Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   The implications of Evolution
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 95 (796308)
12-28-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 4:09 PM


Hi AndrewPD,
I think that theories concerning the implications of evolution are problematic as well as claims about the intentions of evolution.
Biological evolution has no "intentions" or goals. The only intentions involved are those of the individual organisms to survive and breed.
This particularly includes evolutionary psychology. ...
You may want to expand on this in a new thread, unless you want this thread to cover this topic.
... Also it concerns issues such as the meaning of life or the ramifications of evolution on our values and goals and possibilities.
These are philosophical issues not scientific issues.
I think that on one portrayal of evolution it makes us victims of intentionless coercive drives in the service of mindlessly propagating our genes.
Just as we are intentionless victims of gravity, in its mindlessly holding our bodies down.
The processes of evolution don't have a mind or a purpose, they just exist, the way gravity exists.
On the other hands it seems suspect to make any claims about what evolution "intends" or "intended" because of issues including falsifiability and competing theories. Then there is the issue of spandrels in which case anything could be classed as a spandrel.
(1) again, biological evolution has no "intentions" or goals. The only intentions involved are those of the individual organisms to survive and breed.
(2) the theory of (biological) evolution is falsifiable, it just happens to be very strongly supported by mountains of evidence demonstrating how it works and how it explains the diversity of life on earth, from the first fossil to the latest DNA sequence.
(3) what "competing theories" -- please describe and demonstrate how they operate.
(4) spandrels are non-functioning decorations, and most of your body is functional, so not full of spandrels.
It helps if you know what the theory of evolution is -- can you define it?
So for example it would be bizarre to claim we evolved to play the piano. ...
Indeed it would.
... Following from that it would be dubious to say people play the piano to attract mates. ...
Especially as most people do not play piano and have no trouble attracting mates.
But if we say that being entertaining is one way to attract mates, then we can propose that the ability to be entertaining would be selected for (sexual selection) and the ability would be improved from generation to generation.
What effect would such selection have on human beings? It would likely result in larger brains and better mental ability (ie better able to memorize music).
If I am a gay person playing the piano for my own pleasure in my own company I am not doing anything in the service of evolution.
And I like to read comics, and that is not doing anything in the service of evolution either. Not every action needs to engaged in for evolution, just those that affect survival and reproduction.
No problem with survival? Good -- carry on
No problem with reproduction? Good -- carry on
We humans (and some other species) have evolved so that the demands of survival and reproduction do not consume all our waking hours, and that leaves time for leisure pursuits, like piano playing (or crows sledding on a snowy roof on a plastic lid).
So in this sense the paradigm of evolution gets spread to thinly as if it should be the dominant explanation of anything. (In a reductionist spirit)
Evolution works on a generational time-scale.
I also think the naturalistic fallacy is invoked a lot and people even talk about and try to enact programmes in service of improving our evolution. Things that evolved cannot scientifically be defined as good without crossing the is-ought barrier.
Improves survival = good ... for the organism
Improves reproduction = good ... for the organism
But we don't have to be the top of the class, just good enough.
So it is one thing to say that altruism benefits the gene pool but another thing to claim that it is good and should be pursued.
And yet altruistic type behaviors exist in many species ... so it must be beneficial to the species. This has been studied with game theory, and you can read John Nash's article here
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 4:09 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 6:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 95 (796317)
12-28-2016 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 6:19 PM


You are conflating beneficial with good.
It's a good working definition of "good" -- if you don't like then you will need to submit your definition of what "good" means.
Things that helps a species survive do not prove that that species has value or is intrinsically good. ...
Curiously, I didn't say it was. Nor did I say it was necessarily good for the species. What I did say was "good ... for the organism" ... which is a rather limited "good" imho.
... The assertion that is being made is that because something happens in nature it is objectively good and we must endorse it and promote it. ...
Nonsense. There is no morality inherent in nature, and the concept of "good" as something more than beneficial to the individual is necessarily subjective. Nothing is "objectively good" so if you are talking social morality concepts of "good" then that is just what the society agrees on, in general.
... So atheists for example and secularists argue that we can have morality without religion ...
Which is quite evidently obvious: the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an example of a rather universal moral code across all religions and non-religions.
In fact I would say that morals that don't derive from religions are better than those that do (especially when those religious morals tend to lead people into killing others in horrid ways, like stoning).
Morals are developed in societies so that everyone mostly operates on the same program. Different societies have different morals ... even if they worship the same god/s.
