Page 13 of 15

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: December 6th, 2018, 7:51 pm
by Burning ghost
H&N -

The only point worth making, that I haven’t already made, is that “money” is most certainly not what “economics is all about.” A common misconception worth pointing out I feel.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: December 6th, 2018, 9:54 pm
by Hereandnow
Pray tell more.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 6th, 2021, 4:12 pm
by FranknBerry
The concept of evolution via natural selection is quite flawed in its subjectivity. From my perspective. There are many issues in how this translation of what is/was observed in "nature" is/was presented. The mechanism of evolutionary change (i.e., change) was dramatically skewed by associating a behavior of having purpose, motivation, and being goal-driven. This perception has led to many within the scientific communities to declare that evolution demonstrates a degree of "intelligence". A perception of choice.

The application of a purpose of survival being given to organisms to explain their change is/was a subjective association. I also find it entirely unnecessary. An organism that simply adapts to it's environment due to a happenstance behavior pattern can serve as explanation enough. Obviously, an organism that has adapted more in a particular way to its environment will likely have a better shot of avoiding other organisms and prolonging their lifespan and species than others would that don't adapt to their environments in the same particular ways. Darwin took this happenstance result of adaptation that served beneficial in species survivability and declared it to be why change happens. This perception has been reflected by majorities for a long time now and impacts the way in which people define the world around them. The subjectivity of perception skews what is into something it isn't. A bright red frog in a lush green environment naturally stands out and thus would be in violation of "natural selection". However, because the red frog is poisonous it was determined that "natural selection" made it that way to increase it's survivability by allowing predators to identify it as poisonous and avoid it. A perception that falls apart when realizing that there are a large number of poisonous frogs that share similar colors/patterns as non-poisonous frogs and yet still exist.

The concept of "natural selection" has taken a simple behavior of adaptation by exposure and skewed it in such a way that dramatically impacts the way we define what is real and accurate about the world around us. There are many contradictions to the perception of "natural selection". Purposes and goals are translations of observed behaviors, not accurate reflections of what they represent.

C1-0) Theories are more likely to be true when valid experiments do not falsify them; when they successfully predict observations.

Significant issue with this point. It would be explained better if written like this:
"Theories are more likely to be perceived as accurate when few, limited, and biased experiments fail to provide a more agreeable perception; when they subjectively align with our expectations."

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 7th, 2021, 7:17 am
by Faustus5
FranknBerry wrote: September 6th, 2021, 4:12 pm The concept of evolution via natural selection is quite flawed in its subjectivity. From my perspective. There are many issues in how this translation of what is/was observed in "nature" is/was presented. The mechanism of evolutionary change (i.e., change) was dramatically skewed by associating a behavior of having purpose, motivation, and being goal-driven. This perception has led to many within the scientific communities to declare that evolution demonstrates a degree of "intelligence". A perception of choice.
It would be helpful if you could cite actual biologists or philosophers of biology saying these things in their own words, because you largely seem to be arguing with a phantom that exists only in your own imagination. Let's see how these supposedly ignorant scientists phrase the issues themselves and see if they are indeed guilty of what you accuse them of.

It isn't as if I can't detect genuine issues worthy of discussion lurking behind your prose (I most certainly can). It's just that it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that large numbers of very smart experts tend not to fall for obviously stupid misconceptions within their own fields. Whatever flaws you think you've uncovered in conventional thinking about evolution through natural selection, the odds are those concerns have already been thoroughly addressed in the scientific literature.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 7th, 2021, 7:25 am
by Steve3007
Sometimes metaphor gets mistakenly interpreted as being meant literally. The concept of a goal is often used metaphorically not just in describing evolutionary adaptations but in describing non-living systems like elementary particles. So, for example, electrons might be described as "wanting" to move towards protons due to electrostatic attraction.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 7th, 2021, 7:45 am
by Sculptor1
Alun wrote: October 15th, 2009, 3:02 pm I think this is the first thread I've started here, so it's a shame it's derivative of two topics of which this is only an important sub-topic. If this opening post is too long for you, focus on the red conclusions, then work your way back to the premises you disagree with, don't understand, or have a comment on--if you agree with the premises, but disagree with a conclusion, then explain how you think the argument is invalid. I will frequently post supporting links [#] without referring to their content; I don't suggest reading them all unless the claim they're nearby interests you, because there are going to be a lot.
'''
I think the only thing this misses is that a selectively negative trait in a macro-organism can be preserved just so long as that genome continues to produce viable progeny, it carries traits that the vast majority of bear no special significance for selection.
Whist this does not in any sense invalidate natural selection, does provide an understanding of why there are so many traits that seem to have no particular use.

