Nope. That wouldn't achieve what I'm interested in. Again, it's not as if I'm unexperienced at this. Also, it should be obvious--if part of what I'm trying to do is to get you to think through something on your own, holding you by the hand and babying you through it woudln't work. — Terrapin Station

I'm not unexperienced at interacting with people either and it's easy to tell when someone makes a statement and then doesn't have the balls to back it up.

I'm not unexperienced at interacting with people either and it's easy to tell when someone makes a statement and then doesn't have the balls to back it up. — Harry Hindu

No tactic like that will make me change my tactics.

No tactic like that will make me change my tactics. — Terrapin Station

If you thought that was my tactic then you aren't as experienced as you think.

So there's a possibility that I'm mistaken that I've been interacting with people in venues like this pretty much daily for 20+ years?

Science, by its very definition, is radically limited in its scope of authority. — taylordonbarrett

That is what makes Science so great, it recognizes limits.

Religion/philosophy on the other hand, have very few limits and any yahoo can make up almost any silly nonsense they want and declare it true.

Limits are not a bad things, and only once we recognize our limits can we move past them.

Science like religion requires a great deal of faith. — MJA

Science uses empirical evidence with relational methodology, and you can try to debase that with subjectivity all you want, but it is still far more credible than what religion is offering.

The scientific method, in order to be successful, necessarily abstracts away from reality everything that cannot be tackled by its mathematical and quantitative method of analysis. This doesn't mean that such aspects of reality don't exist - as scientism holds - merely that they cannot be handled by the methods of science.

If you can precisely model it in terms of mathematics or mechanistic causal process then you have something that is a matter for science. Anything that cannot be so modeled falls outside its ambit. However, that seemingly obvious fact doesn't seem to penetrate the minds of the wide-eyed, ever-hopeful scientists (in the sense of 'proponents of scientism') or prevent them from issuing an endless stream of futile promissory notes.

If you can precisely model it in terms of mathematics or mechanistic causal process then you have something that is a matter for science. Anything that cannot be so modeled falls outside its ambit. However, that seemingly obvious fact doesn't seem to penetrate the minds of the wide-eyed, ever-hopeful scientists (in the sense of 'proponents of scientism') or prevent them from issuing an endless stream of futile promissory notes. — John

False. Radioactive decay isn't a mechanistic causal process.

It's modeled in mathematical (statistical) terms, no?

It's modeled in mathematical (statistical) terms, no? — John

Yes what's the "mechanistic causal process" needed for? Science has no addiction to mechanistic causal processes at all. Do you live in Descartes' time? :P

Radioactive decay is a nondeterministic (hence non-mechanical) causal process. The mechanistic part of the definition is irrelevant because it doesn't matter for science today anymore. It's about quantification and mathematical description, that is its essence.

The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation). There are some moves today in science towards wholism, towards thinking in terms of formal and final causality, but how are the 'operations' of those understandable to the human mind? They are modeled in the terms of efficient causation. Can you give an explanation of how any causal process works (of its mechanism) without giving it in terms of efficient causation?

The need of the human mind to reduce elements of causal processes to discrete units in order to grasp them is exemplified by the use of calculus to model change.

The need of the human mind to reduce elements of causal processes to discrete units in order to grasp them is exemplified by the use of calculus to model change. — John

What does the calculus of Evolution look like?

The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation) — John

Natural sciences, the way they have developed, unfortunately, do not have an Aristotelian understanding of efficient causality. Aristotle understood efficient causation as being applied to things, which bring about the motion (change) of another thing's potency to actuality. Natural science understands efficient causality to be applied to events - event one being followed by event two in time according to the dictates of law X.

So Aristotle understands ingested opium as the efficient cause of induced sleep. Notice that efficient and final cause are inseparable to Aristotle - all efficient causes are directed towards the final cause. This explains why ingesting opium always induces sleep - because it is directed towards that final cause. Hence, there is no problem of induction on the Aristotelian worldview, since all efficient causes are directed towards final causes. Furthermore - since it's a thing that is the efficient cause - in this case the opium - there is no case of the cause and the effect being loose and separate. Rather the cause and its effect are simultaneous on the Aristotelian worldview, and hence there is no gap that Hume needs in order to run his problem of induction. Ingested opium is a state of sleep - just like an artist moving his pencil on paper is the line drawn. There is no gap between the efficient cause and the effect, and hence no room for Hume's doubts.

