[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif But this is precisely where a pragmatic scientific epistemology succeeds. We accept that Evolution has some utility because it has observable predictive value. We can posit that bacteria will evolve antibiotic resistance based on the theory of natural selection.

Lol. ADHD?

This premise is certainly false. Read again - the reasoning for this premise remains unsound, because it confuses basic observation and trades on a syllogism, defining 'change' or 'mutation' as 'evidence of evolutionary theory':

Quote:

You cite this as evidence of evolution, yet we have not defined the limits of this 'word' 'evolution. Let me guard against 'defining evolution' into being through a syllogism or through linguistic substitution then: In a bacterium, there is an organelle called a 'plasmid'. Plasmids are present in all bacteria; their function of which, is to exchange genetic material with other bacteria. Biologists use the word 'evolve' very loosely here, and one of the problems about having a weak metaphysical basis for their science, is that it imputes circular thinking or syllogistic type reasoning, which is indefensible. We cannot use the word 'evolve' or 'evolution' to signify 'change'. Otherwise your $.01 will be proof of evolution in your pocket. (j/k btw). We observe change i.e. metamorphosis, puberty - but to name two processes: neither are examples of evolution. The exchange of verbal information between male and female Head-Fi.org users - is this 'evolution'? What about the exchange of genetic material? ... In both cases; neither examples demonstrate 'evolution'. The first, is called 'communication'; the latter, is called sexual reproduction. Bacterial plasmid activity function as exchanges: the fact that bacteria can 'mutate' by exchanging plasmid activity; plasmid activity has been observed as a functional part of the bacterial organelles in all bacteria; revision of susceptibility of one's resistance to things is not indicative of evolution. The bacteria change their resistance; of course they change! Being changes too; Being is always in flux! We change all the time: we do not call this 'evolution' in our own lifetimes. But does changing 'bacterial resistance' equate to changing the bacterial 'identity'? A more rigorous example of 'evolution' then needs to be sought. This is not it. In any event, 'mutation' signifying 'change', is insubstantial: the bacterium, remains ... a bacterium. It does not evolve, into a fish or a human. Bacterium: the principle of identity remains. When the principle of identity is violated, then you can consider 'evolution' to have taken place. If indeed, the conditions are such, that it 'evolves' for the better, and not 'evolves for the worse', as observed in 99% of all known mutations (in this case, 'evolutionary theory', is anti-empirical, and relies on that 1% chance for its propositions to become true). Firstly, you need to demonstrate that micro-evolution (small changes in identity) take place and are sufficient to give rise to a new identity. Secondly, you need to demonstrate, that these micro-evolutionary changes (no.8), when aggregated, can be postulated reasonably to extrapolation, so that we can get from fish to a man (condition no. 7)

Thus:

Quote:

We can posit that bacteria will evolve antibiotic resistance based on the theory of natural selection.

trades on a syllogism: 'change' and 'mutation' does not equate to 'evolve'.

This is elementary philosophy: you cannot cite the word' 'evolve' in a premise, to demonstrate 'evolutionary theory' as having utility. All you are doing, is engaging in a syllogistic fallacy.


Quote:

We can test that hypothesis, and find that the theory does accurately predict what happens. By contrast, Astology could not do better than random chance in making the same prediction (except insofar as the astrologer implicity relies on the scientific theories).

You might need to respect Jonathan and let him answer his own philosophical problems associated with theories of falsifiability; you have your own to answer in terms of finding a way out of the syllogistic fallacy with respect to developing 'evolutionary theory' as a valid enterprise with a robust foundation

 

[nealric]

Quote:

trades on a syllogism: 'change' and 'mutation' does not equate to 'evolve'.

I think I already answered this one. Your critique relies on the need to answer unnecessary and unasked metaphysical and semantic problems.

A change in heritable traits based on natural selection is the very essence evolutionary theory. It doesn't matter what you call the change or if you label those aggregate changes evolution. The identity of the organism also doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter from a pragmatic standpoint that the causality (natural selection) of that change may be false. The point is that it accurately predicts an observable result in a useful way.

