Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

I don't usually go off topic; but, I'd like to consider your claim that "[t]here are no facts, only theories".
I presume that you'd say I can't know, as a "fact", whether you actually posted the above-referenced quote. Such "knowledge", according to you, is necessarily "theoretical". While some knowledge-claims must remain forever contentious, the knowledge-claim that you wrote the sentence "[T]here are no facts, only theories", in this forum, seems remarkably straightforward. And, lacking any such "contentiousness", I'd say it's clearly a "fact". (But, it can't be "straightforward" {and hence a "fact"}, not if your right).

So, in order for you to be right, there'd have to be impenetrable layers-of-metaphysical-obfuscation between the aforementioned "knowledge-claim", and the simple "fact" of whether the "claim" is indeed correct. (Otherwise, it'd be easy, enough to determine whether the "claim", is, or isn't "factual"). Basically, you'd not be able to even trust your own memory. I mean, after all, if you could remember writing the quote, then it'd be a fact, which you claim isn't possible. Furthermore, upon which "fact" do you base your "claim"? (If it has a merely "theoretical" justification, then by definition, the jury's-still-out on whether you're right).

But, if "[t]he juries-still-out on whether you're right", then you can't preclude the possibility of "facts" existing, side-by-side, along with "theories". Such over generalizations, as you've proposed are inherently fallible. We must follow Einstein's dictum to "[m]ake everything as simple as possible, but not simpler". The world is just not as "simple" as you've suggested. Personally, I believe people disavow "facts" because, without them, nobody can ever be proven wrong. (This is a clear warning sign of impending folly). And, while there is a subtle difference between truth, and facts, I further believe that both exist, in a nontrivial sense. To claim, otherwise is to assert our hubris, and hold it up as the arbitrator of reality. We know, however that "[p]ride [always] goeth before a fall". "Hubris" is the harbinger of our ruin. It's folly to, therefore base a world-view upon any boast it makes.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Hereandnow »

I don't usually go off topic; but, I'd like to consider your claim that "[t]here are no facts, only theories". I presume that you'd say I can't know, as a "fact", whether you actually posted the above-referenced quote. Such "knowledge", according to you, is necessarily "theoretical". While some knowledge-claims must remain forever contentious, the knowledge-claim that you wrote the sentence "[T]here are no facts, only theories", in this forum, seems remarkably straightforward. And, lacking any such "contentiousness", I'd say it's clearly a "fact". (But, it can't be "straightforward" {and hence a "fact"}, not if your right).

Platos stepchild: So, in order for you to be right, there'd have to be impenetrable layers-of-metaphysical-obfuscation between the aforementioned "knowledge-claim", and the simple "fact" of whether the "claim" is indeed correct. (Otherwise, it'd be easy, enough to determine whether the "claim", is, or isn't "factual"). Basically, you'd not be able to even trust your own memory. I mean, after all, if you could remember writing the quote, then it'd be a fact, which you claim isn't possible. Furthermore, upon which "fact" do you base your "claim"? (If it has a merely "theoretical" justification, then by definition, the jury's-still-out on whether you're right).

But, if "[t]he juries-still-out on whether you're right", then you can't preclude the possibility of "facts" existing, side-by-side, along with "theories". Such over generalizations, as you've proposed are inherently fallible. We must follow Einstein's dictum to "[m]ake everything as simple as possible, but not simpler". The world is just not as "simple" as you've suggested. Personally, I believe people disavow "facts" because, without them, nobody can ever be proven wrong. (This is a clear warning sign of impending folly). And, while there is a subtle difference between truth, and facts, I further believe that both exist, in a nontrivial sense. To claim, otherwise is to assert our hubris, and hold it up as the arbitrator of reality. We know, however that "[p]ride [always] goeth before a fall". "Hubris" is the harbinger of our ruin. It's folly to, therefore base a world-view upon any boast it makes.

A lot of this is off point. If you want to take Einstein's advice and keep it simple, you have to also align yourself to the world you are trying to explain. Take an unproblematic example of an application of the word 'fact'. 'there is a cup on the table' is true. There are lots of way to go at this:

First, the fact of the cup being there is inextricable linked to the justification: no justification, no fact; and no justification of empirical propositions is infallible. So if by fact you mean, and I think you do, a non contingent fact, written in Wittgenstein's book of omniscience, then you would not have one. Even your statistical argument having to do with trust in the verity of your eyes, confirmation by those around you, etc., is not going to give any 'fact' like this. If it's not fact, what is it? Of course, calling it a fact regardless of its dubitability is what we do all the time. But here, it is the distinction of fact and theory that is at issue so we look more closely.

