prominent area that has grappled seriously with the issue of teleology. Niche construction theory is another.[/quote] No they haven't your just making stuff up. Even theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller and Frances Collins have never explained where god comes into it, I think they just believe we have a soul or something. [/li][li] For the most part, these disciplines are trying to reconcile the obviously purposeful nature of embryonic development and ecology with the materialist/atomist mindset of modern Darwinism, but there’s still a group of people (of which I’m one, Lynn Margulis and Simon Conway Morris are two other voices far more prominent than mine) who think the two are probably irreconcilable.[/quote] No, there are biologist and then there are some cranks, I'm looking at you Turner & Co. [/li][li] Right now, I think we’re at a very exciting time in evolutionary biology because the idea is emerging that we are now bumping up against the limits of the materialist/atomist philosophy, and are coming to realize that there is indeed something special about life that simply must be understood. There are various opinions out there about just what that special quality is (my two cents is the special quality of homeostasis), but no matter how it comes out, I think we’re on the verge of a major philosophical shift in biology.[/quote] What limits? Sorry but the rest of this is just a brain fart. And there will be no philosophical shift in biology especially a teleogical one, that was put to bed ages ago. [/li][li] One of the points I’ve tried to develop in both my books is that physiological function operates at multiple scales, both within the body, with its organizational hierarchy of cell-tissue–organ etc, but also as “embodied physiology” outside the organism. In fact, this kind of embodied physiology is ubiquitous. ... Coral reefs, for example, are organs of extended physiology for the colonial polyps that build them, operating as an interface between water and organism that aids in the capture of energy for the polyps. The interface even scales fractally, just like in the lung.[/quote] Yes they are called filters, most marine plant life feeds thought filtering the water and so what? [/li][li] The metaphor [natural selection] falls down a bit when organisms become masters of their environment rather than its slaves, though, because now organisms are essentially selecting themselves. This paradox has been around for a long time, in fact, and attempts to resolve it date back to Sewall Wright’s ideas of “adaptive landscapes” and Hutchinson’s notions of ecological “niches”.[/quote] Eh? How is being able to adapt your environment 'not' natural selection. Building a lair, dam, marking out territory and/or defending territory. This is the very essence of natural selection, this guy is a loon. [/li][li] What’s missing is a coherent view of the physiological dimension, the living systems that make adaptation possible. And that dimension plays by very different rules–physiological rules, like homeostasis–that aren’t derivable from first principles of natural selection. A coherent theory of evolution will account for both. Currently, it doesn’t, in my opinion.[/quote] No what's missing is your capacity for any intelligent thoughts and what's with the homeostasis I haven't done anything on this since uni but I don't remember anybody having a problem with it, that would have at least peeked my interest. [/li][li] At first, of course, the rediscovery of the Mendelian gene was thought to be the death knell for Darwinism. [/quote] Oh this is getting ridiculous now. The bigest problem for Darwin was inheritance basically he got it wrong. Mendelian genetics would have been pure gold to him. It would have even improved what is already on of the greatest books ever written. Incidentally he had a copy of Mendelian's work in his draw but it was in German and he never got round to having it translated. [/li][li] Even though, for much of the 20th century, the scientific case seemed to be swinging decisively in favor of the “parsimonists”, the other side never really went away, and it has re-emerged in schools like evo-devo, or niche construction theory, or in Simon Conway Morris’ ideas about the importance of convergence. Most of these ideas ... are ... rooted in older ideas–evo-devo draws heavily on the work of D’Arcy Thompson, for example, who was a trenchant critic of Darwinism–that were part of an incredibly rich intellectual debate over evolution that was thriving prior to the modern synthesis. [/li][/ul][/quote] Of course it doesn't go away when kooks like you keep promoting it. Nobody is arguing against 'designs' in nature they happen all the time spiders web, snail's shell etc. Though this doesn't give you the right to shove your teleological BS and your ID apologist stance down our throats. In fact I have a better place where you can stick them, somewhere where the sun don't shine.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 9, 2011 9:07:13 GMT
