Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Techne]

Logic and metaphysics have stuff all to do with purpose.

Of course it does. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Empirical science has as its subject anything out there in the physical world. If there is purpose, let it find it.

And this silly assertion is why you should read Burtt's book about the metaphysical foundations of modern science.

Any "general sciences" as you label them ( what is it with you and little boxes? ) that make claims of purpose, and have no grounding in the physical world, are just speculative bunk.

"Little boxes" prevents people from confusing terms or talking past each other. And I wouldn't label a general science that is concerned with answering deeper and more extensive questions such as understanding the more ultimate reasons and causes of things as "speculative bunk". But hey, you are welcome to, but that would mean that "there is no purpose" would also qualify as "speculative junk". I don't know why you like to commit to self-refuting positions. Seems rather unnecessary really.

I gave you a definition earlier from the OED. That is the common English understanding of the term.

And I provided the Aristotelian view of purpose, in English, as English speaking Aristotelians understand it.

 

[alloytoo]

I was talking about the disease state but obviously you missed that and jumped to the flood part.

oooh oooh a species wide disease precipitated on a mythical event which leaves their bones twice as thick as modern humans.....

Support your mythical event.

 

[rwenzori]

Of course it does. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Logic certainly does not. Show me any book on modern formal logic that has a chapter on "the purpose of humanity" or some such LOL. And metaphysics is bunk, or alternatively, can be made to say anything you like, which amounts to much the same.

And this silly assertion is why you should read Burtt's book about the metaphysical foundations of modern science.

Eish, time, time. Care to quote or summarise the bit that makes my assertion silly?

"Little boxes" prevents people from confusing terms or talking past each other. And I wouldn't label a general science that is concerned with answering deeper and more extensive questions such as understanding the more ultimate reasons and causes of things as "speculative bunk". But hey, you are welcome to, but that would mean that "there is no purpose" would also qualify as "speculative junk". I don't know why you like to commit to self-refuting positions. Seems rather unnecessary really.

Not really. As I asked before - show me any evidence grounded in reality of say, the purpose of our lives, or the universe, or that rock. Show me evidence, and I'll happily reconsider. Else you are just speculating.

And I provided the Aristotelian view of purpose, in English, as English speaking Aristotelians understand it.

Well then, you are justifying bananas, while I claim there are no apples. And seeing as this is not in PD, can we keep to the common English use of the term please.

 

[rwenzori]

As to the bolded part:
Do you agree that humans do exhibit intention?
Are we part of the natural world?

A yes answer to both would simply refute your claim that there is no purpose. But, you may answer the first one as "No" and read up on Alex Rosenberg's book "Atheist's Guide to Reality". He is intellectually honest enough to draw logical conclusions from premises and defend his conclusions no matter how difficult they may be to accept. You should read it.

Don't go off at a tangent here. Of course humans exhibit what we call purpose - after all, we have the word. But we are talking of evolution here. Evolution has no discernible externally-provided intent - it just is. Like human life ( other than what we may assign to it ourselves ), the world, the universe and god knows what else.

 

[Techne]

Logic certainly does not. Show me any book on modern formal logic that has a chapter on "the purpose of humanity" or some such LOL.

Ok, fair enough. The point is that logic is still relevant to defend a particular view, so one has to at least be familiar with the science of logic.

And metaphysics is bunk, or alternatively, can be made to say anything you like, which amounts to much the same.

Not really, that is why first principles and logic are important.

Eish, time, time. Care to quote or summarise the bit that makes my assertion silly?

It's not a long book and pretty easy to read.

Not really. As I asked before - show me any evidence grounded in reality of say, the purpose of our lives, or the universe, or that rock. Show me evidence, and I'll happily reconsider. Else you are just speculating.

Again, asking for evidence of purpose as if it is some sort of empirically answerable question demonstrates that you don't really understand the scope of empirical science. I don't think this has to be explained again. Either you get it or you don't.

Anyway, it is simply an argument from ignorance to claim there is no purpose if you start with the premise "I see no evidence of purpose".

Well then, you are justifying bananas, while I claim there are no apples. And seeing as this is not in PD, can we keep to the common English use of the term please.

I see no reason not to accept the common English understanding of the Aristotelian view of purpose. It is easily understandable in plain English, nothing too complex about it.

 

[Geriatrix]

My, but it's a thicket of views in here, how do you guys breathe?

 

[Techne]

Don't go off at a tangent here. Of course humans exhibit what we call purpose - after all, we have the word. But we are talking of evolution here. Evolution has no discernible externally-provided intent - it just is. Like human life ( other than what we may assign to it ourselves ), the world, the universe and god knows what else.

Just to be sure, you are again claiming that:
Evolution (a process)
Human life (a process)
the world (A substance or a being as opposed to a process)
The universe (The sum total of all material substances)

have no purpose. It just is.

And if so, why do you think this is not speculative junk? And why should one accept your speculative junk over other speculative? The Aristotelian may simply point out the natural ends/purpose are easily defensible (with natural philosophy), and if you deny them, it may look silly.

 

[porchrat]

Seriously guys.

Techne and rwenzori take a step back and look at what you guys are typing. Be honest now. Does this stuff really belong in Natural Sciences or do you think maybe you should start a new thread in PD?

 

[Techne]

Seriously guys.

Techne and rwenzori take a step back and look at what you guys are typing. Be honest now. Does this stuff really belong in Natural Sciences or do you think maybe you should start a new thread in PD?

Porchie chap, maybe you have an opinion of your own here. Simple question really.
Do you think the following assertions are empirically testable:
1) There is no purpose.
2) Everything just is.