If facts like the weather outside are only contingent facts, then there is wiggle room for explanation. I would say what puts the "facticity" into a fact is the possibility for confirmation. Look, we live not in a world that is static and apodicatically dependable (though if it were a matter of analytic truths in issue, even they would possess a shadow of doubt), but in one that is dynamic.Here is my view: the cup on the table is not the same cup from moment to moment, for the mind that perceives is a process. the cup is never a cup; rather it is "cupping". In this dynamic I stand as a witness with a theory in my head, a theory that has a concept of 'cup', a schematic that finds agreement in the world and is brought forth for the making of a knowledge relationship. Thus, cups have a certain look, function and so on. And as long as this thing here fits the schematic, it *confirms that it is a cup*. This is exactly what science does. Pick up a test tube, add nitroglycerin, throe it to the floor and it explodes--scientifically confirming the volatile property of the chemical substance.

We are living and breathing science laboratories, implicitly confirming years of theory making with every perceptual act. All perceptual acts are hypotheticals: If i move my hand over this fire, it will burn the skin. I do it, I get burned, hypothesis confirmed. If I behold this body of perceptual qualities called 'cup' it will be like this, have this function, etc. I reach my hand to grab it, it yields, is well anticipated by the assignation 'cup' that I use to identify it; so it is a cup. That is what being a cup is all about. If i reached out and found it to purr like a kitten, then my paradigm fails and I am thrown into curiosity,t he restlessness of seeking a confirmation. This is doubt. (Peirce wrote a great paper on doubt: Fixation of Belief.)Looking for confirmation is what researching or theoretical scientists do. We are scientists and the world is filled with our "theory".

-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 1:14 pm to add the following --

i need to add that I didn't apply the proper quotes to Plato's stepchild post. I tried to amend, but couldn't.

-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 1:15 pm to add the following --

Rather screwed up the structure of the post royally!
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

I find myself to be in total agreement with Here-and-Now's "cupping" paradigm, Yes; if I'm, oh, let's say looking for "a cup," on the table, then everything there is, essentially "cupping". And, with all due respect to grammatical accuracy, if I'm looking for a door, so as to exit, then everything I look at, and consider, as such, is essentially "dooring". It's not unlike a key, trying each, and every lock, until it finds it's "counterpart". Nothing can ever be that-which-it-might-become, until it's first judged to "fit" the criteria, we assign to it. Onced verified, however, a given fact exists, guaranteed by it's "forum" (see below), until verification is no longer possible.

But, I nevertheless fail to see why such constructs as "cupping", and "dooring" cannot be construed as "facts". Let us agree that a forum exists, which hosts publicly-accessible-information. (This proposition seems pretty self-evident, and therefore safe, to assume). No "forum", however can ensure it's hosted "facts" won't ever be repudiated. For example, it was once "publicly-accessible-information" that atomic structure "mirrored" the structure of the solar system. And, although eventually deemed false, the statement "Atomic structure follows the same dynamics as the solar system", was indeed a "fact". (Furthermore, it remains a fact that such was once a fact, and will be so, provided it remains verifiable).

You may argue that facts, like truth should be universal, and immutable. I, on the other hand, have no problem with facts being contingent, and therefore falsifiable. Now, whether Winston, the protagonist in the dystopian novel, 1984 could'ave indeed been erased from existence, is inherently unanswerable. (If after Winston's utter eradication, someone searched, for him, and even though the whole world began "Winstoning", his existence could never be deemed as a fact. "They" exist only as long as they can be verified. So, if you contend that facts don't exist, simply because they'd be contingent upon verification, I'd say were at a semantic impasse. A "fact", by any other name would be as real".
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Hereandnow »

I find myself to be in total agreement with Here-and-Now's "cupping" paradigm, Yes; if I'm, oh, let's say looking for "a cup," on the table, then everything there is, essentially "cupping". And, with all due respect to grammatical accuracy, if I'm looking for a door, so as to exit, then everything I look at, and consider, as such, is essentially "dooring". It's not unlike a key, trying each, and every lock, until it finds it's "counterpart". Nothing can ever be that-which-it-might-become, until it's first judged to "fit" the criteria, we assign to it. Onced verified, however, a given fact exists, guaranteed by it's "forum" (see below), until verification is no longer possible.
But the world i am thinking of is one of phenomena. This is Heraclitus' world: you can't "step" into the same concept twice. it's not that when you're looking for a door you are "dooring"; it is that any perceptual act itself is intrinsically future looking. Perception itself is a series of anticipatory events and we are "in flight" as Sartre put it. (And where is this fleeting self?) If you want to call a dynamic process a fact,fine. But like I said, since the issue is about fact and theory,we have to look more closely.I say, facts ARE theories. No difference.