... and cite the benefits of altruism as a groundwork. This is involves the naturalistic fallacy. ...
Do you have a citation for that claim? I see morals as just a social contract for socially acceptable behaviors. Altruism would if anything, be a very small part of that.
... There is no grounds for saying that anything in nature should be promoted or is objectively good.
I'd agree with that.
The other presumption being made is that we should carry on having children (I am a strong antinatalist) and that because humans have reached this era we must keep on propagating ourselves and we must propagate ourselves based on evolutionary principles.
Nope. That seems to be more religious based tenet than a facet of evolution. Again, I am not sure what you mean by evolution: could you define what evolution is and what the theory of evolution is?
... If the human body was designed by evolution with specific functions in mind ...
It wasn't.
Anything can become a spandrel or what has been called vestigial once it ceases to have the purpose/s it is supposed to have adapted for.
And it can be adapted to a new use.
I also think the nature and interpretation of evidence is controversial. Reality contains a huge amount of evidence how you interpret it is a different matter. If you apply a version of evolution to everything you can make plausible narratives. This is where competing theories for the same evidence occur (see my latest post on homosexuality) If there are competing theories and know means to choose between them that undermines falsifiability.
what.other.theories?
... This is where competing theories for the same evidence occur (see my latest post on homosexuality) ...
If you are talking specifically about how homosexuality occurs then you are not talking about general biological evolution, but theoretical application to a specific case.
As far as naturally occurring, there are numerous examples of homosexual behaviors in other species, so it is not singularly a human behavior, and, as it occurs in nature, is by definition natural..
From an evolutionary viewpoint I would say there are at least 3 main possibilities:
  1. It is hard wired in the genes, and to survive must have a neutral or beneficial effect on the population as a whole, and it must have a means to be passed on (ie -- somewhat like sickle cell, recessive and rare, because numbers),
  2. There is a gene sequence that is susceptible to mutation, so it recurs,
  3. It is not genetic but developmental, caused by development irregularities in the womb during gestation, due to any number of environmental conditions
At this point I would say "we don't really know" what is correct (if any) -- but these would all be different evolution based theories, not ones in conflict with evolution.
This is the argument, that I agree with, that is used on religions. I think that having numerous religious sects makes it less plausible that any of them are right. I don't know the statistical terminology but if there are two religions they have a 50% chance of being right but with a thousand they have a 0.1% chance of being right.
Only if one of them must be right -- which is an assumption, not an evidenced fact. They also could all be as correct as the next, a partial vision seen through the cloudy glass murkily.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 6:19 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:52 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 95 (796330)
12-28-2016 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 7:52 PM


Here I am talking about theories within evolution not about the general theory (obviously?) because these theories are derived from the perceived implications of a general theory of evolution
And if not backed up by objective empirical evidence and that haven't been validated through predictions, they would be better called hypothesis.
... Things can be homologous and not related. ...
No. They are related by definition.
quote:
Homologies and analogies
Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature so the presence of four limbs is a homology.
Feel free to wander through that site and to search it for items of interest, it is quite a valuable resource for understanding evolution.
... That creates the interpretations of homologies until other evidence undermines a homology.
Do you have an example of this?
Theories about why we like music are also based on the idea that evolution will have implications for all human behaviour.
That is something I would call hypothetical, not theory.
The other issue I didn't get round to on competing theories is when they are both completely compatible with the evidence or cause overdetermination.
Here I am talking about theories within evolution not about the general theory (obviously?) because these theories are derived from the perceived implications of a general theory of evolution
Again, I would call that hypothesizing, not theory (not in the scientific sense of being a tested hypothesis).
So here I am questioning the validity of making these further assumptions and implications.
And a good place to start is with a solid understanding of what the science of evolution covers and what the theory of evolution says.
Most of your comments seem to be second or third hand hypothesis with no real foundation in evolution.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:52 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 95 (796398)
12-29-2016 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 8:53 PM


altruism is due to game theory evolved in social organisms
What I intended to say is that things can have similar features and not be related but relationships are assumed based on things looking a like.
That would be analogous not homologus. Homologies are measured on several aspects, and thus are reproducible by others. It's not subjective.
See previous website link for more information.
I am not interested in a general debate about the theory so you can side track me constantly anyhow, I am talking about what things can be considered implications of evolution.
Well you can either (a) use the terms as used in the science to mean what they mean in the science (thus promoting communication) or (b) you can stop using terms that you don't appear to fully understand.
