Teleological Science?

Self-evident nonsense.I suppose you also think that differential reproduction produced the animal life seen in a rain forrest step by tiny step?Ray

Teleology doesn't necessarily have to be determinism, though. Just because there is an overall purpose, does there also have to be zero tolerance for peripheral, individual goals? I would submit that, because we humans are allowed to hold a wide range of belief systems, any god that exists does allow ulterior motives to persist. That's the question I was asking a few posts back: Would the birds (or we) have to develop in the way that would best suit the purposes of God? Or, could they (we) develop in a way that suits them (us)? If there is a single, overarching purpose to everything, such peripheral developments would only be expected to develop within given bounds (i.e. they would be expected to contribute more to the overall purpose than to the "ulterior motive")

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Teleology only implies that each development arose for a predesigned reason. It does not necessarily say that all developments arose for the same predesigned reason (e.g. God caused millipedes for one purpose, and cows for another). It also doesn't say that all developments have to follow a set pattern (i.e. not everything had to develop eyes). This is very good support for the concept of evolution by natural selection. The salamander doesn't need eyes, so why should it bother with them? This example shows that animals' developments do not always seem to converge on a single purpose: rather, they seem to follow patterns that would suit themselves.So, I submit that ulterior motives for developments in nature are observable. The fact that the salamander has undeveloped eyes (as opposed to no eyes) indicates that it adapted to the dark from seeing ancestors, and wasn't created de novo. So, assuming teleology, the atrophy of its eyes would have to be attributed to (a) the overall purpose of God, (b) an "ulterior motive" of the salamander, or (c) the act of a God wanting people to fall for the "evolution hoax" (as a test of faith or just to be mean).I tend to favor choice (b), because the other two don't make sense to me.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This would be inappropriate, since it implies the nature of the intelligence providing the design as being some kind of supreme being, when it may be another alien life form, or our own descendants with a penchant for time travel, or...... No seeming benefit. If we have ruled it to be unecessary, then we are not going to be alert to possible clues as to its presence. There are two reasons a phenomenon is not observed - a)it does not exist; b) no one is looking for it.
I think there is sufficient evidence for a teleogical explanation of aspects of the Universe, that we ought to spend some effort in looking.

This is true. Just another point to make along side this: Scientists studying the world do not look for phenomenon that agree with accepted ideas. Scientists studying the world look for everything. Every single detail they can possibly get their hands on. Then they check to see if all these details are explained with the current ideas or not. When they're not, then the current ideas are altered (sometimes totally thrown away and replaced).So, scientists actually are 'looking for observations of ID' in the sense that they are looking for all observations, especially any that don't agree with current ideas. Observations that don't agree with current ideas are the kinds that lead to better understanding (and, of course, fame and fortune). This is a nice thought. As nice as the thought that there are those who think there is sufficient evidence for a flat-earth explantion of our world, and that we should spend more efforts in exploring that.What would be best is if you could provide the observations or phenomenon or evidence that everyone else is missing that actually shows your thought to be a part of the reality in which we exist. Because so far, all observations encountered do agree with the current ideas. If you have observations that others are missing, please point them out, I'm sure there are many interested people. If all you have is a desire that these observations are found, then all you have is the same desire that every scientist right now has, for they're already looking for any and all unexplained observations. After all, if they find even one, it could launch their careers to the highest levels in the industry.

Greetings Eclogite and welcome to EvC. I have to agree with you there, but then Deism has always seemed a little pointless to me. Certainly, if one were to discover evidence of ID, it would seem logical to keep an open mind about the identity of the designer. Now this I disagree with. There may be a tendency to only observe what one desires to see, but any good scientist is aware of this tendency and makes an effort to be as impartial as possible. This tendency is by no means any kind of hard and fast rule. If scientists looked only for evidence that backed up the consensus, there would never be any instances of sea-change, such as in the case of Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers. Taken from here.The scientists in this case weren't looking for a bacterial cause of ulcers, it wasn't even on their radar. They simply followed available leads and went where the evidence led them. When new and compelling data became available, they changed their thinking. They initially faced a good deal of hostility from the medical establishment (to its shame) but eventually the new thinking won through; Dr.s Marshall and Warren received the Nobel prize for their efforts.Science, properly practised, need not consider every possible explanation at every possible instance. The truth will out if one follows where the evidence leads, with as open a mind as it is practically possible to maintain.No evidence currently exists for ID (with or without capitalisation). To insist that scientists should consider ID-based explanations implies that they should also consider other evidence-free concepts, such as fairies, ancestor spirits or witches. After all, if they didn't consider witchcraft as a possiblity, they might miss the subtle signs of witchcraft that might be right under their noses, right?It's not possible to consider every contingency imaginable. One must simply follow the data. Actually, I can think of a few more;3) No-one is looking in the right places.
4) No-one is looking in the way.
5) No-one is clever enough to interpret the data correctly.You could tag the word "yet" onto all of those reasons as well. If ID has any veracity whatever, it will become apparent, via the scientific method, sooner or later. There is no need to change how science is pursued. I can only echo Stile; I would love to see this evidence of teleology. I haven't seen any myself.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

I think there is sufficient evidence for a teleogical explanation of aspects of the Universe, that we ought to spend some effort in looking.