You may argue that facts, like truth should be universal, and immutable. I, on the other hand, have no problem with facts being contingent, and therefore falsifiable. Now, whether Winston, the protagonist in the dystopian novel, 1984 could'ave indeed been erased from existence, is inherently unanswerable. (If after Winston's utter eradication, someone searched, for him, and even though the whole world began "Winstoning", his existence could never be deemed as a fact. "They" exist only as long as they can be verified. So, if you contend that facts don't exist, simply because they'd be contingent upon verification, I'd say were at a semantic impasse. A "fact", by any other name would be as real".

i have no problem with facts being contingent. None at all. My point goes to the structure of the perceptual act. It is just a manner of speaking to call the cup "cupping"; it is more accurate.See the above.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

Give me your best definition of "theory"; then, apply it to an example, of your choice.
User avatar
Gulnara
Posts: 496
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Gulnara »

Human species carved out their ecological niche among biosphere and evolution of Earthly creatures. the evolutionary process is so extremely gradual, as is growing of a child into an adult. When I take picture of a child and compare to picture of the same person as adult, they look so different, like different people. Person goes from being conceived and to an old age in the same way evolution brought first live cell on a planet up to human being. One of the stages of that cell evolution was monkeys, then people. I look at the monkey and the person, and I think they are different species while they are one body of one growing organism on this planet. If I collect all the photos in between, I'd see it more clearly, that we grew from monkeys into people just like adult grows from the baby. The human niche is what determines longevity of human life, the fact that we are created on planet Earth and keep living on planet Earth. The required diversity is limited, because when mutations fall under or above parameters to which Earth's environment, planet's movement, life longevity, ways of evolution, Moon, Sun cycles etc. are unfavorable, such organisms have hard time surviving (not to a fault of their own) and sooner or later vanish. I repeat, there is no fault behind mutated organisms that they are no fit for this planet, they might have survived perfectly if day and night were longer, or shorter, if it was different planet, or if people let them flourish near by not intruded upon. People, unfortunately, try to model everyone of their offspring upon some abstract idea of a human being. Some people would say:" We have to teach children to work hard, people stopped working hard, they sit around, play games..." etc. I translate it like this- monkeys say to each other: " We have to teach our little ones to live on trees and eat foliage. Monkeys stopped doing this, and it's a shame! Look at them walking up right all the time! Bustards! " They say it without an inkling that their offspring is turning in a direction of being human. People forget that it's among us that new species will arise, if we let them to. People keep living longer lives, because of it the process of evolution is slowed down, which means the same processes in evolution take longer to be achieved. Longer lives for people means some creatures got their lives shortened. What is it then for them, evolution speeds up, generations change faster? it can mean that, it also shows that once the species get their evolutionary tree pruned, they produce side branches, they immediately divercify. When there are only few vessels with water, if one gets more water, the other gets less. That one that gets less at least has space for adding more water. The vessel that is already filled to the brims, has no chance of obtaining more water, but only chance of reducing the amount of water. Such is an exchange among species including plants, the exchange of energy, resources, which create interchangeable longevities, speeds of evolution, but limited within their domain.

-- Updated Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:13 pm to add the following --

Human species carved out their ecological niche among biosphere and evolution of Earthly creatures. the evolutionary process is so extremely gradual, as is growing of a child into an adult. When I take picture of a child and compare to picture of the same person as adult, they look so different, like different people. Person goes from being conceived and to an old age in the same way evolution brought first live cell on a planet up to human being. One of the stages of that cell evolution was monkeys, then people. I look at the monkey and the person, and I think they are different species while they are one body of one growing organism on this planet. If I collect all the photos in between, I'd see it more clearly, that we grew from monkeys into people just like adult grows from the baby. The human niche is what determines longevity of human life, the fact that we are created on planet Earth and keep living on planet Earth. The required diversity is limited, because when mutations fall under or above parameters to which Earth's environment, planet's movement, life longevity, ways of evolution, Moon, Sun cycles etc. are unfavorable, such organisms have hard time surviving (not to a fault of their own) and sooner or later vanish. I repeat, there is no fault behind mutated organisms that they are no fit for this planet, they might have survived perfectly if day and night were longer, or shorter, if it was different planet, or if people let them flourish near by not intruded upon. People, unfortunately, try to model everyone of their offspring upon some abstract idea of a human being. Some people would say:" We have to teach children to work hard, people stopped working hard, they sit around, play games..." etc. I translate it like this- monkeys say to each other: " We have to teach our little ones to live on trees and eat foliage. Monkeys stopped doing this, and it's a shame! Look at them walking up right all the time! Bustards! " They say it without an inkling that their offspring is turning in a direction of being human. People forget that it's among us that new species will arise, if we let them to. People keep living longer lives, because of it the process of evolution is slowed down, which means the same processes in evolution take longer to be achieved. Longer lives for people means some creatures got their lives shortened. What is it then for them, evolution speeds up, generations change faster? it can mean that, it also shows that once the species get their evolutionary tree pruned, they produce side branches, they immediately divercify. When there are only few vessels with water, if one gets more water, the other gets less. That one that gets less at least has space for adding more water. The vessel that is already filled to the brims, has no chance of obtaining more water, but only chance of reducing the amount of water. Such is an exchange among species including plants, the exchange of energy, resources, which create interchangeable longevities, speeds of evolution, but limited within their domain.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

A recent post has advocated the exploded belief that phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny; which is to say, species evolve from their respective origins, as individuals evolve from theirs. This is just plain wrong. Even if you arrive at a correct conclusion, through such spurious reasoning, that still doesn't justify said "reasoning".
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Hereandnow »

Give me your best definition of "theory"; then, apply it to an example, of your choice.
A working theory is a forward-looking pragmatic anticipation of a future possibility.