I am not going to waste my time reading tomes on every aspect or theory within evolution theory whilst you ignore my general points and pretend you have never heard anyone make any of the claims I have asserted. The idea that morality can be founded on altruism is widespread. If you haven't come across it then I don't know where you have been. Lots of claims are widespread but when you discuss them in these kind of debates suddenly everyone's got amnesia.
See Kin Selection & Altruism and Evolution of Altruism for previous discussions of altruism.
IMHO it is common in social animals, because the game theory link I gave you before shows there is an advantage to the population of social organisms. Evolution is analogous to a giant computer trying solutions by iteration, so it is not surprising to me to find it fits game theory.
IMHO morality in social animals would include altruism, as well as being faithful, protecting family and tribe, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc etc. Not a foundation, just a part of the whole. I would also expect altruism to be absent from the morality of species that don't exhibit altruism.
... The idea that morality can be founded on altruism is widespread. ...
Has nobody hear of Sam Harris or Paul Bloom?
Appeal to popularity and appeal to authority logical fallacies that have no bearing on the validity of the argument. A lot of people have tried to commandeer evolution to suit their political\philosophical\theocratic agenda ("social darwinism" for instance) but that does not mean that evolution is actually involved.
So how do you think altruism fits with homosexuality?
As I said in Message 12:
From an evolutionary viewpoint I would say there are at least 3 main possibilities:
  1. It is hard wired in the genes, and to survive must have a neutral or beneficial effect on the population as a whole, and it must have a means to be passed on (ie -- somewhat like sickle cell, recessive and rare, because numbers),
  2. There is a gene sequence that is susceptible to mutation, so it recurs,
  3. It is not genetic but developmental, caused by development irregularities in the womb during gestation, due to any number of environmental conditions
At this point I would say "we don't really know" what is correct (if any) -- but these would all be different evolution based theories, not ones in conflict with evolution.
For both (1) and (2) we could have the genes for attraction in one place and the ones for arousal in another, so it is possible to scramble the two.
It could also be a combination, but none of these are tied to altruism afaics.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:53 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 68 of 95 (796562)
12-31-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 9:34 AM


Re: On ramifications...
I don't see why you are trying to pin me down to one argument here when I am having *a general discussion about (possible) implications of evolution.*
The case I recently highlighted of the Nazi's is not the case that the ramifications of evolution are frightening rather the theory itself was utilised in a frightening and deadly way.
There is the issue of whether the implications of evolution are negative and then there is the case of whether theories of the implications evolution are pernicious and destructive.
The theories of a hierachies of races and the idea the mentally ill disabled were useless etc are theories under the banner of evolution that were destructive and pernicious.
There is a difference between observing forms of evolution and using various ideas about how evolution happens to make a social theory.
And are you sure you are not trying to shoehorn evolution into your philosophical worldview of behavior?
I personally think that evolution as it it is widely disseminated is negative. It is portrayed as meaning human life is essentially in service of mindless reproduction so that behaviours are subservient to this goal. It is portrayed as doing away with gods and meaning and downgrading humans to "just another animal". Claims about evolution are more relevant to humans than claims in physics.
That's your opinion. Science is neutral, it just provides information of how things work in nature. What you make of it is part of your philosophical worldview.
I don't see what the relevance is of the idea we evolved to our present day life anyway. ...
What is the relevance of any science to our bahavior? It provides knowledge that can form a solid basis for opinions and behavior instead of fantasies.
... Theorists are trying to make evolution change the way we think and act and view reality. ...
Scientists are trying to help people have a rational view of reality and how we fit into the picture.
... However I don't know who most of my ancestors were. If I found out one of my ancestors was Jack the Ripper it would be a fascinating fact but not alter my behaviour. There is one thing to deny a fact that will have an immediate consequence if ignored and being skeptical aboput speculations about what happened over millions of years. ...
The only thing you need to worry about in your direct ancestors is whether your genes carry certain hereditary diseases.
Beyond that, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.
... Science can postulate theories and facts but it can't say we must belive them that is a value judgement. As I mentioned I am an antinatalist I think having children is unnecessary, unjustified and harmful and is the only thing with negative ramifications. I think it is cruel to have children in the first place and then it is an extra layer of bad to degrade their life more by using evolution to downgrade their status and add an extra layer of futility to their life.
And that again is your opinion. But you don't get to blame science for the ramifications of your opinions. It is your choice how you use the information from 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 9:34 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 95 (796587)
12-31-2016 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 1:40 PM


Re: On ramifications...