Quote:

You might need to respect Jonathan and let him answer his own philosophical problems associated with theories of falsifiability

I just jumped in because I was interested in the debate. He is free to come back with his own ideas.

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think I already answered this one. Your critique relies on the need to answer unnecessary and unasked metaphysical and semantic problems.

Not at all Neal..not at all. What makes a question 'unnecessary'? Only the zealot and fundamentalist who is ardent in his view, that his 'theory must be right', will refuse reflection. You have not defended any of the objections to your view of evolutionary theory. My objections are to unsound philosophical foundations: whether that be in evolutionary theory; astrology; creation science or other contemporary pseudo-sciences, which aspire to be of the order of Copernican insights; or Fleming's microbiological research; or randomised controlled trials. There are different orders of science: evolution as you have portrayed it, is not one of those. As you have offered it, evolutionary theory is a 'belief system' which requires faith to believe in - not coherent premises: it is not a concrete scientific discipline, nor a concrete philosophical one: worse of all; it is not derived from either science or philosophy, but trades as if it does. It is not an epistemological system of knowing the universe: it aspires to explain, however its system is fundamentally corrupted philosophically, and cannot be relied upon, unless you make that shift and accept 'evolutionary theory' by a leap of faith, and abandon your reflective faculties and refuse to think about its philosophical premises. It sounds like this is what you're doing in your above statement....?



Quote:

A change in heritable traits based on natural selection is the very essence evolutionary theory. It doesn't matter what you call the change or if you label those aggregate changes evolution.

Here, you falsely conflate (Jonathan's favourite term

) 'evolutionary theory' with 'natural selection'.

A change in hereditary traits based on natural selection is not the essence of evolutionary theory: it is in essence - natural selection.

If you think I am being pedantic, you can research natural selection theory, and see that this has been applied to equally specious and pseudo-philosophical 'sciences' like creationism. Your argument that natural selection is 'evolutionary theory' is simplistic and false.

In popular parlance, it would be 'nice' if natural selection was 'evolutionary theory'. They you would not have to account for extrapolation; assumption of uniformitarian models and weak philosophical arguments, to demonstrate how natural selection [observable and scientific], can be used as a mechanism for the larger picture of evolutionary theory [speculative and projective, quasi-religious].

Epistemology is not methodology; mechanisms of natural selection are not proofs of evolutionary theory either.


Quote:

The identity of the organism also doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter from a pragmatic standpoint that the causality (natural selection) of that change may be false. The point is that it accurately predicts an observable result in a useful way

Oh?

Let's see. If this is true then:

1. A change of a dog through hereditary characteristics into another dog, does not matter: this is evolution [identity doesn't matter?].
2. A change in hereditary characteristics from a cat which remains a cat, does not matter: this is evolution.
3. A change in hereditary characteristics of an elephant, into another elephant does not matter: the fact that it remains an elephant [identity] is irrelevant.

Well all I can say to such false premises is to quote Heidegger: the nothingness of this kind of theorising nihilates itself. Playing word games with the word 'evolution' and using it to define a process which is in essence, not-evolution in the manner you require for your evolutionary theory, is duplicit in masquerading opinion and speculation as philosophy or science.

Every preppy schoolboy knows that dogs having sex with other dogs to breed dogs, does not equate to evolution. Fish interbreeding with other fish and sharing genetic material; generating differences of genetic material by sexual reproduction cats does not equate to evolution. 'Evolution' as you define it, would then be something that even the most ardent creation scientist would accept. And it would also be a kind of 'evolution' which is useless to explain the kind of 'evolutionary theory' which you require.

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif The philosophic project (with relation to epistemology) is not to conjure knowledge from the ether, but to evaluate claims to knowledge. Notice that our debate in this thread really wasn't about the age of the universe or evolution, but the problems (or lack thereof) of the scientific methodologies.

When discussing scientific methodologies, doesn't the science have to be current/right/make sense?

