Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe and Radical Embodied Cognitive Science?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 2 (726976)
05-14-2014 10:04 AM


What?
Behe and Radical Embodied Cognitive Science?
Behe and Radical Embodied Cognitive Science? | National Center for Science Education
quote:
Not the likeliest of pairings, of course, whatever the latter is supposed to be, but bear with me while I explain. ... by Mark Liberman, entitled Philosophical arguments about methodology, which began with a long and funny passage from Anthony Chemero’s book Radical Embodied Cognitive Science (2009). ... what caught my attention was a comment indicating that the chapter of Chemero’s from which Liberman quoted the long passage was entitled Hegel, Behe, Chomsky, Fodor. It’s been a while since my Sesame Street days, but I was inclined to start humming the One of these things is not like the others song. . ...
Well, Behe shouldn’t feel flattered. He is discussed in a section describing four famous philosophical arguments against empirical approaches, of which the first is Hegel’s. ...
But the details of Hegel’s argument aren’t important here, since Chemero says, Although formally dissimilar, Michael Behe’s argument for an intelligent designer has the same a priori flavor as Hegel’s. Quoting a definition of irreducible complexity and the claim that irreducible complexity is unevolvable by natural selection from Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Chemero then renders Behe’s argument as follows:
  1. Irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved by natural selection.
  2. Many biochemical systems are irreducibly complex.
  3. Therefore, many biochemical systems cannot have evolved by natural selection.
  4. Therefore, many biochemical systems have been designed [by] an intelligent agent.
(emphasis in original)
He adds, As in the case of Hegel’s argument, the initial conclusion [i.e., 3] follows if the premises are true, but the final conclusion [i.e., 4] does not.
... Behe surfaces a few times in passing through the rest of the book, but the adjective that Chemero bestows to the class of arguments, based on little or no empirical evidence, to the conclusion that some scientific approach (observational astronomy, evolutionary biology, behaviorist psychology) will fail is Hegelian. Poor Behe: slighted again.
So Behe fails in philosophy as well as in science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-15-2014 9:16 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 2 (727060)
05-15-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-14-2014 10:04 AM


Hi RAZD,
For a discussion topic I think there needs to be less excerpt and more setting of the stage.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2014 10:04 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024