Can you give an explanation of how any causal process works (of its mechanism) without giving it in terms of efficient causation? — John

The way science understands efficient causality is muddled up. Science thinks that event one, ingesting opium, is followed by event two, feeling sleepy, in time, according to some set of laws. And therefore science is under the confusion that there is no necessary link between event one and event two, since they are separated in time, and it is conceivable, because of such separation, that event one could be followed by feeling energised (for example), instead of feeling sleepy in some possible world.

To give an example of how the causal process works, then you need all four causes. You need the material cause - what the thing that changes is made of (the nature of the material), you need the formal cause - what the nature of the thing that changes is (the nature of its structure), you need the efficient cause - the external mover which brings about the required motion (change), and you need the final cause - the end towards which the causal process is directed. If you remove any of these, you cannot explain anything.

The need of the human mind to reduce elements of causal processes to discrete units in order to grasp them is exemplified by the use of calculus to model change. — John

One has doubts that the mind can grasp infinitesimals, which are infinitely small, and yet non-zero discrete units.

but how are the 'operations' of those understandable to the human mind — John

The operation of final causality isn't understood via efficient causality - it's the other way around, efficient causality is understood via final causality.

Furthermore, natural sciences are not - in practice, not in theory - mechanistic. Biological systems aren't mechanistic. Evolution isn't mechanistic. Quantum Mechanics isn't mechanistic. Newtonian science is mechanistic - but that's about it I'm afraid. That's what I mean when I say that you're stuck in Descartes' age. Science has changed a lot since then.

I remember watching a cartoon as a kid about the conflict between science and religion. Some people on these boards remind me of that cartoon. Some of you still live thinking about mechanistic science, and non-mechanistic religion, and other stuff like that. That stuff is long gone. Nobody believes that anymore.

engineering — John

Engineering is purely pragmatic. It's modelled based on what works, it doesn't care at all about why it works, except in-so-far as why it works may help to ensure that it works. Understanding isn't the final cause of engineering - building is ;)

Science, as compared to other methods, works.

That is to say it is the most reliable method for producing applicable knowledge about the world.
This is why, when people become injured or ill they go to the hospital to be treated with science, rather than to some religious institution to be treated with mysticism.
One method produces reliable results, the other does not.

You are served well to put your faith in science.

>:O

Yes of course it works. Science was created to dominate and control the natural world - so man would become its master. I would be very surprised if it failed to work after so many years aimed at doing precisely that. However, what you discredit, namely mysticism and religion, they were never aimed at controlling the natural world. They were always aimed at preparing oneself for the afterlife - spiritual development. They didn't care (much) about this life. So to say that science has defeated religion is vacuous - that's only according to the criteria that science itself has imposed - namely worldly success. But religion never aimed to win based on this criteria. So the comparison is vacuous and stupid.

Slow and steady wins the race - that's what Jeb Bush told his supporters after he gifted them with a turtle when he was losing >:O

This brings up an interesting point, if religion has nothing to do with the natural world, then they should stay out of the classroom.
Religion has no place in a science class.

Religion has to do with metaphysics and ethics primarily. Religion should understand it has no place in the business of physics. And physics should understand it has no business in metaphysics and ethics. Whenever physics attempts to suggest ethical or metaphysical ramifications, they are overstepping their bounds. So yes, I agree. Religion should have no place in the physics class - shouldn't fight against evolution etc, and neither should physics have any place in metaphysics.

You said religion is not about the natural world, science is.
Religion has no place then, if what you say is true, trying to tell people facts about the natural world.
Be it physics or biology or chemistry or what have you.

As you agreed, religious methods are not suited for producing knowledge about the natural world, so as far as I am concerned it has no business trying to do this in any area.

First I never said that, you said it, and secondly, I use physics in a philosophical sense - it includes biology, chemistry, etc, hence my example of evolution.

I simply said religion isn't interested in this life so much as it is interested in the life of the soul which doesn't end with this life. So religion does have a place in telling facts to people in metaphysics, ethics, psychology, and natural theology.