Head_case keeps mentioning proper science then butchering/forgetting current knowledge or inventing his own (not a problem if it made sense). "Extrapolation is not a scientific discipline"? All day, every day, I go into work and extrapolate my way into what I thought were scientific truths. Apparently the literal millions of points of data (sorry, sense-data) are just part of the falsehood, and the theories derived are not empirical science at all. When I release my next paper, I won't be adding to the vast repositry of human scientific knowledge, no, I'll be blinding the masses...

EK

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head_case /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not at all Neal..not at all. What makes a question 'unnecessary'? Only the zealot and fundamentalist who is ardent in his view, that his 'theory must be right', will refuse reflection. You have not defended any of the objections to your view of evolutionary theory. My objections are to unsound philosophical foundations: whether that be in evolutionary theory; astrology; creation science or other contemporary pseudo-sciences, which aspire to be of the order of Copernican insights; or Fleming's microbiological research; or randomised controlled trials. There are different orders of science: evolution as you have portrayed it, is not one of those. As you have offered it, evolutionary theory is a 'belief system' which requires faith to believe in - not coherent premises: it is not a concrete scientific discipline, nor a concrete philosophical one: worse of all; it is not derived from either science or philosophy, but trades as if it does. It is not an epistemological system of knowing the universe: it aspires to explain, however its system is fundamentally corrupted philosophically, and cannot be relied upon, unless you make that shift and accept 'evolutionary theory' by a leap of faith, and abandon your reflective faculties and refuse to think about its philosophical premises. It sounds like this is what you're doing in your above statement....?

OK, Head_case. Everytime a pathologist estimates time of death, he/she uses most of the same assumptions (sorry, suppositions) that evolutionay biologists use. The methods are varied and many processes overlap, but extrapolation is the name of the game. You vilify evolutionary theory so completely, but the scientific methods used to create it are used everywhere! What do you think those "randomisd controlled trials" are used for?


EK

 

[nealric]

Quote:

Not at all Neal..not at all. What makes a question 'unnecessary'? Only the zealot and fundamentalist who is ardent in his view, that his 'theory must be right', will refuse reflection

Imagine I am explaining simple addition to a 5 year old. I'm showing him how adding two apples to one makes 3. Then you come along and tell me that I've failed to explain the nuances of number theory and am improperly assuming base 10. That's basically what you did. It's not that we should not ask questions about number theory, but you were bringing in number theory (i.e. the concept of identity) when it wasn't necessary (and even obfuscatory).

As to whether what I am doing requires faith: If I were to hold a bowling ball up and drop it, then ask you half way down whether it would continue falling, does it require "faith" to answer yes? It requires some assumptions, but hardly faith. If it required faith, I would reply that the bowling ball will continue to fall even I've seen someone catch it. Using scientific extrapolation, I will reply that yes, the bowling ball will continue to fall unless some other circumstance I'm not aware of presents itself or I am wrong in my understanding of falling things.

Quote:

Epistemology is not methodology; mechanisms of natural selection are not proofs of evolutionary theory either.

No, they are not. In fact, I never argued that evolutionary theory has been proven at all (or any other scientific theory). I've only argued that it is a pragmatically useful tool.

Quote:

1. A change of a dog through hereditary characteristics into another dog, does not matter: this is evolution [identity doesn't matter?]. 2. A change in hereditary characteristics from a cat which remains a cat, does not matter: this is evolution. 3. A change in hereditary characteristics of an elephant, into another elephant does not matter: the fact that it remains an elephant [identity] is irrelevant.

Here you are assuming a Platonist ontology. There is no form of "Elephant" floating in the ether that means that evolution would need somehow cross some sacred barrier of "elephantness" in order to occur. You seem to be assuming that in order for evolution to really be evolution, we have to go from paramecium to human being. I've never argued that there couldn't be some mechanism we don't yet understand that allows this beyond natural selection. However, evolution need not explain that whole grand scope, even if it's our best guess at the present time.