Science has gone beyond saying how things work. It has to speculate and make assumptions first as well. Science is part of technology which has radically changed the world. So a lot of science has implications or is done with goals and unspoken metaphysical or philosophical frameworks in mind .
No. Science provides information on how things work, then it is engineers and technicians that figure out how to make practical use of that information. For instance scientists don't design and build nuclear power stations, nuclear engineers do. Whether people decide to use the process makes a bomb is not done by scientists either, but by politicians, and then the engineers design them and the technicians build them.
I think what is classed as science is just a facet of the human mind. Someone tries to understand reality or theorises about it and then designs experiments. Science then contains symbols which do not denote actual reality. For example the concept of an atom changed several times but the word stayed the same so the word Atom has denoted different theories about a phenomenon from indivisibility to sub atomic particles through to quantum effects.
Curiously that changing definition is (a) a central facet of science when new information is discovered and (b) of little impact on the common person. Same with new discoveries in evolution.
That's because the new information gets filtered through the new technologies and the engineers and technicians that facilitate it's incorporation into things people use. Thus cell phones and solar panels go from scientific discovery to engineering application and eventually they become common use items by people.
At this point I am assuming you have little formal training in science, and less idea about how it gets turned into practical use.
I don't see anyway that knowledge can exist outside of the mind. Knowledge in a book only exists when we interpret the symbols. A Chinese textbook conveys no information to me.
So?
You said science describes how things work and now you are trying to cross the is-ought gap. There is no reason why peoples behaviour *ought* to change in the light of scientific findings ...
Curiously not what I said. People can use the information, they are not bound to do so. Take for instance the age of the earth. The science tells us it is 4.55 billion years old, but YEC believers ignore this evidence and convince themselves it is only ~5k years old.
... and another issue is whether the theory is actually correct. It would be unwise to change ones beliefs and behaviours based on blind face in the infallibility of a scientific claim.
And yet it is very unwise to behave as if Global Climate Change is not occurring.
The notion of rationality is problematic as I suggested above because it crosses the is-ought gap. And what is rational is controversial. It might be rational to believe the earth is flat from one perspective. Rationality is also a value judgement about implications such as saying based on this evidence you ought to believe and do something else..
Ummm No. It is not rational to believe the earth is flat because evidence readily available shows otherwise, and this is something you can test. Belief in something that is invalidated by evidence is not rational, it is the definition of delusional:
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
People can believe a scientific claim without understanding it which amounts to faith not rationality. To claim ones beliefs are rational or irrational you would have to work out whether there beliefs where consistent or contradictory etc which would be a mammoth task.
There is a difference between blind faith and accepting concepts with high confidence of being as correct as we currently know.
Gravity is a high confidence concept.
Evolution is a high confidence concept.
There may be adjustments when new information becomes available, but those adjustments will still include the previous concept while adding more detail.
The difference between Newtonian physics and Einstein's physics is negligible on earth, and even out to Mars. Even though the equations are quite different the results in near earth locations is negligible.
A lack of belief seems less problematic than a belief because beliefs especially dogmatic ones are usually at the root of extreme actions.
Agreed.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:40 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2017 12:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 86 by AndrewPD, posted 01-01-2017 12:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 90 of 95 (796617)
01-01-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by AndrewPD
01-01-2017 12:25 PM


Re: On ramifications...
I said it might be rational to believe that the earth is flat from one perspective. The kind of perspective I am referring to is people who prior to space travel and modern science had little direct evidence that the earth was a sphere.
The Greeks figured out that earth was round and the worked out a pretty good estimate for the diameter.
The problem is that dependent on your evidence base different beliefs become more rational and every one has a large unique set of evidence points. So it is problematic that someone living in a flat country like an Australian Aborigine would be irrational to believe the earth is a sphere based on immediate evidence.
Evidence doesn't change based on your belief. The difference is seeking and testing concepts, like the Greeks did. The question becomes relevant when confronted with evidence that your belief is invalid that you change your belief to accomodate the new information.
I was thinking recently that some crazy beliefs are not irrational as long as two contradictory beliefs don't meet. For instance you could believe that Reginald Dwight was born in Pinner but believe Elton John was born somewhere else if you didn't know they were the same person.
So you can be rational by being ignorant. Fascinating.
I think a problem with deciding implications of knowledge is whether or not the knowledge is complete and whether or not it any of it challenges other parts of it.