himself wrote:
So, while some use history for apologetics, you use biology. I'm surprised that you're surprised that your colleagues do not agree with you. If they knew your intentions, I'm sure they would be even more disagreeable.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 9, 2011 12:54:48 GMT
Oh this is getting ridiculous now. The bigest problem for Darwin was inheritance basically he got it wrong. Mendelian genetics would have been pure gold to him. It would have even improved what is already on of the greatest books ever written. Incidentally he had a copy of Mendelian's work in his draw but it was in German and he never got round to having it translated. Unfortunately that story is a bit of a myth - which is a real shame. The Darwin Correspondence Project's version is here: members.shaw.ca/mcfetridge/darwin.html
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 9, 2011 14:43:08 GMT
This is BS, there is a difference what the selfish gene does what it does and a social group does what it does which incidentally enhances the propagation of that gene, If you and all the other morons don't understand group genetics then at least stop commenting on it as you show yourselves to be idiots. Sad to say, it was Dawkins who has let his metaphors get away from him. Aside from calling everyone in sight a moron, it would be well to address what Gould, Midgley, Margulis, Fodor, and others actually had to say. Again, Fodor's complaint, from his atheist perspective, was that natural selection was "too teleological." The problem as he saw it was down in the logical bone. But too many acolytes immediately label an atheist like Fodor a theist. Soon, he will be labeled a "known creationist." This is the equivalent of calling someone a "heretic" because he has written or spoken heterodoxy. I disagree Dawkins is right on the money. Sorry about the moron bit but only to you and anybody else on this forum, as for anyone who writes anti-Darwin books I explain why their wrong and then insult them. I feel it's the only way to put an end to this nonsense. Funny you should mention Gould because if they had read his and Lewontin's brilliant paper (Spandrels paper: required reading for biology students.) They would have discovered how wrong they were. As for Midgley she just judges the selfish gene by it's cover, I have seen nothing to show me that she understands the content of the book. Margulis(?) I have addressed Fodor & Co, also if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, It's a bloody duck. At first yes he was a theist but later realized there was a more natural explanation for the diversity of species, God not being in his book was the reason for his delay in publishing it. Personally I prefer to just type evolution the less typing I have to do the better. No it is not metaphysical, it's empirical, the scientific method moved away from metaphysics a long time ago. Fodor was questioning his own misunderstanding as well he might because it was stupid. I read some popular sciences books and visit some sites but I'm very aware of their limitations. I could never argue for or against physics with my limited understanding of the discipline. That's why I get annoyed when any Tom, Dick or Harry who has read Darwin or Dawkins thinks that they can show where it is wrong. You could read and understand all Dawkins books and still not get a pass in GCSE biology. There is no evidence for your magic man in the sky and it doesn't answer your prayers so just give it a rest will you. You are following the teaching of bronze/iron age goat herders who's book doesn't advance are understanding beyond anyone who had an IQ of 50. If you want to worship this idiot feel free to do so but don't mind us laughing at your gullibility and lack of critical thinking abilities. ;D Not really I just like to point out the absurdity of religion.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Feb 9, 2011 15:01:47 GMT
Don't worry, davedodo007, I am on your side when it comes to evolution. Natural selection does just fine. That evolution (physical, chemical, biological) can exist only because the laws of nature are exceedingly special is another matter. I also hold that the origin of life has natural causes, see my article on the evolution website Talkorigins.org. It should pop on the first page if you google for origin of life, but here is the link anyway: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
|
|
|
Post by trav10 on Feb 9, 2011 23:33:48 GMT
At first yes he was a theist but later realized there was a more natural explanation for the diversity of species, God not being in his book was the reason for his delay in publishing it. Personally I prefer to just type evolution the less typing I have to do the better. Are you sure that was the reason he was no longer a theist? Yes, but you'd be better off if you argued effectively for that instead of just asserted it ("Pointing it out).