Also, breeding is distinguishable from evolution because it does not rely on natural selection as its mechanism. However, breeding does show the fantastic differences that can be created in organisms through selection over just a few generations. Just look at Chihuahua's compared to Great Dane's.

 

[viggen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water. The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken. Although its light is wide and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in dewdrops on the grass, or even in one drop of water. -Dogen Huh-errrm. Why, if I wanted to say something that sounded authentically Zen Buddhist, I might aver that given that you're not looking for it, you'll surely find it.

That's beautiful.

And, I doubt I'd find anything authentically Buddha even if I tried just like I doubt I'd find anything authentically Jesus even in the Bible.

 

[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by viggen /img/forum/go_quote.gif And, I doubt I'd find anything authentically Buddha even if I tried just like I doubt I'd find anything authentically Jesus even in the Bible.

What was that kooky business about 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'? I keep thinking it's one of the alternate verses to "To Fly with Me" that Sinatra used to throw in during lounge performances. Surely that's not right.

But somebody (Dean? Sammy?) wrote that if you meet the Buddha, then this is an error because the buddha is in all sentient beings, and buddha-dharma is everywhere--most especially in me and you, in 'I' and 'thou', in self and other.

 

[jonathanjong]

Let me try again.

What is a theory? I submit that a theory is an attempt to explain a phenomenon. (Anti-realists reject this, and assert that a theory is a convenient heuristic to generate predictions, etc. But never mind them for now.) What sorts of phenomena might we want to explain? The apparent motions of stars and planets, say. The change in mass during the combustion of metals, say. The distribution of current species, the presence of vestigial organs, and other biological phenomena, say.

So, there's a list of explananda. How might we explain these phenomena? Historically, there have been many suggestions and debates. Many of these debates were polar, and my point was that the two competing theories were often empirically equivalent. That is, pace Head_Case, it is not the case that some theories were more empirically justified than others:

1. Ptolemaic astronomy could explain the apparent motions of the stars as Copernican astronomy, as anyone who has read Copernicus and Galileo would know. The Ptolemaics just added epicycles and things. It was very cumbersome indeed, and Copernicanism was certainly preferable for its elegance. Of course, the controversy was that Copernicans wanted to say Copernicanism was true, not just a convenient mathematical fiction. Galileo was advised by Cardinal Bellarmino (now St. Bellarmine) to officially state that it was just a convenient fiction, which Galileo (perhaps dishonestly) did.

2. Phlogiston theory could explain the change in mass during the burning of metals just as well as Oxygen theory did, by postulating certain properties of phlogiston. They said phlogiston has negative mass, for example. Not such a strange postulate now, in some ways. (cf. Bondi, 1957).These ad hoc amendments to phlogiston theory held sway for awhile until, much like Ptolemaic astronomy, the theory got a little too complicated and Oxygen theory's parsimony was preferred.

3. Gossian Creationism is empirically equivalent to Darwinian evolutionary biology by design, by the fiat of its author Edmund Gosse. It is, as we say, a Gossian transform of evolutionary theory. Adam and Eve were created as if they were born naturally. The geological formations were created as if they were millions of years old. The species were created and distributed as if they evolved from common ancestors over millions of years. However, unlike Ptolemy and Phlogiston theory, Gossian Creationism wasn't widely accepted (until very recently, during the resurgence of Creationism and its ilk).

But don't take my word for it. Historians and philosophers of science have known this for decades, centuries even. Duhem, Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and van Fraassen have all published on this. Or check the primary literature. Re-read Copernicus and Bellarmino and Galileo and Lavoisier and Gosse.