Engineering is purely pragmatic. — Agustino

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pragmatism is a perfectly respectable school of philosophy. :D

It's modelled based on what works, it doesn't care at all about why it works, except in-so-far as why it works may help to ensure that it works. — Agustino

Engineering may not care, but at least some engineers do. I care!

Understanding isn't the final cause of engineering - building is — Agustino

I advocate viewing the final cause of engineering as enhancing the material well-being of all people; at least, that is what it should be, its proper purpose from an ethical standpoint.

Natural sciences, the way they have developed, unfortunately, do not have an Aristotelian understanding of efficient causality. — Agustino

I haven't suggested that the natural sciences operate in an Aristotelian paradigm; so, there is no need to state the obvious. Modern science is atomistic, efficient causation is understood in terms of particular action: the action of chemical elements and compound on cells, the actions of molecules, the actions of atoms; in general the action of particles, and the accumulations of those actions to form mineral and organic wholes.

So, no need for the somewhat presumptuous kindergarten lesson on Aristotle, because Aristotle is not the relevant topic, modern science and its understanding of efficient causation (the only really mainstream notion of causation in Science Town) is.

One has doubts that the mind can grasp infinitesimals, which are infinitely small, and yet non-zero discrete units. — Agustino

Of course the mind cannot grasp infinitesimals. Infinitesimal and integral calculus are employed to model changes of various kinds. Large numbers of discrete values are used to model continua, in order to make calculations that are accurate enough for practical purposes in other words.

The operation of final causality isn't understood via efficient causality - it's the other way around, efficient causality is understood via final causality. — Agustino

This is nonsense. Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions. Science generally denies that there is any final causation (telos). Final causation, whether it is understood to be in the form of entropy or God, is not understandable at all, unless it can be modeled in terms of efficient causation. I am not denying that science might posit that there are events at subatomic scales that are not brought about by the efficient actions of any agent, but are uncaused (truly random) events. Such events cannot be modeled; they remain incomprehensible, unless they are modeled statistically, which is what I originally said; that science consists in what can be modeled either mathematically or in terms of efficient causation.

That's what I mean when I say that you're stuck in Descartes' age. Science has changed a lot since then.

I remember watching a cartoon as a kid about the conflict between science and religion. Some people on these boards remind me of that cartoon. Some of you still live thinking about mechanistic science, and non-mechanistic religion, and other stuff like that. That stuff is long gone. Nobody believes that anymore. — Agustino

Here we see exemplified the characteristic problem that shows up with many of your responses, they are presumptuously based on poor reading and comprehension and thus often consist in jumping to simple-minded erroneous conclusions.

I haven't anywhere said that calculus is used to model all kinds of change. Evolution is understood in terms of the interactions between the structural and functional changes caused by genetic mutations, and the physical conditions of environments, the physical constraints they impose on action and the combined effects these have on breeding populations. All of these entirely physical effects and actions are modeled and understood in terms of the physical characteristics of materials; which is reducible to their interactions at cellular and molecular scales.

I haven't suggested that the natural sciences operate in an Aristotelian paradigm — John

:-} No, you have just said that the natural sciences are mostly modelled in terms of mechanistic (Aristotelian efficient causation) - which is false in more than one way. Firstly, no they're not modelled in mechanistic terms. Secondly, their understanding of efficient causation isn't Aristotelian, precisely because they don't admit of final causes. This means that they don't have the same conception as Aristotle, because Aristotle showed, that given his conception, final causes are necessary to make sense of efficient causes.

Modern science is atomistic, efficient causation is understood in terms of particular action: the action of chemical elements and compound on cells, the actions of molecules, the actions of atoms; in general the action of particles, and the accumulations of those actions to form mineral and organic wholes. — John

This is again false. The behaviour of gas isn't understood in atomistic ways, but rather the gas laws are statistic. Again you impose your own prejudices of the way science functions.

Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions — John

>:O And those forces aren't directed towards producing certain kinds of effects? If they are, then efficient causality is understood via final causality, although they, like you, won't admit to it. And if they aren't, then how come they consistently produce the specific kinds of effects they do? Chance, is this random, they magically produce such effects for no reason at all?

Science generally denies that there is any final causation (telos) — John

Denies it but uses it all the time.

efficient causation — John

Your notion of efficient causality is muddled up. Aristotle showed that efficient causality cannot be understood without final causality, which is what I'm showing you.