In What Darwin Got Wrong, byFodor&Piattelli-Palmarini two separate claims are described:

"(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and

(2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.”

The evolution industry by which post grad grants and won, and by which people like Dawkins and Pinker churn out endless books on idle speculations tend to use (2) as a methodological claim in which all traits have to undergo some sort of utility process.
When in fact the infinite variety that Darwin talked about is because he understood the (1) is the actual claim which is true and the actual mecahnism of Natural Selection.

The only other minor niggle is the difficulty with the term Species, which is macro-organism centred. IN the microscopic world things are far more premiscuous and lots of DNA gets swapped between species.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 7th, 2021, 2:17 pm
by FranknBerry
Steve3007 wrote: September 7th, 2021, 7:25 am Sometimes metaphor gets mistakenly interpreted as being meant literally. The concept of a goal is often used metaphorically not just in describing evolutionary adaptations but in describing non-living systems like elementary particles. So, for example, electrons might be described as "wanting" to move towards protons due to electrostatic attraction.
This begs the question then as to why metaphorical terms are used when there exists literal ones that can serve instead. Saying "an electron wants to move towards a proton" could easily be written as "an electron is reactively drawn towards protons." Also, if words are used metaphorically then placing them within quotation marks aid in identifying them as metaphorical. Sometimes this is done, but often it is not. The failure to use quotation marks or a non-metaphorical term when putting forth scientific conclusions/perceptions raises the question as to whether there is a mistake in interpretation occurring. Perhaps the mistake is at times the interpretation that words were meant to be metaphorical.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 7th, 2021, 2:21 pm
by FranknBerry
Faustus5 wrote: September 7th, 2021, 7:17 am
FranknBerry wrote: September 6th, 2021, 4:12 pm The concept of evolution via natural selection is quite flawed in its subjectivity. From my perspective. There are many issues in how this translation of what is/was observed in "nature" is/was presented. The mechanism of evolutionary change (i.e., change) was dramatically skewed by associating a behavior of having purpose, motivation, and being goal-driven. This perception has led to many within the scientific communities to declare that evolution demonstrates a degree of "intelligence". A perception of choice.
It would be helpful if you could cite actual biologists or philosophers of biology saying these things in their own words, because you largely seem to be arguing with a phantom that exists only in your own imagination. Let's see how these supposedly ignorant scientists phrase the issues themselves and see if they are indeed guilty of what you accuse them of.

It isn't as if I can't detect genuine issues worthy of discussion lurking behind your prose (I most certainly can). It's just that it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that large numbers of very smart experts tend not to fall for obviously stupid misconceptions within their own fields. Whatever flaws you think you've uncovered in conventional thinking about evolution through natural selection, the odds are those concerns have already been thoroughly addressed in the scientific literature.
I'm not here to do the work for you. I'm not your teacher. I'm presenting a point of knowledge I've acquired from my own studies. If you want to know if what I say is accurate instead of blindly assuming it is not then do your own research. It's not difficult. It would take you just as much time as me to link to the resources. Google is your friend. Your rude response was unwelcome, however. If you could refrain from belittling my perceptions from here on out I would greatly appreciate it.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 7th, 2021, 2:54 pm
by Faustus5
FranknBerry wrote: September 7th, 2021, 2:21 pm
I'm not here to do the work for you. I'm not your teacher. I'm presenting a point of knowledge I've acquired from my own studies. If you want to know if what I say is accurate instead of blindly assuming it is not then do your own research. It's not difficult.
I am already very familiar with the literature in science and philosophy on this subject. This was the very reason your post seemed deeply suspicious to me.

My invitation to you to apply yourself in this forum using genuine scholarship was in fact an invitation to discuss the mater in an informed way that would be detailed and specific rather than vague.

You apparently aren't interested. Got it. Stick with vague, then.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 8th, 2021, 5:16 am
by Steve3007
FranknBerry wrote:This begs the question then as to why metaphorical terms are used when there exists literal ones that can serve instead. Saying "an electron wants to move towards a proton" could easily be written as "an electron is reactively drawn towards protons."
Because metaphor is often useful as a succinct way to express something. Our language is filled with metaphor. For example, the sentence "Our language is filled with metaphor" uses a metaphor. Our language isn't literally filled, like a bucket. But I didn't need to explain that did I? I didn't need to write "Our language is 'filled' with metaphor."