But what's my point? It's twofold:
1. A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. These theories usually posit unobservable entities (e.g., electrons, God) or events (e.g., natural selection) or forces (e.g., gravity). In this view, "There is a noise in my attic because of goblins" and "Metal calxes are heavier than the metals prior to combustion because of the addition of the mass of oxygen" are the same kind of thing, i.e., theories.
2. Theories are judged by empirical evidence. Newtonian physics failed to convincingly explain the movement of Mercury's perihelion; Einstein's succeeded.
3. However, empirical evidence is not the only arbiter of a theories success or failure. There is also the matter of how a theory deals with data. Copernicanism and Ptolemaic astronomy are empirically equivalent, but Copernicanism was more equivalent. Phlogiston theory and Oxygen theory are empirically equivalent, but Phlogiston theory involved dodgy (though perhaps less so today) properties.
4. No theories – scientific or otherwise – are strictly logically falsifiable. This is naive Popperianism's grand error. A theory can't be disproved. cf. Duhem-Quine thesis. Popper himself knew this too, by the way.

There we go. It is naive to speak of some theories as "more scientific" or "more empirical" than others. All theories are inferences or collections of inferences; hypotheses and collections of hypotheses. They all purport to explain observable phenomena, often by positing unobservable entities and events. Good theories are explanatorily powerful and parsomonious and fecund. Bad theories are ad hoc, parasitic, and ontologically cumbersome. Are "good" theories "truer" theories? As a realist, I say "Yes". But many philosophers of science don't join me on this one. People I've mentioned like Duhem and van Fraassen are anti-realists; to them, a good theory is just a more convenient predictive machine. People like Lakatos and Popper and my teacher Alan Musgrave (who in turn, studied under Lakatos and Popper) are realists; to them, good theories are closer to the truth than bad theories. But that's another debate.

 

[Head_case]

I love the following quote, I think I should adopt it as my siggie! I can't resist reposting it here

Quote:

This is the problem I have with philosophy. There's no substance. It's just talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Endless debate about not much. Existential questions. The meaning of life. Yadda yadda yadda. Philosophers debating about a scientific discovery, waiting for the next one so they can debate about that. What are you all doing?

Isn't that brilliant?!

Now from the mind that sprouted such thinking comes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif When discussing scientific methodologies, doesn't the science have to be current/right/make sense? Head_case keeps mentioning proper science then butchering/forgetting current knowledge or inventing his own (not a problem if it made sense). "Extrapolation is not a scientific discipline"? All day, every day, I go into work and extrapolate my way into what I thought were scientific truths. EK

Well the answer is clearly yada yada yada!!!

Seriously though: you reject philosophy, and then you ask a question to make sense of the metaphysical basis of science?

The level of internal contradiction posed by this kind of mindset is mindblowing.

Ask yourself in one serious moment: is 'extrapolation' a science, or is it an essentially hermeneutic activity? By all means - re-read the post, and recognise the conditional validity of using 'inference' and 'extrapolation' ... within limits. Not in some high-faluting and speculative way, pretending that fish can become men.

Good luck with your science too

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Let me try again.

Well done Jonathan!

I'm mostly in accord with (almost) everything you've reframed here.

This is precisely what we do when we search truthfully; what you have done. There is no point in insisting on defending the indefensible and abandoning such a defence and starting over again, is a far more entertaining enterprise

Best to you!

 

[Head_case]

Neal - yes I noticed you deleted your post and added some revisions. That is okay with me, since this is a more inherently intellectually honest stance, than insisting on unsupportable premises. The only thing is, it breaks the continuity of this fossil record on the 19 pages of this thread .... uniformitarianists who need to extrapolate may start to suffer and get tetchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif Imagine I am explaining simple addition to a 5 year old. I'm showing him how adding two apples to one makes 3. Then you come along and tell me that I've failed to explain the nuances of number theory and am improperly assuming base 10. That's basically what you did. It's not that we should not ask questions about number theory, but you were bringing in number theory (i.e. the concept of identity) when it wasn't necessary (and even obfuscatory).

Explanation by analogy: again - a limited power to explanation. If I explain the solar system to you like you could imagine an apple orbiting around an orange, is that really a sufficient and satisfactory method of knowing? This is none of what I have done. You can liken what I have explained - exposing the inherent contradictions in a speculative thought system such as the brand of evolutionary theory which we are talking about: this is one way to dress an opinion as an explanation. It is an opinion nonetheless... most welcome. Back then to your favourite bug:


Quote:

You: We can posit that bacteria will evolve antibiotic resistance based on the theory of natural selection.