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 10, 2011 4:29:33 GMT
Quoting Turner: the whole issue of purposefulness and teleology has been at the heart of evolutionary thought since before DarwinBefore Darwin yes, after Darwin it's been a big no no. Well, certainly it was forbidden, discarded, ignored, denounced -- and then tacitly relied upon. Without final causes, efficient causes are incoherent; a point noticed, it seems, only by Hume. His solution was to dispense with causality entirely: X does not cause Y; X merely precedes Y "always or mostly." This was precisely how al-Ghazali drove a stake through the heart of Islamic natural philosophy. Fortunately, philosophical inconsistency and a tacit/unspoken Aristotelianism saved the day. No they haven't your just making stuff up. Even theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller and Frances Collins have never explained where god comes into it, I think they just believe we have a soul or something. 1. I am only linking to an interesting article. I am not making anything up. You are accusing evolutionist Turner of making things up -- and this without the empirical evidence of actually reading his book. This is a remarkable feat of ESP, although it is contrary to the scientific spirit. 2. Turner was talking about τελος (telos), not God. 3. Soul is obvious and empirical. The term in Latin is anima, which simply means "living." Thus "Does X have a soul" = "Is X alive." This can be answered empirically. It was only after Descartes and the Scientific Revolutionaries mucked things up with their "substance dualism" and the little homunculus inside the head that even serious thinkers became confused on this point. In any case, Turner was not writing about that. Anima (or ενεργια, to give it its Greek moniker) does have implications for τελος, but that is a topic for another day. + + + there are biologist and then there are some cranks, I'm looking at you Turner & Co. Well, yes, we understand: heretics must be held up to public ridicule and called names. + + + What limits [of the materialist/atomist philosophy]? Sorry but the rest of this is just a brain fart. And there will be no philosophical shift in biology especially a teleogical [sic] one, that was put to bed ages ago. Hmm. Better tell the physicists. They began abandoning the 19th century metaphysic a hundred years ago. That's why materialist philosophers began relabeling themselves "physicalists." Physicists talk now about attractor basins, minimizing potential functions, and sundry such instances of finality. In transactional quantum mechanics, we have the advanced wave. After Heisenberg -- assuming the Copenhagen metaphysic is correct -- even matter cannot be explained by materialism. As for atomism, after all this time we have not found atoms. Every time we think we have found them, they turn out to be "cuttable" into smaller beings. It turns out that form is as important as matter. Otherwise no Aristotelian "emergent causes" or "self-organizing systems," neither of which is explicable on a materialist/atomist basis. Imagine Mary, who has lived all her life in a gray/black-and-white room. But she is brilliant and knows everything there is to know about photons, their wavelengths, reflections, and so forth. She also knows all about neurons and brain reactions. This includes things that we ourselves don't know yet. IOW, she knows all there is to know about particles in motion. Then, one day, she leaves the room and sees a bright red apple. Has she experienced something new? Of course. All the atomism in the world cannot tell her what-it-is-like to see red. IOW, while the metrical and controllable properties of the world are useful and give us much power, they do not cover everything there is to know about the natural world, let alone the humanist world. + + + How is being able to adapt your environment 'not' natural selection. Building a lair, dam, marking out territory and/or defending territory... is the very essence of natural selection, this guy is a loon. Yes, we understand. Heretics are always loons. But put aside your visceral religious reaction for a moment. The essence of natural selection according to Darwin is that: a) Species strive to reproduce to the utmost; sob) Far more young are born than can possibly survive; soc) There is a remorseless struggle for resources among con-specifics in the course of which those "better fit" have "reproductive success." Natural selection is an efficient cause that culls the less fit from the population. Beavers build dams because they have intention -- whether it is conscious or not -- and intention is telos. Reproduction and the struggle for existence do not enter into it, save in culling those inept in the building of it. The old fashioned term for "selection" was "death." So "an interesting side-effect of death." Darwin wanted to eliminate telos, and so he did. It was a metaphysical choice rather than a scientific result. One reason he was troubled with natural selection is its inherently teleological nature. Even Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, was unable to give an example of natural selection that was not essentially teleological. Consequently, with each new edition of The Origin... he added more mechanisms - like sexual selection. In the end, he even added Lamarckism [which he had denounced in the first edition] back in! Kimura's theory exempts nature from the teleological role of "selector" which so-bothered Darwin [and which really bugged the atheistic Fodor]. There is no "selection" going on. Creatures simply use whatever traits their genes provide them. + + + Oh this is getting ridiculous now. The bigest problem for Darwin was inheritance basically he got it wrong. Mendelian genetics would have been pure gold to him. That is not how it was seen at the time. Genetics was an alternative to natural selection. It is certainly far broader. That is why devising the Modern Synthesis was such a tour de force -- as Turner indeed points out. It would have even improved what is already on of the greatest books ever written. Incidentally he had a copy of Mendelian's work in his draw but it was in German and he never got round to having it translated. I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never actually read The Origin... He did not have a copy of Mendel. But he did have a copy of Blythe's papers. Of course it [τελος] doesn't go away when kooks like you keep promoting it. 'designs' in nature ...happen all the time .... Though this doesn't give you the right to shove your teleological BS and your ID apologist stance down our throats. In fact I have a better place where you can stick them, somewhere where the sun don't shine. I wish you would learn to conduct a reasoned discourse using logic and empirical fact. Instead... name-calling and insults. You are confusing τελος, design, and ID as if they were one thing. Neither is ID apologetics: it is bad theology before it is bad science. This being a philosophical board, please provide a justification for efficient causes without presuming final causes. That is: how can A cause B "always or for the most part" unless there is something in A that "points toward" B? How indeed can there be evolution (or gravity or...)? A beaver does not gather sticks at random; he gathers sticks toward the building of a dam. Heavy bodies do not move at random; they move toward the point of minimal gravitational potential. Species do not evolve at random; they evolve toward greater reproductive fitness in their niche. Without this "towardness" in nature, there would be no natural laws, but only random chaos. (See Einstein's letter to M. Solvine on the subject.)