-- Updated October 11th, 2014, 2:15 pm to add the following --

See the cup above.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

Addressed to "Hereandnow": I asked you to "[g]ive me your best definition of the word 'theory'; and then, apply it to an example, of your choice". Whereupon, you answered back, saying "[a] working theory is a forward-looking pragmatic anticipation of a future possibility". By way of the requested "example", you referred me back, to the "cup paradigm".

Ok; first off, I owe you, an apology. I didn't appreciate just how literally you take Heraclatus' claim that it's impossible to "[s]tep into the same river, twice. Pursuant to that, I want to ask a certain question. It'll probably take us way too far off-topic. Oh, well; if it does, then we can always pursue the discussion in some other format, maybe, say, a private conversation. The "question" is simply this: "Given your stated beliefs, how do you account for identity-through-time?".

According to you, the apparent facticity of any "belief" (including your own), is basically identical to it's "narrative". (Note: typically, a "belief's justification is too complex to present as a "raw data set*; so, it's ensconced within a "narrative".) There really are no "facts", as such; there are only narratives, ensconced within yet others. And, the ensuing "nesting" is what we've naively been calling "facts", bestowing upon them an undeserved legitimacy. But, if "identity-through-time" is, for all intents illusory, then explain, to me how such a flawed "narrative" ever got started.

Furthermore, given the precedent of the one "flawed narrative", how, then can we ever trust any? Whatever "mechanism" you suggest to detect illicit narratives must itself be a "narrative". And (in my opinion), here's the "rub": any such "mechanism" must itself be suspect, until properly vetted. Clearly, a "master narrative" is needed, so as to avoid an otherwise inevitable endless digression. I'll close out, by asking yet another question (actually, it's a two-parter): "What criteria should be chosen, so as to identify this 'master narrative' "?.

(*) How exactly would you square the existence of "data", with your disparagement, of "facts"? (Or, do you deny the "[e]xistence of data", as well?
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Hereandnow »

Platos stepchild;
According to you, the apparent facticity of any "belief" (including your own), is basically identical to it's "narrative". (Note: typically, a "belief's justification is too complex to present as a "raw data set*; so, it's ensconced within a "narrative".) There really are no "facts", as such; there are only narratives, ensconced within yet others. And, the ensuing "nesting" is what we've naively been calling "facts", bestowing upon them an undeserved legitimacy. But, if "identity-through-time" is, for all intents illusory, then explain, to me how such a flawed "narrative" ever got started.
A narrative? Well, it's is a hypothetical, though it is interesting to ask about the extent to which such a thing is actually language "underneath". I wake up,I see the clock on the wall and without thinking I know it's eight am. Too many "narratives" to call them this. The clock, for example: IF I look at this object, and it fits the clock schematic (which is itself a body of manifold schematics) and IF the hands are thusly configured and IF I have a memory of going to bed prior to this present state of recent awakeness, etc., etc....THEN it's eight am. The "narrative" is a hypothetical judgment (Kant would have them a priori built into our judgments and experiences) that issues from years of experience ad habitualized behavior patterns of mental activity. (A really interesting quesiton is, how does this affect the way think about cognition? Animals, for example, like us, do not rehearse the same hypotheticals each time the tree is climbed or the nut is found. If we define a given "fact" as a hypothetical deductive argument *as I am doing here*, and all of the countless facts out there are silently/tacitly engaged and acknowledged, there is a tether of cognitive likeness that binds them. Animals think, in other words, though it is a matter of how much and how well.)


Furthermore, given the precedent of the one "flawed narrative", how, then can we ever trust any? Whatever "mechanism" you suggest to detect illicit narratives must itself be a "narrative". And (in my opinion), here's the "rub": any such "mechanism" must itself be suspect, until properly vetted. Clearly, a "master narrative" is needed, so as to avoid an otherwise inevitable endless digression. I'll close out, by asking yet another question (actually, it's a two-parter): "What criteria should be chosen, so as to identify this 'master narrative' "?.
But illicit "narratives" are encountered all the time. This leads to inquiry. I pick up an orange, turns out to be an apple. Inquiry, the scientific method is in play until the another schematic (paradigm,Kuhn would say) is found. If no schematic works (a dimensionally unstable object, say) then there is work to do. it always works out in the end, unless you are a particle physicist and you have to invent quantum physics. The master narrative is you. I yield to Kant here and call it the transcendental unity of apperception. If you don't like the transcendental part, just think of it as the unifying pronciple of the self, the egoic center which is rational and synthetic in its function.
(*) How exactly would you square the existence of "data", with your disparagement, of "facts"? (Or, do you deny the "[e]xistence of data", as well?
You are talking about metaphysical realism. My thinking is this: when the forest is devoid of perceptual, cognitive systems, there is no tree, no falling and no forest. None of these can be discussed outside of a context of experience making faculties. Empirical existence, phenomena; these are apparent.

i don't disparage facts. It is important to let philosophy do its work: there never were any facts as they are commonly, unreflectively, held to be, at all.