This is one family of tenacious bacteria which just will not let go.

Plasmids within bacteria, enable genetic exchange of information. The identity of the bacterium in question, cannot be mistaken for another bacterium either.

Identity is core to this question and if you know anything about micro-evolution and the desperation of evolutionary theory to seize on examples, then you might need to think about the number of appendicetomies undertaken because of false postulates that the appendix was a vestigial organ, when in fact, it is a minefield of immunological tissue belonging to the CODA, useful for mounting an immune response. No ...let's not think about that....it's too painful. Let's think about the example of Biston Betularia, the peppered moth variant, seized by fervent evolutionists, as evidence of 'micro-evolutionary' change. For decades, school children like the ones in your example were taught that the light peppered moth population mutated into another darkened city variant: this 'dark' mutation was supposed advantageous in schools.

Shock horror! Decades later, after realising, that the light population of Biston Betularia, did not change into the darkened population: there were always two distinct populations: natural selection, diminished one population over another: there were fundamentally two populations; two separate identities. Not one identity, as evolutionary theory required.

Obfuscating, huh?

So number theory and the Principle of Identity is irrelevant to evolution then? I venture that the Principle of Identity needs to be irrelevant to evolutionary theory, in order for evolutionary theory to reduce its internal inconsistencies:

By argument, evolution, perforce, requires increased complexity from simple to complex beyond the encoded genotype. Two compound eyeballs from one simple light sensitive eyepath; Two arms over one pseudopodia; many extra genes in an enriched gene pool, rather than less genes.

This isn't quantum science: evolutionary theory needs to account for such complexities. The internal dissonance in your approach, indicates tremendous problems in 'making this view of evolution' work. Complexity in number; complexity in organs; complexity in other ways: all of these facets need to be explained - not explained away, by rejecting well-grounded principles.

PS - Accusing others of obfuscating when you miss the point is worrying: sure you may ask for clarification if clarification is required. This is a nice forum! Be kind to us Renaissance philosophers in the minority! We like to flirt and dance with modern pseudoscience before kicking it in the groin, but ultimately, if reason is your guiding light, show me the reason in your thinking; show me the internal consistency; and the validity; not by comparing it to apples and oranges, but by describing it for what it is - scientifically. Opinions are optional extras only!

Explanation by analogy: this seems to be your preferred method, when premise and argument, or major premise and minor premise and conclusion, cannot be grasped. Okay well...let's run with your other example, which exemplifies this same principle, and see if it works:

Quote:

s to whether what I am doing requires faith: If I were to hold a bowling ball up and drop it, then ask you half way down whether it would continue falling, does it require "faith" to answer yes? It requires some assumptions, but hardly faith. If it required faith, I would reply that the bowling ball will continue to fall even I've seen someone catch it. Using scientific extrapolation, I will reply that yes, the bowling ball will continue to fall unless some other circumstance I'm not aware of presents itself or I am wrong in my understanding of falling things.

1. You state what you do requires 'faith'.
2. Do you know the difference between 'belief' and 'faith'?
3. If so, can you please correct your example accordingly?


The act of what you are doing suggests to me, that you have misappropriated the word 'faith' due to a failure to distinguish faith from belief. When you hold the ball half way up (or half way down), is the form of your thinking, a 'belief': that is - directed towards the content of your action, and held with conviction. Or is it truly 'faith': recognised or unrecognised?

If your example is clumsy and 'belief' describes your attitude more appropriately, then your example is a non-starter.

It's a non-starter

Quote:

In fact, I never argued that evolutionary theory has been proven at all (or any other scientific theory). I've only argued that it is a pragmatically useful tool.