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 10, 2011 5:36:21 GMT
If they had read Gould's and Lewontin's brilliant paper [t]hey would have discovered how wrong they were. Gould and Lewontin were wrong? Heh. Granted, neither they nor Dawkings correctly identified "spandrels," but then they are biologists, not civil or mechanical engineers. They were perfectly correct. We know from modern genetics [not old-time "atomist" genetics] that a genome is like a mobile. Change one part and other parts self-modify to accommodate. One reason, Shapiro says, why phenotype changes can be sudden and massive rather than gradual and incremental. That being the case, a mutation that leads to A and B raises the peculiar question of how you can say that there was selection "for" A rather than selection "for" B. Because in making the assertion you have automatically introduced intentionality into the picture. (This is what Fodor objected to; and it is what Turner took the other stance. Oddly, you objected to both.) But certainly if there is selection "for" A, then B is a free rider and is preserved not from any selective advantage, but just because. There is an experiment you can try. - Tell a bunch of fanboys and camp followers that humans invest far more energy in caring for their older offspring than their younger. You will immediately get back an adaptationist "just so" story as to why this is a selective advantage.
- Now, tell a different group of fanboys and camp followers that humans invest far more energy in caring for their younger offspring than their older. You will immediately get back an adaptationist "just so" story as to why this is a selective advantage.
IOW, the "natural selection" metaphysic is not falsifiable, since no matter what the outcome we can, after the fact, concoct an adaptationist story as to how we got to that point. Gould, Lewontin, Orr ( www.bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Orr.html), and others have rightly pointed out that there may not be any adaptationist reason for a particular trait. Shapiro explains the impact of modern genetic theory here: bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.htmlAnd for those who are curious about the vitriol and bile, here is a paper by Midgley: web.archive.org/web/20051031044810/http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=14 One is reminded of her dedication of her book Evolution as a Religion: "To Charles Darwin, who never said such things." IOW, she is defending Darwin from those camp followers who have taken his scientific ideas and extended them into social, political, or philosophical conclusions. God not being in his book was the reason for his delay in publishing it. Nope. It was his continual revising and polishing. He published when he heard that Wallace had reached the same conclusions and was going to publish his own book. Of course, Blythe had published even earlier, and Darwin, from his Notebooks, studied those papers so closely that much of them wound up verbatim in his own book. Personally I prefer to just type evolution the less typing I have to do the better. Darwin did not. He preferred precision and careful thought. He hardly used the term "evolution" at all -- possibly due to its association with the French Terror -- but also because he understood the difference between a fact and a theory. No it [natural selection] is not metaphysical, it's empirical, the scientific method moved away from metaphysics a long time ago. The scientific method never had anything to do with metaphysics as such, any more than it has to do with mathematics as such or with music or art or love. It is applicable only to the metrical and controllable aspects of physical bodies. There is little empiricism to the theory natural selection. Darwin simply accepted Malthus at face value and said, if we look at things from "this view of life" a lot of things make sense. He never presented empirical proofs. In fact, he spent much of the book trying to explain away the fact that such things as the fossil record did not support his predictions. (Later [he said] we will find more fossils and we will see a gradual continuum of slowly changing species. Well, we found them, and they still didn't fit; so Eldridge and Gould came up with their punctuated equilibrium.) It was not at all the way Newton developed the Theory of Universal Gravitation or Ampere the Electrical Theory of Conducting Bodies.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 10, 2011 15:54:20 GMT