---

One may need to look no further than here .

quote:

---

Earth Ethics Evolving Values for and Earth Community Vol7No1 Fall95

---

James Nash marshals an excellent view of teleology which is supported by the notion of conation. (the full paper I will shortly upload as a powerpoint (BioticRightCase), here.If one works in the teleomatic/teleonomic difference at this place the Nash text, I see no reason to fail to be able to find what one is looking for in/on this topic. I see no reason for anyone to find that it does not or can not exist in this case.This is a tall order, but to me, it seems possible to find that the recent ecologically reformed faith and ethics has inverted Darwin’s diagram and de jure bound the parallels drawn below. With a full discussion of changing selection pressures ecologically transmitted across generations under niche construction, man can find a way beyond the simple symbiogenesis of our past, into new regions where more physical and less competitive pressures reside while the incomprehensibility of Wright (gene combinations per individual vs gene frequency in a population) is made inscribable in the “w” FORM above as the teleomatic process of Macrothermodynamics become grown in a new ecological economics striving to exist in the limit and genetic “program” of future generations. The “prima facie” hierarchy of biotic rights would have a biophysical reality.Edited by Brad McFall, : fixing links

Which are just lame excuses in order to enable pursuing the question as one of supreme being. I prefer being honest. To echo what Stiles said, there is no benefit -- science looks for what happens and how best to explain it, and if the science done with ID is no different to science done without ID there is no benefit: either to science OR to ID.You have to be able to show a difference between the results of concept {A} and concept {B} or they are indistinguishable in productivity. All you end up doing is catering to religious people looking for an excuse to tack supreme beings into equations -- something you said was inappropriate ... (truth will out). Or you are not looking for the right "IT" in the right place or in the right way. In other words you want people to cater to your belief in a supreme being, whether they believe what you do or not, rather than do the work yourself?If there is "sufficient evidence" then let's detail it and discuss it. We had a whole thread on this evidence and the best anyone could come up with is "gosh it sure looks designed to me" argument from incredulity and ignorance.Evidence that is appropriate for belief in Deism but not much else.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •

Stile wrote: Ideally this is true. Observation suggests otherwise. I cite a single example, since the background may be well known to many. Geologists were blind to plate tectonics for decades because they would not accept that it was possible. The evidence was there but was ignored, rejected, or misinterpreted rather than accept that it demonstrated drifting continents.
Even a cursory reading of Kuhn will demonstrate that your view, expressed above, is at the very least naive. The phenomena have certainly not been missed by others. I quite lack the intellect to have recognised any of them by myself. I shall offer you, again, a single example. I refer you to the work of Henderson, almost one century ago, The Fitness of the Environment. He drew attention to many of the unique properties of water that permit life to exist. These properties are unexpected, profoundly different from comparable compounds, and utterly essential to the existence of life.
Such properties could be the result of chance, but they might also be the result of design. I can readily provide other examples if you wish.

How is it naive in any way? Aren't the theories of plate tectonics fully accepted and used today? This sounds like evidence of my position, that observations of things that don't agree with current standards are looked at, and eventually adopted, after being shown to provide better understanding.How does the fact that a new, better theory replaced an old one help what you're trying to say that scientists don't look for alternative explanations? This simply proves that scientists do indeed look for alternative explanations, and adopt those new explanations when they can be shown to better explain data than previous ideas.Just because the process isn't as fast as you'd desire doesn't mean it doesn't work. It simply means that the process is immunne to 'flights of fancy' or following anyone's personal bias. This is a good thing. So, if it can be explained with current ideas, why switch to another idea that 'might' also explain the data? How does the new explanation provide a better understanding of the phenomenon? You said "such properties could be the result of chance". So, if the current idea is quite capable of explaining the 'profoundly different' idea that was uncovered, what's the problem? Why the need to quickly switch right over to the other theory that, you admit, only 'might' explain the idea?If the new theory actually is better, and actually does explain the evidence. This will be shown, as we collect more information. However, it's also quite possible that this new theory is simply a bit of someone's imagination. Therefore, it is only prudent not to prematurely switch an idea from something that already does explain the data to something that only 'might' explain the data.Especially when the new idea doesn't provide any more insight or other helpful information. What if this was true? What if the correct explanation was 'design'? How does this add any value? The current idea of 'result of chance' (as you put it, which is untrue, but we'll stick with your wording) provides us with many medical advances. What advances does the explanation of 'design' provide? If there's no additional advances that come along with the new explanation, why should anyone use the new explanation?