Or do you think such assertions are philosophical and/or metaphysical claims about reality?

If you think they are empirically testable then discussions about purpose/teleology obviously belong in the natural science section. If not (then we are in agreement, funny that) then I am afraid philosophy and metaphysics are important and not really bunk contrary to the claims of some misguided logical positivists and followers scientism.

Got any opinions, other than complaining?

 

[porchrat]

Porchie chap, maybe you have an opinion of your own here. Simple question really.
Do you think the following assertions are empirically testable:
1) There is no purpose.
2) Everything just is.

Or do you think such assertions are philosophical and/or metaphysical claims about reality?

If you think they are empirically testable then discussions about purpose/teleology obviously belong in the natural science section. If not (then we are in agreement, funny that) then I am afraid philosophy and metaphysics are important and not really bunk contrary to the claims of some misguided logical positivists and followers scientism.

Got any opinions, other than complaining?

Whether or not this philosophy and metaphisics is important is neither here nor there. The point is this is the science section.

Last time I checked metaphysics & philosophy != science

I'm not asking you guys to stop your discussion. I'm just saying leave the science in the science section and the philosophy in the philosophy section. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

 

[Techne]

Whether or not this philosophy and metaphisics is important is neither here nor there. The point is this is the science section.

Last time I checked metaphysics & philosophy != science

I'm not asking you guys to stop your discussion. I'm just saying leave the science in the science section and the philosophy in the philosophy section. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

Of course, but this just begs the question, "whether or not this is philosophy and metaphysics" we are discussing, especially the part about claims about reality and purpose. Got any opinions? Otherwise your protests and complaints are, like you say "neither here nor there".

 

[porchrat]

Of course, but this just begs the question, "whether or not this is philosophy and metaphysics" we are discussing, especially the part about claims about reality and purpose. Got any opinions? Otherwise your protests and complaints are, like you say "neither here nor there".

You have had to ask me what my opinion is on these things... as opposed to just showing me the empirical tests for these things despite all your reading on the subject. That alone should speak volumes. You yourself say you agree with this and yet you continue the conversation in the science section instead of pointing out what I have pointed out and saying "hey mate lets move this to PD".

As I said I don't think I am being unreasonable here in requesting that you guys move your discussion to PD.

 

[Techne]

You have had to ask me what my opinion is on these things... as opposed to just showing me the empirical tests for these things despite all your reading on the subject. That alone should speak volumes. You yourself say you agree with this and yet you continue the conversation in the science section instead of pointing out what I have pointed out and saying "hey mate lets move this to PD".

As I said I don't think I am being unreasonable here in requesting that you guys move your discussion to PD.

So, just to be clear here, we are in agreement that the following assertions are not are empirically testable:
1) There is no purpose.
2) Everything just is.

Simple yes or no please.

 

[porchrat]

So, just to be clear here, we are in agreement that the following assertions are not are empirically testable:
1) There is no purpose.
2) Everything just is.

Simple yes or no please.

If it is testable show me the test. I can't think of anything that could come remotely close to testing that.

Now please you have expressed this view. I ask that you move what has become a discussion about metaphysics and philosophy to the philosophy section.

 

[Techne]

If it is testable show me the test. I can't think of anything that could come remotely close to testing that.

Now please you have expressed this view. I ask that you move what has become a discussion about metaphysics and philosophy to the philosophy section.

The problem with your non-answer is that would then become perfectly legitimate to discuss possible scientific experiments to test for purpose in the natural science section. Just because you can't think of a way to test it does not imply that it is untestable or NOT empirically testable. you have got to be firm here chap, your non-answer is neither here nor there.

 

[porchrat]

The problem with your non-answer is that would then become perfectly legitimate to discuss possible scientific experiments to test for purpose in the natural science section. Just because you can't think of a way to test it does not imply that it is untestable or NOT empirically testable. you have got to be firm here chap, your non-answer is neither here nor there.

Discuss the possible scientifically valid tests by all means. I would love to see those. That would definitely belong in the science section! That isn't what I have seen in this discussion though (if you have been discussing those tests could you point them out please and I will retract my request right away) so I don't know why you think it is relevant to my request that you move it elsewhere.

 

[Unhappy1]

Seriously guys.

Techne and rwenzori take a step back and look at what you guys are typing. Be honest now. Does this stuff really belong in Natural Sciences or do you think maybe you should start a new thread in PD?

+1

 

[Techne]

Discuss the possible scientifically valid tests by all means. I would love to see those. That would definitely belong in the science section! That isn't what I have seen in this discussion though (if you have been discussing those tests could you point them out please and I will retract my request right away) so I don't know why you think it is relevant to my request that you move it elsewhere.

The mere fact that you even think "purpose/teleology" can be empirically verified or even HAVE discussions about it (in the science section nogal) just demonstrates you don't know much about empirical science. Come on chap, you know better than that...

 

[porchrat]

The mere fact that you even think "purpose/teleology" can be empirically verified or even HAVE discussions about it (in the science section nogal) just demonstrates you don't know much about empirical science. Come on chap, you know better than that...

Which of course leads me back to "show me a scientifically valid test or move it to PD"

Note that at no point did I say that any such tests actually existed. In fact I'm fairly certain that I expressed my subjective opinion to the contrary when I said "I can't think of anything that could come remotely close to testing that."

Now there is no need to discuss this further as far as I can see. Not in the science section anyway.

 

[Unhappy1]

The mere fact that you even think "purpose/teleology" can be empirically verified or even HAVE discussions about it (in the science section nogal) just demonstrates you don't know much about empirical science. Come on chap, you know better than that...