Before Darwin yes, after Darwin it's been a big no no. Well, certainly it was forbidden, discarded, ignored, denounced -- and then tacitly relied upon. Without final causes, efficient causes are incoherent; a point noticed, it seems, only by Hume. His solution was to dispense with causality entirely: X does not cause Y; X merely precedes Y "always or mostly." This was precisely how al-Ghazali drove a stake through the heart of Islamic natural philosophy. Fortunately, philosophical inconsistency and a tacit/unspoken Aristotelianism saved the day. How about it was deemed unnecessary because evolution is a natural process. I never commented on you at all, I was merely commenting on Turner's bullet points you provided. I was aware of what he was implying. Believe what you will, when metaphysics has come up with a valid hypothesis that is falsifiable we will apply the scientific method to it and we will see where it take us. Until then meh! Bad ideas are there to be shot down but there is an agenda here and it's time consuming and a waste of resources to have to do it continually when some real work is being neglected. Hence the ridicule born of frustration. Wow a lot of words to use the old canard 'Look a the pretty flower: therefore god.' It always amuses me when the religious insult the non-religious by using religious terminology, its like they know deep down that it's inherently negative but funny none the less. A simplistic view but will suffice. Beavers don't have intent they have instinct. I haven't looked in to beaver or much into most animal natural selection behaviour for that matter. Though if I did I know what it would show. That it started off as something small was successful so it was continued and built upon and hence the reason why they are still here. Where does this telos even come from, you must have a teleological mindset to even think it has anything to do with natural selection in the first place. Then to erect a strawman with it then knock it down and claim victory just boggles the mind. Though this is what the religious tend to do ad infinitum. Sorry you are totally losing me here, where does all this stuff come from. If the Origin of Species described a form of teleological natural selection, the book wouldn't have been controversial at all, the clergy of the day would have lapped it up. Darwin would never have delayed publishing it. There is no telos there, never has been and never will be. It's all in yours and Fodor's heads. Not sure of the politics that where going on at the time but we know who won, just look at the ten pound note. Read it as a schoolboy, he is not our god nor is he a saint. He is just one of many who had the idea. He is just the one who put in the spade work so to speak. He is a example of the amount of work you have to do to be a scientist. He was hardly mentioned beyond 'A' level biology, things have come on leaps and bounds in the last 150 years. It's just the religious obsessing over him that we have to keep harking back to him. Of course it [τελος] doesn't go away when kooks like you keep promoting it. 'designs' in nature ...happen all the time .... Though this doesn't give you the right to shove your teleological BS and your ID apologist stance down our throats. In fact I have a better place where you can stick them, somewhere where the sun don't shine. So the fact we don't all drop tools and apply ourselves to every bit of obvious nonsense that comes our way ad nauseum. We have jobs to do, families to care for, we want time to have fun. Then another book claiming Darwin was wrong pops up, trust me ridicule is a very important release valve.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 10, 2011 22:07:21 GMT
How about it [τελος] was deemed unnecessary because evolution is a natural process. Actually, τελος or finality is necessary in order for there to be natural processes. Don't forget that τελος is natural, not supernatural. Believe what you will, when metaphysics has come up with a valid hypothesis that is falsifiable we will apply the scientific method to it and we will see where it take us. Until then meh! - When art comes up with a valid hypothesis that is falsifiable we will apply the scientific method to it and we will see where it take us. Until then meh!
- When evolution comes up with a valid hypothesis that is falsifiable we will apply the scientific method to it and we will see where it take us. Until then meh!
- When literature comes up with a valid hypothesis that is falsifiable we will apply the scientific method to it and we will see where it take us. Until then meh!
- When mathematics comes up with a valid hypothesis that is falsifiable we will apply the scientific method to it and we will see where it take us. Until then meh!