-- Updated October 12th, 2014, 9:47 am to add the following --

Platos stepchild;
According to you, the apparent facticity of any "belief" (including your own), is basically identical to it's "narrative". (Note: typically, a "belief's justification is too complex to present as a "raw data set*; so, it's ensconced within a "narrative".) There really are no "facts", as such; there are only narratives, ensconced within yet others. And, the ensuing "nesting" is what we've naively been calling "facts", bestowing upon them an undeserved legitimacy. But, if "identity-through-time" is, for all intents illusory, then explain, to me how such a flawed "narrative" ever got started.
A narrative? Well, it's is a hypothetical, though it is interesting to ask about the extent to which such a thing is actually language "underneath". I wake up,I see the clock on the wall and without thinking I know it's eight am. Too many "narratives" to call them this. The clock, for example: IF I look at this object, and it fits the clock schematic (which is itself a body of manifold schematics) and IF the hands are thusly configured and IF I have a memory of going to bed prior to this present state of recent awakeness, etc., etc....THEN it's eight am. The "narrative" is a hypothetical judgment (Kant would have them a priori built into our judgments and experiences) that issues from years of experience ad habitualized behavior patterns of mental activity. (A really interesting quesiton is, how does this affect the way think about cognition? Animals, for example, like us, do not rehearse the same hypotheticals each time the tree is climbed or the nut is found. If we define a given "fact" as a hypothetical deductive argument *as I am doing here*, and all of the countless facts out there are silently/tacitly engaged and acknowledged, there is a tether of cognitive likeness that binds them. Animals think, in other words, though it is a matter of how much and how well.)


Furthermore, given the precedent of the one "flawed narrative", how, then can we ever trust any? Whatever "mechanism" you suggest to detect illicit narratives must itself be a "narrative". And (in my opinion), here's the "rub": any such "mechanism" must itself be suspect, until properly vetted. Clearly, a "master narrative" is needed, so as to avoid an otherwise inevitable endless digression. I'll close out, by asking yet another question (actually, it's a two-parter): "What criteria should be chosen, so as to identify this 'master narrative' "?.
But illicit "narratives" are encountered all the time. This leads to inquiry. I pick up an orange, turns out to be an apple. Inquiry, the scientific method is in play until the another schematic (paradigm,Kuhn would say) is found. If no schematic works (a dimensionally unstable object, say) then there is work to do. it always works out in the end, unless you are a particle physicist and you have to invent quantum physics. The master narrative is you. I yield to Kant here and call it the transcendental unity of apperception. If you don't like the transcendental part, just think of it as the unifying pronciple of the self, the egoic center which is rational and synthetic in its function.
(*) How exactly would you square the existence of "data", with your disparagement, of "facts"? (Or, do you deny the "[e]xistence of data", as well?
You are talking about metaphysical realism. My thinking is this: when the forest is devoid of perceptual, cognitive systems, there is no tree, no falling and no forest. None of these can be discussed outside of a context of experience making faculties. Empirical existence, phenomena; these are apparent.

i don't disparage facts. It is important to let philosophy do its work: there never were any facts as they are commonly, unreflectively, held to be, at all.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

You're obviously quite cogent in, and knowledgeable, of philosophy, and well-versed, in it's discourse. You're also an illuminating debater. So; here's the thing: if I grant your premises, then it seems clear that "permanence", (or "identity-through-time", is an "evolutionary-construct", which thereby enhances our survival prospects. It's not that "identity-through-time" somehow "trumps" the ephemeral nature, of reality; rather, as an "evolutionary-construct" it enables us to "maximize" the utility of seeing reality on a "sliding-scale", being median of the two extremes. (Note: as an example, consider the utility of seeing "swiftly moving prey" as "ephemeral", and caves (being potential hiding places), as having greater "identity-through-time".

