logic ... and a social basis for ethics and morality
Hi FightingIrish, welcome to the fray.
Message 28: I have to agree with you Adequate, they are arguing philosophically about things which have been answered fairly conclusively in scientific study. However, they are leading philosophers, so don't dismiss them as ignoramuses who have no valuable knowledge.
Are you familiar with logic? It is a strong element of philosophy when done properly, and the study of logic involves the identification of certain logical fallacies, such as the appeal to authority.
Message 24: For the most part, they're all Aristotelians (a few Thomists in there, but most certainly not the majority). When I asked them if animals share the same ethical principles as humans, they scoffed resoundingly.
Also please see Pseudoskepticism and logic for some insight on people who dismiss something out of hand without considering the evidence, or who do not provide objective empirical evidence themselves to support their negative position.
I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution.
Let's posit two groups -- {A} and {B}.
Group {A} includes people from religions around the world of every stripe and color, and a common feature is that they understand and accept that evolution is a common everyday fact, happening constantly around them. They have no problem with evolution, and no conflict between evolution and their various faiths.
Group {B} includes people that have a problem with understanding or accepting evolution because it conflicts with their faith and beliefs.
Group {B} by definition excludes atheists from their midst, while group {A} by definition does not exclude anyone of any specific belief.
Would you not agree that by definition, Group {A} will always have more atheists (and be more diverse) than group {B}?
The question yet to be asked is whether these philosophers are really religious philosophers - - - presumably you are talking about professors and the university of Notre Dame, a catholic institution:
quote:In the decade after the Second Vatican Council (1963) the university’s basic Catholicism did not change, but its ways of emphasizing it did. Instead of merely trying to perpetuate the institution and keep its adherents obedient to the institutional church, there was an attempt to develop a laity which is informed and dedicated. Many previously ignored topics such as compulsory celibacy for the priesthood, birth control, and ecumenicity were discussed without limits. Although the faculty was well over 85% Catholic before 1970, search practices have broadened. In recent years about half the new faculty hires have been Catholics, and Catholics now comprise 52% of the faculty.[35]
Could the scoffing be due to the religious biases of the professors, rather than to their knowledge of reality or their stated philosophical position?
Message 1: The basis for ethics I refer to is grounded in our (the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species) ability to stand up and utilize our hands. This was seen as early as Homo Erectus and Homo Hobilis, when they stood up and began to create tools. With the ability to create tools (technology), we gained infinite radiation. This means that as a species, we were no longer confined to a single geographical location. Our ability to make tools allowed us to bypass Darwinian evolutionary theory; instead of our environment changing us, we changed our environment.
(quibbles btw: only the genus name is capitalized: "Homo sapiens sapiens, and it's Homo habilis)
The first hominid ancestor to stand predates "Lucy" and the Australopithecines by several million years. The tracks at Laetoli clearly show habitual bipedal locomotion:
quote:The footprint-bearing layers are Pliocene in age, dated by the K/Ar method to 3.6 million years ago (m.y.a.).
The footprints demonstrate that the hominids walked upright habitually, as there are no knuckle-impressions. The feet do not have the mobile big toe of apes; instead, they have an arch (the bending of the sole of the foot) typical of modern humans. The hominids seem to have moved in a leisurely stroll.
Computer simulations based on information from A. afarensis fossil skeletons and the spacing of the footprints indicate that the hominids were walking at 1.0 m/s or above, which matches human small-town walking speeds.[1]
Apes make, and carry, tools for specific tasks, including making sharpened stick spears to hunt monkeys.
Thus the basis of this thesis is wrong from the start.
In addition, as has been posted, there are several other species that exhibit ethical behavior, including dolphins, so the conclusion that ethics follows from walking, talking and carrying big sticks is also wrong from the start.
Now if you want to posit a basis for ethics and morality, I could suggest you start with the fact that apes in general, and humans in particular, are social animals, habitually coexisting in small social groups, and that ethics and morality developed as part of the social ecology of the people.
In this regard, the observed ethical behavior in apes, monkeys and dolphins all fit into the basic thesis: social groups develop social rules for interaction between individuals.
enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
For the sake of form, either reply to specific people or label your post "general reply" in the subtitle panel. If you do the latter, then replies to specific comments should be identified by poster and message to enhance clarity and understanding. Not everybody reads all the replies to a poster, and thus may take your responses to them out of context.
type [qs]FightingIrish, [mid=messageid]: Yeesh![/qs] and it becomes:
Where the message id number is the gray number after "Message 39 of 47" at the top of your message (540972 for message 39).
Fairly simple, and it adds to the clarity and understanding.
I wasn't aware I'd be so highly criticized for only a few trends I've merely noticed!
This is typical for new people here, especially if you post something that is not a normal argument. There are a lot of skeptical people who will start with the position that you are wrong.
Anyway, Razd, I am familiar with logic. I am also aware of all of the fallacies associated with arguments. I also understand that some of the professors I've spoken with may not have as much scientific knowledge as you may have, which allows you to compartmentalize the crazy Catholics, once again.