Let me be direct. The vast majority of scientists follow established paradigms. Their work is focused on filling in the details. A very small fraction break new ground and cause a Kuhnian paradigm shift. Frankly, this is as it should be. Reflecting on the example in my reply to Stiles, geology has been reaping the benefits for the last half century since plate tectonics was accepted. Most of the geological work in that time has built upon, or benefited from, that new perspective. Perhaps we have a form of punctuated equilibrium in the evolution of scientific theory.

RAZD wrote: You seem to have formed the impression that I am some kind of theist. I can assure you that I am a devout agnostic.
Science has declared, as a meta-paradigm if you will, that there is no place for teleology in its considerations. My thesis is twofold: firstly, that with such a declaration it makes it extremely difficult to identify, examine and correctly interpret any evidence that might point to a teleological explanation of phenomena; secondly, that since there are such evidences we may be making a serious error by sticking with our no-teleology paradigm.You are all doubtless correct that eventually, if there is a teleological aspect to the Universe it will be identified. However, I think 'eventually' is a flimsy excuse for objective science to use.

Really? I don't think so. The term "flimsy excuse" is how one would characterize citing intuition and nothing else as the reason for including some premise like teleology within science. Intuition is how many ideas begin in science, but until the objective evidence is sought and found it remains intuition.--Percy

None of which comes even remotely close to to proving your point about scientists needing to bear every possible theory in mind. You don't even address this. My Helicobactor pylori example refuted your argument, but you have chosen to ignore it.BTW, Kuhn who? I don't know who this is. If you are going to suggest that some outside source agrees with you it is only fair that you give a link, or at the very least, enough information for people to follow up on. Stile, not Stiles.But you have failed to demonstrate that anyone involved in the process of discovering plate tectonics followed your method. Plate tectonics took a long time to become accepted because the evidence that supported it was a long time coming, and came from many fields. I fail to see how this is even relevant to your argument. Of course they might, so might anything. To demonstrate teleology in nature, you must demonstrate that they are designed, not just might or maybe. You may think that something looks designed, but that might just be because you haven't worked out the real answer yet.

---

Mutate and Survive

Nowhere have I stated that scientists should bear every possible theory in mind. If you believe I have done so, please indicate precisely where.
I am pointing out that the vast majority of scientific work is about filling in details, not achieving breakthroughs in understanding. This requires a quiet acceptance of the prevailing paradigm within the field and a mandatory rejection of data or concepts hostile to it.
This is hardly a new idea, nor an especially controversial one. It was most notably presented and demonstrated by Thomas S.Kuhn in his landmark work 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. (University of Chicago Press, 1962) I did not provide a reference for Kuhn since this work is almost as well known as 'On the Origin of Species'. Please excuse the omission. If you are unfamiliar with the work I can more readily understand your scepticism towards my comments. I recommend an early reading. I am not entirely clear what 'my method' is. I think you mean not closing off avenues of research, or alternative explanations on dogmatic grounds. The reason that plate tectonics/continental drift took so long (half a century, plus) to be accepted was precisely because 'my method' was not followed. Instead geologists and geophysicists rejected evidence that pointed towards drifitng continents and plate tectonics on the dogmatic grounds that 'it was not possible'. There was abundant evidence - palaeontological, climatological, structural, stratigraphical and palaeomagnetic - pointing towards plate tectonics. The evidence was systematically disregarded or explained away. The existing paradigms did not admit of moving continents. It is central to it. Again, in summary: there was abundant evidence for plate tectonics; the evidence was set aside because it contradicted current dogma; it took a change in paradigm to allow major advances in detailed understanding. You seem to be missing the point. You seem to think I believe in teleology. I am stating, that because of the constraints on scientific investigation noted by Kuhn, that teleology is excluded from consideration even though a teleological explanation may be a valid one.
There is little opportunity to explore the suggestions of a teleological character to some of nature's fundamental characteristics if we exclude these on an a priori basis.Your example of ulcers and bacteria merely confirms my point. On a comparatively minor concept (unless of course you suffer from ulcers)the researchers encountered great hostility from the holders of the cherished current paradigm. Do you really expect the resistance to be less when the paradigm under threat lies at the heart of modern science?