This "sliding-scale" may well be the "[t]ether-of-cognitive-likeness", to which you refer. (Nice phrase, by the way). Our "narratives", regarding how to, say locate "cups, on the table", must allow for the "cognitive likeness" between different kinds, and styles, of "cups".There's an implicit nuance, though; in additional to the limits, placed upon our "evolutionary-construct", by "reality", there are social-constraints, as well. Here's my big question: you're clearly either a student of, or else sympathetic to, the work of the "structural linguist", Ferdinand Saussure. But, Saussure's work de-emphasized any "historical" approach to language (and therefore to cognition.) Yet, on the other hand, the only viable justification for "structural linguistics" is precisely such the "diachronic" approach, (of both evolution, and social-pressures), ironically eschewed by "Structuralism". So, how do you justify your position, as being rooted in it's various "historical contexts", with it's inherent agenda-of-de-emphasis on such "historical contexts"?
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Hereandnow »

Platoschild: So; here's the thing: if I grant your premises, then it seems clear that "permanence", (or "identity-through-time", is an "evolutionary-construct", which thereby enhances our survival prospects. It's not that "identity-through-time" somehow "trumps" the ephemeral nature, of reality; rather, as an "evolutionary-construct" it enables us to "maximize" the utility of seeing reality on a "sliding-scale", being median of the two extremes. (Note: as an example, consider the utility of seeing "swiftly moving prey" as "ephemeral", and caves (being potential hiding places), as having greater "identity-through-time".

It is very hard to second guess the scientific consensus, but I do my best. Evolution is a theory in which I believe , but as a theory, it has its limits (as do all of the thoughts in my head; but then, it is the "freedom" that rises up in inquiry. Inquiry is the manifest sign of freedom--that's interesting to me) that puts distance between us. In this freedom (Husserl, and he and Eugene Fink are much in my mind of late, helps me on this point with his phenomenological reduction, or "epoche", though I do not keep a steady bead on all he says.Certainly not my intention) there is a certain release from the theory that binds us. This is reflection, a structural reflection, the kind you find in Sartre and Husserl. There is a great, concise essay called "Transcendence of the Ego" which brings out the this structure. Husserl is a Kantian and thinks there is a deep seated transcendental ego; Sartre thinks there is nothingness. I am on Husserl's side. My point is, since you raise this extremely interesting question, that while I am coerced (doxastically coerced) into accepting science's theories, in my reflection I am not so bound to them as there is a kind of release in inquiry that occurs at that level of generality. Just as when I consider creationism and see it being trumped by evolution, the doxastic grip of the former is released, so when I consider ALL scientific theory and I see it trumped (this needs discussion) in the act of reflection, I am released from it. For me this is a structural release, and all explicit scientific theory falls away. A great moment in human understanding.

Why do I go into all this? I simply want to be clear that I am not on the postmodern side (you raise this below) of this issue. While i am a pragmatist, I still think that our transcendence trumps our pragmatic selves; that is, the problem-solving, socially and evolutionarily constructed self stands apart from and is subordinated to a transcendental "self". NOT a popular view among the posters in this forum.


This "sliding-scale" may well be the "[t]ether-of-cognitive-likeness", to which you refer. (Nice phrase, by the way). Our "narratives", regarding how to, say locate "cups, on the table", must allow for the "cognitive likeness" between different kinds, and styles, of "cups".There's an implicit nuance, though; in additional to the limits, placed upon our "evolutionary-construct", by "reality", there are social-constraints, as well. Here's my big question: you're clearly either a student of, or else sympathetic to, the work of the "structural linguist", Ferdinand Saussure. But, Saussure's work de-emphasized any "historical" approach to language (and therefore to cognition.) Yet, on the other hand, the only viable justification for "structural linguistics" is precisely such the "diachronic" approach, (of both evolution, and social-pressures), ironically eschewed by "Structuralism". So, how do you justify your position, as being rooted in it's various "historical contexts", with it's inherent agenda-of-de-emphasis on such "historical contexts"?
For me, the my above remarks hold steady. I draw on Husserl's Cartesian Meditations and other works. In that which is structurally laid out before me in a phenomenologically reduced state (all explicit scientific theory is in abeyance. It is not a state in which all implicit theory that makes for the series of intelligible moments we call consciousness is extinguished. This would, of course, be a reduction to epistemological nothingness) what is epistemologically privileged is the originary foundation of the self and its phenomenological objects. History is a "science" that rests on and issues from this foundation, as does all science. (Of course, for me, even apodicticity itself is theory, as are time and space.) Thus, talk about the evolution of language,reason and all of experience and the pragmatic bubble we call reality as a diachronic account is valid in theoretical context. But inquiry brings the matter closer to the more powerfully Real center--the self, the egoic center.

Like i said, not a popular view, from what I've read. Husserl and his structuralism (and his progeny's) are out of vogue now. I've read Saussure ( I have it here somewhere) and have been meaning to look more closely at other structuralists. Now I'm reading Fink, rereading Kant, Husserl, and lumbering through Wittgenstein's Investigations.