The "scientific method" applies to the metrical properties of physical bodies. Why on earth would you expect it to apply to non-physical bodies like mathematical objects, to truth and beauty, to art, etc., etc.? This is pure scientism: the belief that if you don the sacred garments of the White Lab Coat and repeat formulas that sound vaguely scientific,* we are being somehow more wise. In reality, it is a form of cargo cultism. By imitating the outward forms of the physics we can turn something in to a really-truly Science-with-a-capital-S. (*) vaguely scientific. The whole falsifiable thingie is a philosophical position, not an inherent property of science. It was part of Popper's attack on the alleged certainty of natural science. His program was to demolish logical positivism, previously the favorite philosophy of scientists and science camp followers. + + + Wow a lot of words to use the old canard 'Look a the pretty flower: therefore god.' Your obsession with "god" has caused your brain atoms to misrepresent Jackson's argument. There was nothing in Jackson's argument that concluded to "therefore god," let alone to "therefore God." It simply concluded that physicalism did not account for the empirical natural world. Galileo, Descartes, and the other Revolutionaries knew this. That is why they relegated things like color, sound, taste, pain, etc. to "subjective" phenomena, and reserved "objective" for things like position, length, weight, et al (i.e., to the metrical properties.) But they never claimed that color was not real. Nowadays, of course, we call them "qualia," but a new word does not always mean a new thought. + + + It always amuses me when the religious insult the non-religious by using religious terminology, its like they know deep down that it's inherently negative but funny none the less. Nah. It's just that people unfamiliar with religious behavior often do not recognize it when they engage in it. + + + Beavers don't have intent they have instinct. But is it the instinctus of Aristotle or the meat-machine "instinct" of Descartes? Why suppose that intention, which simply means a "tending toward" also means "self-consciously aware"? Not the same thing, really. I haven't looked in to beaver or much into most animal natural selection behaviour for that matter. Though if I did I know what it would show. That it started off as something small was successful so it was continued and built upon and hence the reason why they are still here. That's why evolutionary thought is essentially metaphysical. You already know ahead of time what you will "see" in something. That is, it is not something discovered empirically in the data, but a "view of life" through which one looks at the data in the first place. Modern genetics would seem to allow for things starting off with a bang, not as something small. Read the link to Shapiro's essay, provided earlier. Unless you already "know" what it will say. The idea that "survivors survive" is more tautological than scientific. Dam-building beavers are by definition successful, since they are here. But the aplodontids and other non-dam-building beavers have also been successful. IOW, whatever the hand they were dealt by their genes, organisms make use if it in one way or another. It is this "towardness" of the organism to go on living that fashions the success. Where does this telos even come from It is simply there in nature, like efficient causation, matter, and form. you must have a teleological mindset to even think it has anything to do with natural selection in the first place. "Towardness" figures in any sort of natural law, so to the extent that natural selection is a law like those the physicists and chemists discover, telos figures in natural selection. Even to use the word "selection" implies towardness. (This is what bothered Darwin in later years; and really bugged Fodor recently.) To use the word "process" or "information" implies telos. They were/are so determined to banish telos from nature that they have wrought havoc to causation itself. + + + If the Origin of Species described a form of teleological natural selection, the book wouldn't have been controversial at all, the clergy of the day would have lapped it up. Darwin would never have delayed publishing it. There is no telos there, never has been and never will be. On the broad time scale, the telos of evolution is stated directly in the title: the origin [or multiplicity] of species. On the scale of the particular species, the telos is greater fitness for a niche. On the individual scale - which Darwin neglected - the telos is in the intentional behavior of living things; that is, in creating a niche into which they will fit. I hope your fears do not drive you to deny that evolution aims at the origin of species or greater reproductive fitness!! Of course, CofE parsons were also creatures of their time and place. Look at Paley and his silly "watchmaker" argument. But bad theology is what you would expect from bad metaphysics. However, Darwin did not delay publication for the reason you cite; but because his obsessive perfectionism kept him revising and rewriting as he found hole after hole in his reasoning. (And even after publication he kept revising as his critics poked holes in it.) + + + So the fact we don't all drop tools and apply ourselves to every bit of obvious nonsense that comes our way ad nauseum. We have jobs to do, families to care for, we want time to have fun. Then another book claiming Darwin was wrong pops up, trust me ridicule is a very important release valve. It is typical of camp followers and fanboys of science. But I did not claim that Darwin was wrong. Neither did Turner. (Atheists like Fodor and Stove have claimed so, granted.) The claim that a mid-Victorian naturalist didn't get everything right should not be treated as heresy. Physicists don't get upset because Newtonian physics of absolute space and time has been utterly overturned. Maybe things are different in the Hard Sciences? The challenge was to explain how there could be efficient causes like natural selection without recourse to natural telos. I think your fear of God is blinding you to purely natural aspects of empirical experience. Be not afraid. Aristotle recognized telos in the world and never argued from it to a God. Of course, Aquinas did; but he regarded the argument from telos to God as a difficult one, not an obvious one. He also argued to God from the existence of change and from the ordering of efficient causes, but that does not drive your brain atoms to deny that there is change in the world or to deny that efficient causes exist. So why pick on telos.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 11, 2011 7:11:12 GMT
Oh this is getting ridiculous now. The bigest problem for Darwin was inheritance basically he got it wrong. Mendelian genetics would have been pure gold to him. It would have even improved what is already on of the greatest books ever written. Incidentally he had a copy of Mendelian's work in his draw but it was in German and he never got round to having it translated. Unfortunately that story is a bit of a myth - which is a real shame. The Darwin Correspondence Project's version is here: members.shaw.ca/mcfetridge/darwin.htmlIt did seem plausible but I should have verified it, as you say it was a shame though.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 11, 2011 7:19:20 GMT
Don't worry, davedodo007, I am on your side when it comes to evolution. Natural selection does just fine. That evolution (physical, chemical, biological) can exist only because the laws of nature are exceedingly special is another matter. I also hold that the origin of life has natural causes, see my article on the evolution website Talkorigins.org. It should pop on the first page if you google for origin of life, but here is the link anyway: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.htmlCheers I'll check it out when I have more time.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 12, 2011 23:05:34 GMT
himself.
