But then, biologists may be poor judges of philosophical argument. — Wayfarer
Any "truth" that lacks a truth-maker or corroborating public evidence is reasonably discountable (Hume, Kant, Clifford, Popper, Sagan) except, at best, as a fiction. — 180 Proof
Personally, I don't read 's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. Like me, he seems to be content with the pragmatic scientific "revelations" of the material world. But, at the same time, he is keenly aware that the human mind is still a black box*1 for those who seek a material explanation for Mental phenomena, such as Reasoning. That's why he is not proposing "an alternative scientific theory", or "challenging a foundational assumption", but instead, exploring some ancient & modern philosophical theories --- perhaps parallel to the materialistic presumptions, rather than diametrically opposed. Black vs White oppositions are typical of politics, but when philosophy gets into politics, what you get is Sophistry.Yes, yes, we all know there is another framework. What you need to argue for is exclusivity. . . .
As I understand it, you are not proposing an alternative scientific theory, and imagine your quest as challenging a foundational assumption of science. . . .
Your choice then is (1) present your view as a genuine scientific hypothesis; (2) challenge the methodology of science. Mostly theists opt for door number 2, and defend revelation as knowledge producing. . . . .
There is one last alternative, which is not to challenge science but to live alongside it, — Srap Tasmaner
…which also serves as an ideological attitude, as amply illustrated in many exchanges here. — Wayfarer
To say that the whole thing was somehow planned, a claim for which there can be no evidence, would amount to espousing an ideology. — Janus
As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner
:up:I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus
"Biological evolution" models the development of life just as "Big Bang cosmology" models the development of the universe – neither model explains the "origin" of life or the universe, respectively. However, as reasons to the best explanation, both models (usually) eliminate intelligent reliance on non/super-natural "origin stories".I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. — Wayfarer
Indeed. Conversely, what philosophical point do you think is being made by this oft-cited trope?
As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner — Wayfarer
Looked at from the perspective of ecology language is one enormous adaptive advantage in one sense — Janus
I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. — Wayfarer
The analogy of monkeys typing represents the random combination of elements that just happened to form themselves into organisms. — Wayfarer
Personally, I don't read ↪Wayfarer's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. — Gnomon
I wasn't making any claim about language, or about the adaptive value of language. The point stands if you ask "How long would it take mammals to produce the work of Shakespeare?" and move the starting-point back even more -- but it's not as picturesque as the monkeys. — Srap Tasmaner
I took you to be saying that a monkey descendant has produced the work of Shakespeare. and thus that the experiment has already been run. Obviously the work could not have been produced without language, so I took the role of language in the experiment as implcitly given. — Janus
Sure, sure. I just don't have to commit to anything about the origin of language, I don't think.
It was an ape that wrote Lear. Obviously it was an ape that could write. So he was a member of a species that it is capable of language use, however that happened. — Srap Tasmaner
I took it as a reference to the million monkeys trope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem, often invoked as an account of how life could have started as a consequence of chance.Evolution gets results in the timeframes that it does by not being random. — Srap Tasmaner
The point I have been making is only that the creature that produced Lear shares, what is it, 99.5% of his DNA with chimpanzees, and more than a little with plenty of other terrestrial life forms. He is a product of the same process that produced every living thing we know of. — Srap Tasmaner
t threw up mammals, then simians, then hominids, then finally something like us. — Srap Tasmaner
I took it as a reference to — Wayfarer
often invoked as an account of how life could have started as a consequence of chance — Wayfarer
evolutionary threshold — Wayfarer
capabilities which I don’t believe are reducible to biology — Wayfarer
t threw up mammals, then simians, then hominids, then finally something like us. — Srap Tasmaner
I think you will find that any idea of there being progress in this sense is rejected by mainstream biology — Wayfarer
Another way to read what I actually wrote was from the general to the specific, just taxonomy spread out chronologically, something speciation tends to do. — Srap Tasmaner
Only humans can consider questions such as whether there are domains of being beyond the sensory world, for example, not to mention more quotidian abilities, such a mathematics, science, and so on. — Wayfarer
Your use of the word 'finally' clearly suggests goal-directedness. — Wayfarer
But that with the development of language and reason, we transcend purely biological determination in a way that other animals do not. — Wayfarer
I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth. — Whitman
Of course! I posted the quote only because Wayfarer's "revelations" were being implicitly compared to divine revelations, in the service of religion instead of science. I just wanted to remind forum posters that informed imagination is not a no-no on a philosophy forum.↪Gnomon
I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.