The question is, then, where do you stand?
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

My original question, the "premise" of this "topic" asks whether "Darwinian Evolution" is playing a "shell-game", with the facts. I've gone from that to "cherry-picking" such fascinating comments as "[a] structural release [occurs when] all explicit scientific theory falls away. [It is a] great moment in human understanding". I see stupendous implications, here (whether they're all correct, or not is another matter). Apropos of such "implications", I must ask if you're saying there's a catharsis in what you call the "structural release" from an untenable "truth-claim"? (By "catharsis," I mean what we'd typically call an "emotional purging"). Plato saw this "purging" in it's most destructive sense; whereas, Aristotle believed that our "passions" could be regulated by our intellect. So, I'll ask the ancillary question of whether your "structural releases" might influence subsequent knowledge-claims. If so, how is that "influence" manifested: a' la Plato; or, a' la Aristotle?

But, if you're right, then a "rational account" of evolution (or indeed, of any knowledge-claim) cannot be given. Wait; let me qualify that statement: no rational-account of evolution (da, ta, da, ta-da) can ever exhaustively define it. "Truth" is therefore basically a "doxical artifact". You asked where "I stand", by which I assume you're asking about my "core beliefs". I know that "quantum reality" works just fine as "syntax," independent of whatever "meaning" we impute, to it. Yet, I don't believe that's true in the world of cabbages, and kings. One reason why I find your "structural release" so fascinating is because it's inextricably linked to "mimetics". And "memes", by their very nature are imbued with meaning. I believe in facts, as a gradation of "meaning". Now, whether, say "Darwinian Evolution" is really a fact-of-nature, or else a fact-of-reason/passion, is ultimately a sterile debate. Whichever the case, I believe in the "factual-debacle" of the genome being defined by the two, inimical "forces" of "genetic diversity", and "genetic fidelity". You said that "enquiry is freedom"; and, I wholly agree. Such "enquiry", though must be rooted in more than mere "doxicism". Consider: even though we might believe the Earth is round, still, in our daily lives, we mostly act as though we really believe it to be "flat". As a "pragmatist", you must surely concede that truth is real, even if it's not. And, the truth is, "reality" is "out there", even if it is a "perceptual-construct".
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Hereandnow »

Platos stepchild: I must ask if you're saying there's a catharsis in what you call the "structural release" from an untenable "truth-claim"? (By "catharsis," I mean what we'd typically call an "emotional purging"). Plato saw this "purging" in it's most destructive sense; whereas, Aristotle believed that our "passions" could be regulated by our intellect. So, I'll ask the ancillary question of whether your "structural releases" might influence subsequent knowledge-claims. If so, how is that "influence" manifested: a' la Plato; or, a' la Aristotle?

Actually, this is a touchy part, isn't it? Touchy because it is not about an Aristotelian catharsis, which by my thinking arises out of an emotional exhaustion after witnessing a tragic, what was it, arousal of pity and fear, and so forth. No, no; this is epistemic and deals with structures of consciousness and belief. What does it mean to have a paradigm overturned? it means that some competing theoretical interest defeated it (the so-called hypothetical deductive method puts the paradigm first, a standing theory resistant to critical pressure that is always already there in scientific work). That clearing away of a theory (like that nineteenth century theory of a medium of ether through which light propagates) is what i have in mind when I try to describe an epoche. this is Husserl's notion of putting aside the bulk of scientific understanding to look more clearly and directly at the structures of a conscious moment. History is literally put in abeyance; it's an explicit conscious act to do this, and for me, it frees up the present moment from its clutter. I rememer Nelson Goodman being famous for saying there is no innocent eye in his discussion of aesthetics. You see his point: a person is an interpretatively bound agent of critical regard; her "eye" is laden with theory and her language is the very structure of thought itself. You cannot rise above this, or, get behind it. I read Wittgenstein on this. he talked about symbols that, if you will, follow an interpreter wherever he goes: try to get beyond them and you find yourself using them willy nilly. But there is a big on-the-other-hand here. Though i am bound, locked into a framework of possible meaning, there is the palpable sense of an immediacy in the encounter with this cup. It is tough to discuss this. Put it in a question: Is my understanding that there is a Being of this cup on the table a construct or an intuition? is the term 'being' a designation of the class of all things only, or is there do we intuit Being in the way that we would intuit, say, redness, or a smell or taste?

But, if you're right, then a "rational account" of evolution (or indeed, of any knowledge-claim) cannot be given. Wait; let me qualify that statement: no rational-account of evolution (da, ta, da, ta-da) can ever exhaustively define it. "Truth" is therefore basically a "doxical artifact". You asked where "I stand", by which I assume you're asking about my "core beliefs". I know that "quantum reality" works just fine as "syntax," independent of whatever "meaning" we impute, to it. Yet, I don't believe that's true in the world of cabbages, and kings. One reason why I find your "structural release" so fascinating is because it's inextricably linked to "mimetics". And "memes", by their very nature are imbued with meaning. I believe in facts, as a gradation of "meaning". Now, whether, say "Darwinian Evolution" is really a fact-of-nature, or else a fact-of-reason/passion, is ultimately a sterile debate. Whichever the case, I believe in the "factual-debacle" of the genome being defined by the two, inimical "forces" of "genetic diversity", and "genetic fidelity". You said that "enquiry is freedom"; and, I wholly agree. Such "enquiry", though must be rooted in more than mere "doxicism". Consider: even though we might believe the Earth is round, still, in our daily lives, we mostly act as though we really believe it to be "flat". As a "pragmatist", you must surely concede that truth is real, even if it's not. And, the truth is, "reality" is "out there", even if it is a "perceptual-construct".