You are going to have to give me a definition of 'telos' for this debate to continue. I simply don't know where you are coming from with this. I could google it of course but I would prefer to hear your version of it. I have been involved in biology for thirty years and have never come across this term. I have obviously heard it in a religious context of course but never in biology.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 13, 2011 3:19:25 GMT
himself, You are going to have to give me a definition of 'telos' for this debate to continue. The telos is the natural end toward which a motion occurs. It is sometimes called a "final cause," but in modern lingo "cause" always conjures up "efficient causes of metrical properties." In volitional acts, it corresponds to "purpose," and the term "purpose" is sometimes used analogically to describe it. It is part of the system of "four becauses." 1. A thing's BEING is described by two becauses: matter and form. 2. A thing's BECOMING (or "motion") is described by: efficient (agent) and final. Each of the four is a different KIND of answer to the question "Make". 1. Matter: What is the thing made of? 2. Form: What makes it that sort of thing? 3. Agency: What makes it into that thing? 4. End: What is it made for? For inanimate beings, form is the number and arrangement of parts. For animate beings, there is more to it, and the form is sometimes called a "soul" [ anima: that which makes a thing alive]. Some forms are essential to a being to be what it is. A triangle is essentially a three-sided plane figure with straight lines. Other forms are accidental: This triangle is cut from green felt. That triangle is drawn in chalk on a blackboard. They are both essentially triangles and the one really does have the form of Green and of Clothiness (and the Matter is Felt). But there is nothing in being Green that is essential to its triangularity. In formal causation, the whole has properties that are not predicated of the parts. Water is wet; H2O molecules are not. The Scientific Revolution rejected formal causes, but has returned to them under the pseudonym of "emergent properties" or "whole-istic." Matter is direct matter. The subject matter of a book, for example. Or a wall "is made of" bricks. The bricks are made of clay; the clay of aluminum silicate molecules; the molecules of atoms; the atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons; the protons presumptively of quarks; and quarks must also have parts because we can distinguish different sorts of quarks, at least mathematically. Formless matter is not sensible, and is called hule prote or "prime matter." It is purely potential and therefore does not exist as such. Every sensible being is a union of matter and form. "Every thing is some thing." Form is what makes [potential] matter actual. At the other end of the scale is pure form without matter. This, too, is insensible; but since form is by definition actual, pure form or pure act must actually exist in some sense. The transition from potentially-X to actually-X is called "motion." The Greek word is κινεσις [kinesis] and in modern lingo is better translated as "change." Change in the form of location is called "local motion" and today is called simply "motion." Motion is "toward" some end. This is finality. The end of a tiger cub is an adult tiger, not a tiger lilly or a bowl of Frosted Flakes. Without final causes [telos, end, etc.] there can be no coherent efficient causes, not laws of nature. A scientific law means that some existing form of matter moves toward a different form; hence, trans- form-ation. Thus a dogbear moves [evolves] toward dog, or bear; sodium and chlorine move [react] toward salt; etc. If there were no "towardness" in nature there would be no reason why a thing would move in any particular direction, let alone "always or for the most part" in a particular direction. Sodium and chlorine might combine into a tiger cub or make no combination at all. Hume was so afraid that telos in nature necessarily implied God that he was compelled to deny telos in nature. But being intellectually honest, he then went on to deny efficient causes as well, replacing them with statistical correlation. This knocked the foundations from under the scientific program and made the whole thing incoherent. Fortunately, most scientists, while dutifully denying telos and supposing that it had been somehow "disproven" and not merely "denied," went on to implicitely rely upon it. After all, if things did not work to an end, why look for the natural laws that described the motion? Both Aristotle and Aquinas saw telos as obvious in nature. Aristotle took it no further; but Aquinas used the existence of natural laws to argue for the existence of God. He also used the existence of change and the ordering of efficient causes; but somehow the self-described Enlightenment did not try to deny the existence of change or the existence of efficient causes. Oh, well. People seem to think that if they once admit to telos, God pops out. Therefore, they deny telos. But Aquinas believed that getting