Which is a good argument to maintaining a skeptical open mind, and to keep looking at new information. Curiously I haven't found any contradictions yet.
I think one area which is on very shaky ground is most of societal norms like laws, banks, education, morality, societal structures, goals etc. People say we ought to believe science to have more rational beliefs but our societies are invented on unjustified constructs. People don't demand the same level of justification in general life and society as is demanded in science. So apparently it is okay to completely arbitrarily invent societies and have goals not based on sound reason whilst paying lip service to science.
Yes we have delusional people in government. Elected by delusional people. Recent election is a prime example of what happens.
That doesn't change reality: global climate change will still be happening at an increasing rate in spite of electing a scientific moron for president.
This can be an argument for the massive disregard for life by several regimes in the twentieth century. They weren't presented with an argument for the sacredness of life. They didn't feel compelled to follow any of the supposedly instinctual moral systems that implied killing was wrong.
Curiously our current government seems to have litte regard for the sanctity of life based on their professed Christian beliefs.
But I guess that's okay because hey they are rational because they are ignorant.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AndrewPD, posted 01-01-2017 12:25 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 95 (796623)
01-01-2017 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by AndrewPD
01-01-2017 12:43 PM


On the topic of nuclear weapons. I don't see how a non scientist could create a nuclear weapon. ...
Really? Once you have the "how it works" information, it is just a matter of building the proper containment and ignition system. A competent mechanical engineer has the knowledge to do that.
... I think it is possible to have ethical problems with scientific research. ...
There are ethical problems with virtually every human endeavor that benefits some people more than others.
... For instance, research into race differences and sex differences and sexuality differences can be harmful/pernicious.
Again, it is not the knowledge itself, but the manner in which it is used.
Or ignored -- the "pray the gay away" people ignore the knowledge we have regarding the reality of homosexuality and try to force it into their delusional reality. Doesn't work. And a lot of people are harmed in the process.
The idea that scientists should be allowed to do what they please because science is neutral holds no water with me.
What knowledge should be taboo then?
A scientist can ask all manner of questions like "how long will it take for a bear to drown in a vat of oil". There can be factual answers to all manner of macabre questions. ...
And to stupid and silly questions, but I don't see how drowning a bear in oil advances the knowledge base. Usually science builds onto the knowledge we have, pursuing answers that have not yet been found.
... There is a process by which "appropriate" questions are selected. This is influenced by biases, ideologies and historical eras etc.
What is it? Who gets to decide?
One problem is whether the scientific paradigm has access to all facts or areas of enquiry ...
... that is available. Indeed, and that is why scientists do background research to get as much pertinent information they can get.
... And so when you get an area like mind which is only available to one person (the subject) science can just dismiss first person evidence or try and down play it's relevance. ...
If it can't be measured it cannot be tested, and that is the foundation of science. All you can do is try to find ways to measure it and quantify it.
... So this at its extreme has led to theorists like Dennet and The Churchland's denying mental states (Eliminative materialism) that we know immediately from direct experience exist.
But how do we compare those direct experiences? How do you measure them, quantify them, test them?
This privacy of mental states leads to a lot of problems including diagnosing mental illness. (I have personal experience here) And people have made allegations of historic child abuse that they can't prove because the main remaining evidence is in their private memories. I personally would love to have CCTV footage of my childhood to show people and to clarify to myself what actually happened. Thankfully I can prove somethings happened to me through collaborative witnesses.
All anecdotal evidence has the same problems.
Cognitive scientists have cast doubt on the validity of memories which is damaging. I know which schools I went to and where I lived as a child and I can prove it by documentary evidence. We have a lot of reliable memories for instance we know the meaning of thousands of words we learnt decades ago and we remember how to get around town and that 2+2=4. ...
Yes you have objective empirical evidence to validate your personal experience.
... Yet cognitive scientist are trying to under mine the reliability of our cognitive states in an attempt (I think) to try and create a false objectivity about mind.
Are they? or are they simply trying to find some means to measure, quantify and test? In order to have a basis to build on for finding out more about how our minds work.
So I agree with Thomas Nagel when he said "Objectivity is a view from nowhere" We are embedded in our minds.
And yet you say "I know which schools I went to and where I lived as a child and I can prove it by documentary evidence" showing that you know there is objective evidence available and that it is not only what is embedded in your mind.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by AndrewPD, posted 01-01-2017 12:43 PM AndrewPD 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