I know and believe you didn't. I'm sorry if I'm giving you a hard time. But I'm enjoying it

Sorry - I'll behave myself. Peace

Quote:

Here you are assuming a Platonist ontology. There is no form of "Elephant" floating in the ether that means that evolution would need somehow cross some sacred barrier of "elephantness" in order to occur. You seem to be assuming that in order for evolution to really be evolution, we have to go from paramecium to human being. I've never argued that there couldn't be some mechanism we don't yet understand that allows this beyond natural selection. However, evolution need not explain that whole grand scope, even if it's our best guess at the present time.

No elephants here in the room? Can anyone see an elephant?! Call the ghost busters!!

Recall my distinction between evolutionary theory and natural selection: evolutionary theory in its macro-form, requires paramecium ---> human being type explanations. This is a speculative enterprise: it does not merit the label of 'science' nor does it merit the label of 'philosophy' in my view. It is a pseudo-science, trading on falsehood.

Natural selection is an observational phenomenon: there is ample evidence for it: it is a mechanism which explains population shifts, and change observed in nature (today). It is emminently scientific in my view.

It however, has been arrested and held captive, raped and pillaged and squeezed into a size 10 anorexic Evolutionary Theory mini-skirt. As long as you as not one of those who are doing this to my darling Natural Selection, alles kuhl between me and you dood

Quote:

Also, breeding is distinguishable from evolution because it does not rely on natural selection as its mechanism. However, breeding does show the fantastic differences that can be created in organisms through selection over just a few generations. Just look at Chihuahua's compared to Great Dane's.

Yeah. Dog compared to Dog. Identity of a dog compared to a dog. Every 5 year old knows that. The essence of the Dog Identity is on the dog tag: it remains a dog. Its identity does not shift, to a frog.

The rest is a moot point....of course sexual reproduction is distinguishable from 'evolution' (and whatcha mean by 'evolution'? Microchanges within the genus of 4 legged dogs? or Macrochanges from fish to philosopher?). Genetic difference is implicated in sexual reproduction: however none of these delightful facts contribute anything towards supporting the consistency of an evolutionary theory.

 

[viggen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif What was that kooky business about 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'? I keep thinking it's one of the alternate verses to "To Fly with Me" that Sinatra used to throw in during lounge performances. Surely that's not right. But somebody (Dean? Sammy?) wrote that if you meet the Buddha, then this is an error because the buddha is in all sentient beings, and buddha-dharma is everywhere--most especially in me and you, in 'I' and 'thou', in self and other.

That's like saying 'the dao that can be named is not the dao'.

Buddha, I am sure, is a regular guy just like that hippy luving Jesus guy. They just happen to think differently and upset the status quo by 'corrupting the youth' much like Socrates did. Then, the status quo made them into gods complete membership fees, decoder ring and instruction manual(s).

The Zen thing was invented the same way Ramen was. It passed from the mainland to the island and was flavored to suit local tastes.

 

[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... This is the problem I have with philosophy. There's no substance. It's just talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Endless debate about not much. Existential questions. The meaning of life. Yadda yadda yadda. Philosophers debating about a scientific discovery, waiting for the next one so they can debate about that. What are you all doing?

As a philosophy student, I think that they best philosophy helps us refine and clarify our understanding of the Universe and also provides us with a means to make pragmatic and forward-looking ethical decisions.

In short, IMO, the best philosophy maps on to the world and helps guide us through it using applied critical thinking. As it stands, I'm finding myself having less and less interest in debating with sophists, be they mystics, politicians, charlatans, or otherwise. Unfortunately, humans seem to have an amazing ability to rationalize all sorts of notions to suit their own self-serving misperceptions of reality.

 

[12Bass]

Further, I neglected to mention that science as we know it today actually came from philosophy, natural philosophy.

Sometimes I think that I might be better off in the natural sciences, perhaps cosmology or physics, as I too find that philosophers can become too removed from reality. However, I do think that philosophy is still highly valuable, as it helps to bring a critical light to the underlying assumptions and methodologies used in science (e.g. naturalism, physicalism, empirical/theoretical modeling, etc...). Even fields like sociology are valuable, as they show how science is not the objective endeavor many think it is, rather one which is full of human (and corporate/military) actors with human egos, weakness, and agendas.