Please note that I did not characterize your professors as "crazy Catholics" nor compartmentalized them. All I did was question their authority, the rationale for their dismissal of the concept that animals could have ethics and their a priori commitment to a belief rather than considering the facts. Many people do this, religious and non-religious.
Interestingly, I also think Dr A was spot on for the basis of their reasoning (Message 37). It's not a matter of scientific knowledge, but of knowledge of facts and information. Philosophy is the "love of knowledge" and this means all knowledge, not just cherry-picked bits and pieces.
Ask them what they think about the following concepts:
Worldview
These are things that shape our view of the world and how we react to new information. Philosophers, if they truly love knowledge (imhysao) should cherish all knowledge, perhaps with a skeptical but open mind, but certainly not discard a concept out of hand, and without have any empirical evidence or observation as justification to do so.
I however, will be speaking with the Microbiology department, who are Atheists in general. They would fall into your nicely categorized Group A, filled with all of the evolutionists, and those who have blindly gone along with the theory behind it.
Curiously, that is not what I said, rather what I said was that:
RAZD, Message 33: Group {A} includes people from religions around the world of every stripe and color, and a common feature is that they understand and accept that evolution is a common everyday fact, happening constantly around them. They have no problem with evolution, and no conflict between evolution and their various faiths.
You seem to have an ide fixe regarding atheists, and are ignoring the multifold examples of other religious types that accept the evidence for evolution in larger numbers than atheists. I suggest you drop this issue, for it will distract you from reality.
Fascinatingly, I am not an atheist, nor have I "blindly gone along with the theory" of evolution, rather I have let the evidence speak for itself before coming to a conclusion. I know many people who take evolution, not on blind faith, but on a factual basis, just from observing the world around them.
Evolution - the process of change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation - is a fact: it has been observed and documented. It is occurring constantly in every species known to man. If you doubt this we can start a new thread to discuss it.
The theory of evolution is that this process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, prehistory, archaeology, paleontology, the fossil record and the genetic record. So far I have seen no evidence that this is not so.
By the way, there are older hominid fossils found than Laetoli (a strange piece of evidence to include none-the-less). For example: Ardi - Wikipedia was just found not too long ago.
Curiously, I am well aware of this, the ancestry of human development being one of my topics of interest.
The point being made by the footprints, was that there is irrefutable evidence of human ancestors that had already acquired bipedal locomotion while their brains were the same size as modern chimps. The point of Koko and the other apes that have learned various means to communicate with humans, is that they show an intelligence, and understanding, and an ethical awareness that surpasses some humans at the bottom end of the intelligence spectrum - ie there is not a quantitative difference between apes and humans in this regard.
As to Mike, there is a difference between believing in evolution because it's all you know (it becomes a fact rather than a belief), and accepting evolution given a philosophical understanding of evolution (pardon my adjective, if you would like, replace philosophical with profound).
Belief never becomes fact, for it, like opinion, is completely unable to affect reality.
And there is a third option for those not satisfied with your false dichotomy: looking at the actual available evidence and reaching your own conclusion. Again, if you want to discuss the factual basis behind evolution, we can start another thread.
I also agree with your other post, Mike. Most people simply compartmentalize their beliefs: religion has it's own box, evolution another, politics another, etc. But, as you can see, I'm not one for complacency! I want to pile everything into one nice messy box.
Since it's a theory, like gravity (a much stronger theory), it is subject to whatever interpretations we can come up with, right?
Not in the slightest. A theory makes predictions of what you will see if the theory is true, and what you will not see if the theory is true.and there are usually predictions of what you will see if the theory is false. The last two categories lead to falsification tests for the theory: if they occur, then the theory has to be revised or discarded. The first category leads to validation tests: if they occur then the theory is regarded as tentatively true.
One can argue that there are more unknowns to the theory of gravity than there are to the theory of evolution, but that would be another topic.
So, if I wanted to apply my philosophical knowledge which deals in absolutes based in empirical observations, then so be it. If I tried to disprove a fact, like 2+2=4, then you'd have a case for me misusing philosophy,...
Then how do you deal with the fact that mutations (random changes in DNA of seed cells) are an empirically observed fact, that natural selection (operating on the existing variations in breeding populations leads to better adaptation the the ecology) is an empirically observed fact, and that as a result evolution (the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation) is an observed fact. Indeed 2+2=4, except that we are using logic rather than math.
... but when it comes down to it philosophy is the strongest tool that any scientist can possess if they want to understand an event in the deepest levels of comprehension.
Logic is the strongest tool after science for determining the validity of concepts. Logic is the math of philosophy. Philosophy that ignores reality (in the form of facts known by science and empirical observation and logic) is delusion.
In other words, when you hold an idee fixe in spite of contradictory evidence?
You can be deluded by unfounded, unsupported philosophical arguments, where the form of the arguments are valid, but the premises are only assumed to be true. You can be "convinced" by silver tongued snake-oil salesmen, politicians and philosophers, and this was Aristotle's problem. The question comes down to one simple question: how do you test for truth, for reality, in your application of philosophy?
So, if I wanted to apply my philosophical knowledge which deals in absolutes based in empirical observations, then so be it.
™ Version 4.2