from natural telos to God was a difficult train of reasoning. Of his "five proofs," he regarded it as the weakest; hence, it came fifth. The only time (AFAIK) that Aquinas commented on the origin of species, which he did in passing while discussing another matter, he wrote: Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning. Summa theologica, Pt.I, Q.73, Art. 1, reply to obj. 3 Which you will note was perfectly correct as regards the active powers of stars and the elements; i.e., natural causes. Change putrefaction to mutation and not even Darwin could have said it better. The belief that "the earth brought forth" the natural kinds goes back at least to Augustine and his essay on Genesis. So there is no conflict with belief in a creator God and belief that he created a lawful universe. Evolution is a transformation, not a creation; so they are not even about the same kind of thing. Now for Fodor versus Turner. Fodor rejected natural selection because it is inherently teleological. That is, "selection" implies "selected for" something. Like all good children of the Enlightenment, he rebelled at the thought and critiqued it from the Enlightenment/atheist POV. Turner, OTOH, said what the hell. There =is= telos in nature, and once we recognize it, natural selection makes sense. One source of telos is the purposeful actions of living things which moves them toward the creation of their own environments. That is, the organism selects the environment rather than the environment selecting the organism. Kimura's theory of neutral selection may explain as much or more of evolution than Darwin's various theories of natural selection, sexual selection, etc. The Piece de ResistanceHere is a quadripartite description of evolution that I ran across once. You can see how much more sense the whole thing makes when natural selection is wedded to genetics and to purposeful behavior of living things. - Material Cause: the tendency to variation due to constant small random mutations in the genetic code; i. e., a variety of differing individuals within a species capable of transmitting their differences
- Formal Cause: the tendency of interbreeding population to reproduce itself in a stable manner and increase in numbers; i. e., the maintenance of type
- Efficient Cause (Agent): natural selection by the environment which eliminates those variants which are less effective in reproducing their kind; i. e., the agent determining in which direction species-change will take place
- Final Cause (End): the flexibility of living things by which they are able to occupy new niches in the changing environment; i. e., a feed-back mechanism which guides the selective process toward a new type which can exploit new environmental possibilities
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 15, 2011 18:47:36 GMT
himself.
Thanks for that post very illuminating.
Though I'm afraid were still at an em passe. Fodor & Co seem to commenting on Lamarckian evolution, and attributing it to Darwin. It's implying a 'determinism' in natural selection that simply doesn't exist. There are no optimal efficient environmental resource gathering and mate attracting creatures who rule their territory while passing on the uniqueness to their offspring. This is not how natural selection works. Most life does just enough to survive in the environment it was born into just long enough to reproduce. Again lets look at the whale, It was a land dwelling mammal which had to adapt to its changing environment. It's not best suited for an marine habitat as it frequently has to surface for oxygen. Were as fish simply filter the water for oxygen through their gills.
The consensus in biology is the evolution by natural selection is blind, mindless, their is no goal driven process. This has been shown by scientists for 150 years of testing it to destruction and finding it to be unfalsifiable. Foder & Co don't get to say what's the problem with natural selection and how they have solved this issue. First they have to show that they know what their talking about (they don't, no need to take my word for it visit any science blogs out on the web.) For their opinions (and that's what they are) to be taken seriously first they have to turn their idea into a hypotheses, collect evidence for it, experiment then analyse the date, show how their hypotheses could be wrong. Try and test it to destruction (if they don't someone else will in the peer review process.) Only that way will anybody take their views seriously. Sorry but that's how science works.
What they shouldn't do is write a book with a polemic title, especially when your understanding of someone else idea is flawed. This doesn't get them a fast track to the discussion table and nor should it. If they want to show that 'telos' is part of natural selection thinking I suggest they get to it and produces that paper, they might even get a Noble Prize out of it. If on the other hand they want to show that 'telos' isn't part of natural selection, they need not bother as nobody but them, a few Lamarckians and Aristotle followers does anyway.
|
|