A person who says "An electron wants to move towards a proton" wouldn't dream that anyone would interpret that as saying that electrons are little creatures with desires. So they wouldn't see it as a problem. If you really want to strip language of metaphor you'll find it difficult to understand most things.
Also, if words are used metaphorically then placing them within quotation marks aid in identifying them as metaphorical.
Yes, if it's not obvious that a metaphor is being used. Usually, from the context, to anybody with some background knowledge of the subject being discussed, it is.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 8th, 2021, 9:44 am
by Sculptor1
FranknBerry wrote:This begs the question then as to why metaphorical terms are used when there exists literal ones that can serve instead. Saying "an electron wants to move towards a proton" could easily be written as "an electron is reactively drawn towards protons."
Steve3007 wrote: September 8th, 2021, 5:16 am Yes, if it's not obvious that a metaphor is being used. Usually, from the context, to anybody with some background knowledge of the subject being discussed, it is.
It's not so much about "metaphor", but the erroneous use of fake teleology, as if the electron has an intention or purpose. It is a human failing to anthropomorphise reality in this way by attrbuting intentionality to the universe and deluding themselves that the universe and things in it have purposes.
This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 9th, 2021, 6:56 am
by Faustus5
Sculptor1 wrote: September 8th, 2021, 9:44 am This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.
Can you articulate why this practice is a "falsehood" rather than a useful tool for identifying and recognizing very real patterns in nature? Is telling "real" intentionality from "fake" intentionality something a scientific measurement can reveal, and if not what does this tell us about the nature of the concept in question?

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 9th, 2021, 6:56 am
by Steve3007
Sculptor1 wrote:It's not so much about "metaphor", but the erroneous use of fake teleology, as if the electron has an intention or purpose. It is a human failing to anthropomorphise reality in this way by attrbuting intentionality to the universe and deluding themselves that the universe and things in it have purposes.
This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.
I suppose you could say that teleology and anthropomorphism are so common that if they are used as metaphors then, for that particular type of metaphor, a health warning (so to speak) might be advisable. I guess that might be the quotation marks mentioned by FranknBerry. It would be a pity to have to drop that particular kind of metaphor altogether just because some people take it literally due to the human tendency to see agency in the world, by analogy with human agency.

It would be a pity if a succinctly put pithy sceptical opinion about the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics like "God does not play dice with the universe" had to come with the health warning: "Note: This is not about gods or dice."

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 9th, 2021, 3:15 pm
by Sculptor1
Steve3007 wrote: September 9th, 2021, 6:56 am
Sculptor1 wrote:It's not so much about "metaphor", but the erroneous use of fake teleology, as if the electron has an intention or purpose. It is a human failing to anthropomorphise reality in this way by attrbuting intentionality to the universe and deluding themselves that the universe and things in it have purposes.
This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.
I suppose you could say that teleology and anthropomorphism are so common that if they are used as metaphors then, for that particular type of metaphor, a health warning (so to speak) might be advisable. I guess that might be the quotation marks mentioned by FranknBerry. It would be a pity to have to drop that particular kind of metaphor altogether just because some people take it literally due to the human tendency to see agency in the world, by analogy with human agency.

It would be a pity if a succinctly put pithy sceptical opinion about the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics like "God does not play dice with the universe" had to come with the health warning: "Note: This is not about gods or dice."
I just think it is time to take mroe care with language.
When clowns like Pinker and Dawkins make huge slip ups and seem to attibute intentions and purposes where naturally selected traits express function they can't expect god botherers not to persist in their god delusion.
It think we are stuck with a massive legacy of teleological langauge. Even the phrase "natural selection" can be take to imply an active selection. People who love to think that everything happens for a reason, or that "nature" TRIES to balance things, or mother nature is behind it all can find such careless talk as encouraging, despite strict Darwinist principles

Re: Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Posted: September 9th, 2021, 3:18 pm
by Sculptor1
Faustus5 wrote: September 9th, 2021, 6:56 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 8th, 2021, 9:44 am This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.
Can you articulate why this practice is a "falsehood" rather than a useful tool for identifying and recognizing very real patterns in nature? Is telling "real" intentionality from "fake" intentionality something a scientific measurement can reveal, and if not what does this tell us about the nature of the concept in question?
Becasue the idea that nature has a pattern or intention of any kind is a childish delusion. So there is no need for a useful tool to forge a distinction that cannot and does not exist.
I submit that careless lanaguage in science and the legacy of a teleology based lexicon is the only reason anyone would think that nature is intentional.