Some of this I don't quite get,but then, we likely read different things. I'll do my best. If truth is a doxical artifact, then the question is begged regarding the term 'belief'. S believes P: Why? Because S is justified in believing P. What is the nature of justification? Ah, there is the rub. Is S's doxastic state due to some "connectivity" with with P? Or is it, as Richard Rorty put it, that S knows P no more than a dented fender knows the offending guardrail? Rorty put it beautifully: How is it that something out there ever makes its way in here? He would say it just a doxical artifact, defining 'doxical' as merely pragmatic. Fink, and I would have to look up where he says it, holds that the impressions made within the immanence is phenomenological presentation possess transcendence within the immanence. As cryptic as it sounds,I agree. We live, and we "know" this, within or amidst (Emerson: part and parcel of) transcendence. This is why I say it is such a big deal for human understanding. As you say, it is a perceptual construct, but nevertheless, it is out there. I would simply add that this "out there" is not out there at all; it is what we are. Take the transcendence of this cup. 'Cup' as a concept merely subsumes particulars under a principle. From where comes the startling nature of the cup's Being? And why is this Being so omnipresent? My answer is that the cup's Being that i acknowledge is actually my own Being--i am witnessing my own transcendence; and the extraordinary intuition of Being is an intuition of my egoic center, which is utterly and unspeakably transcendent.

Pragmatists don't think like this. But i never cared about that.we are set to the task of independent and eclectic thinking. the worst way to repay a teacher is to remain a student, i think Heidegger said.

As to structural release and cultural memes. I'm a bit cloudy here. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 8:42 pm to add the following --

i forgot to quote the second part of your post and cannot edit it to correct it.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Is Darwinian Evolution a "Shell Game"?

Post by Platos stepchild »

Oh; screw it. Let's follow this rabbit-trail, and see where it leads. I want to talk about the "transcendental ego". Just to be sure I'm straight, on what you mean, "it's" not anything we can actually "know"; rather, "it's" the means by which we would otherwise "know" nothing. I once posed the following question, to some Christian associates: "Are we not God's knowledge, of us"? By which, I meant that, unlike us, God has perfect knowledge, of the world. But, that surely means there is absolutely no distinction between God's "knowledge", of a given-thing, and the "thing", itself. It, therefore clearly follows that, lacking any possible distinction, two truly identical "states" must, in fact be one-and-the-same. Hence, we are God's knowledge, of us. (I further argued that our knowledge, as imperfect, could only be so, if there were a "perfect knowledge", upon which to be predicated).

Even though we cannot give a discursive account of why a "transcendental ego" must have such "perfect knowledge", disavowing "it" can only lead to eventual madness. If we see the "world" as being constituted by the "transcendental ego's" intentionality, then engaging even mundane phenomena is to have a rapport, with the world. (And, our insatiable need for "rapport" is why, in the movie Cast Away, Tom Hanks drew a "face" on that damned volleyball). Yes; I did previously admit to being an atoms-and-the-void kind of guy. But, as you've basically said, "facts" are indistinguishable from our knowledge, of them. In which case, we simply cannot assert a "fact", independent of our knowledge, thereof. In terms of, at least "human" reality, epistemology is the ground of ontology. So, instead of seeing the world as mere "mechanized" phenomena, if we see it as the "intentionality", previously mentioned, we can impute "perfect knowledge" to the ground-of-reality.

I claimed that "[d]isavowing a "transcendental ego" can only lead to eventual madness". If we are, in any sense homo religiosus, it's in the compelling need to enjoy that "rapport", which only comes from being in the presence of another ego. Donne was right: "No man is an island". There are those who will doubtless argue that the "ground-of-reality" needed be "sentient". Others might even disavow the "ground-of-reality", altogether as the artifact of an exploded monotheism. But, it's not necessary to impose "ecclesiastical dogmas", on rational enquiry, in order to get the coveted "rapport". And, speaking of "rapport", maybe we should strip away it's unfortunate embellishments. I don't see it, so much as being an "emotional state"; rather, it really is the presence of another ego: no more, and no less. What if even more strident detractors denounced the "transcendental ego", as a farcical stunt to justify our "knowledge-claims"? I'd say they might as well go ahead, and denounce the individual "ego", as well. When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, the theater-in-your-head is about as credible as the "head", presumably containing the theater-of-the-world. (Let he, who doubts the "theater-in-his-own-head" denounce it, and afterwards reflect upon how it makes him feel).

-- Updated October 15th, 2014, 1:01 pm to add the following --

......
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021