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:
- Irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved by natural selection.
- Many biochemical systems are irreducibly complex.
- Therefore, many biochemical systems cannot have evolved by natural selection.
- 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
Replies to this message: | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-15-2014 9:16 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|