Summations Only

quote:

---

You can infer anything you want - go wild! providing scientific proof is another matter. Exactly what empirical, quantifiable evidence can be provided for the purpose of a hammer? Can you seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head

---

Here is a hammer used for hitting people on the head... ...and how they were used... Hammers used as a tools... Note that the tools are much shorter than the weapon and the hammer head is proportionally much larger. Although the tool can be used as a weapon, it's purpose is to hammer nails. Their design shows this purpose and they are both less effective in the opposite role. You can fairly safely say what a hammer is intended for using the patterns we see here.Just because they are both called hammers, doesn't mean they are the same thing.Yes, I can seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head

I feel a need to respond to a couple of your posts...

quote:

---

We can observe a rabbits tail, an appendix or a flagella but never ever can we observe a 'purpose'. How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth. Maybe the 'purpose' for the rabbit's tail fits better with some empirical data you have whereas the existence of god contradicts it but that is surely irrelevant.

---

Of course we can observe a purpose in such things as a rabbit tail. Rabbits use their tails to signal danger. Its size is at the moment just about right to do the job - not too small to be easily seen and not large enough to create problems out of scale with its function. Other animals such as deer use it the same way.We have observed its purpose scientifically as well as a fascinating experiment I read about years ago (trying to find a reference) involving a fake deer tail which reinforced the observation with repeatable tests. This is hardly fanciful.I don't see how the existence of god would affect this either way.and regarding the octopus...

quote:

---

Why in the world would a species evolve this way? Some of us Teleologists would posit:
1) A designer chose to have them held back in favor of some other species chosen to test the benefits (and possible failure) of intelligence or
2) They are being kept protected (in an ocean environment) in reserve in case the intelligent bipeds (with thumbs) destroy themselves and a successor is required.

---

Science suggests that the intelligence of cephalopods is a result of developing their amazing physiology as well as an active predatory lifestyle. There is no evidence that intelligence is a goal or 'pre-loaded' as used in another thread. It is more like a result of other factors. Brains are expensive in terms of energy to maintain, so the benefit needs to be huge. An octopus doesn't need greater intelligence to be successful in its environment, so it isn't. It's not held back or protected - it's just efficient for its current environment.I think the biggest problem here is the conflation of two meanings of purpose. I have never seen the use of the term purpose in science to mean anything other than function. I agree with Tanypteryx that function is a better term in this debate.None of this requires us to assume any form of creator. There is no measurable pattern here that demands a higher power or any form of direction. If there is actual evidence of a creator, I'd love to see it.

quote:

---

Purpose in science (to me at least) is the accumulation and analysis of data to support or refute a hypothesis or theory. Nothing more. Only if the process also results in applicable information does it otherwise take on a function beyond the initial purpose.
In short, the purpose is curiosity (investigationally) driven in science.
The function applications are needs and wants driven.
They are Totally different platforms and should not be conflated.

---

That's the purpose of science not purpose within science. You are conflating the two meanings. The purpose of science is to gain knowledge as you have said. You have also brought in a different meaning of purpose by using rabbit tails and flagella as examples. In this case we are talking about the purpose of the subject, not the observer. i.e. the function. I believe this is where much confusion lies in this thread, at least on my part.So, to be clear, using the following definitions... Purpose
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. Function
1. The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.
6. Biology The physiological activity of an organ or body part...what do you mean to say? Even your OP isn't clear in this regard.

The preview button helps a lot. It lets you see how your formatting works before posting and is a good way to edit what you've written before you post.ABE - you can also edit the post afterward but I believe it's customary to preface your edits with ABE (at least that's how I understand it ... took me a while to figure that one out ) Edited by Warthog, : editing for the sake of editing about editing