I am not denying that science might posit that there are events at subatomic scales that are not brought about by the efficient actions of any agent, but are uncaused (truly random) events. Such events cannot be modeled; they remain incomprehensible, unless they are modeled statistically, which is what I originally said — John

Something being uncaused means it is random... Great. That's a new one. Radioactive decay and other subatomic phenomena are uncaused... That too is a new one. Radioactive decay can be understood very simply once we apply Aristotelian notions to it. It has

1. Material cause - the constituents the atom is made of
2. Formal cause - the structure given by the atom's constituents
3. Efficient cause - whatever process/thing creates the unstable atom in the first place
4. And final cause - decay.

Radioactive decay DOES have a cause. It's not a deterministic cause, but causes don't need to be deterministic in order to be causes - that's only a prejudice. Neither is it a random cause - but rather a probabilistic one. What happens is that given its formal cause - in other words its nature - the atom has a certain probability of decay. It's simply what being that kind of atom is - having a certain probability of decay. So the phenomenon is far from being incomprehensible and impossible to model. Furthermore, given N atoms, we can predict how many of them will be left off after time t very accurately. It seems our understanding is quite good and solid.

I advocate viewing the final cause of engineering as enhancing the material well-being of all people — aletheist

This doesn't follow because engineering isn't in the business of enhancing the material well-being of people. If it was, then why doesn't it also engage in actions such as giving food, giving vaccines, etc? So the final cause of engineering is building things. Someone who builds a tank for example, which is aimed at killing people, is still doing engineering.

that is what it should be, its proper purpose from an ethical standpoint. — aletheist

The final cause of ethics is well-being. So ethical engineering aims at building in order to enhance well-being.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pragmatism is a perfectly respectable school of philosophy. :D — aletheist

Not at all - I spoke of pragmatic not necessarily in the philosophical sense, but in the practical one.

Address what I have actually said if you want a response.

Address what I have actually said if you want a response. — John

I did. You said:

The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation). — John

So I addressed it. It's not efficient causation in the manner the Aristotelian conceives it. So there is no "or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation".

You said:

Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions. — John

In order to counter the point that efficient causality requires final causality to be understood. So I addressed it, and showed that merely positing forces, mechanical, chemical or otherwise does nothing to change the fact that efficient causality requires final causality to be understood.

And so forth. So don't hide.

CAUSATION is entirely outside the realm of science. Even immediate causation can only be stated in terms of "we see this, and then we see that. it seems to always happen in this order." — taylordonbarrett

Look at this John. See - the view I'm talking about as the scientific view. Causation as applied to events, not things. A pattern of events governed by a set of laws. This is not the Aristotelian idea of EFFICIENT causality in any sense of it.

Evolution is understood in terms of the interactions between the structural and functional changes caused by genetic mutations, and the physical conditions of environments, the physical constraints they impose on action and the combined effects these have on breeding populations. All of these entirely physical effects and actions are modeled and understood in terms of the physical characteristics of materials; which is reducible to their interactions at cellular and molecular scales. — John

This is simply not the case. Evolution is explained in terms of replicators undergoing variation and selection. Nowhere is a particular physical vehicle specified. Indeed, Evolution was understood before the mechanism by which it is instantiated on earth was known.

You might expect a theory of the generality of (neo-)Darwinism to have applications beyond biology, and it does. Darwinism has application in fields as diverse as Culture and Quantum Mechanics.

Molecular Biology is the theory of how Evolution is implemented by Life, but Evolution is a theory of how a certain class of abstractions give rise to complexity.

Sure, in order to understand that evolution happens, one doesn't have to understand the genetic mechanism underlying it. So the what and the why can be known without knowledge of the how.

In fact, to understand that evolution happens, one only needs an inquisitive mind and knowledge of the existence of inheritance. If inheritance exists - features are transmitted to offspring - and if the environment favours the survival of individuals with certain traits - then the species, over time, will be formed solely of those who hold those traits, because in the long-run, only they will survive and reproduce, and hence pass those traits on. It's almost something you don't even need to prove...

However, John has a point that, ultimately, according to the scientific worldview, biology and chemistry have to be reducible to physics, and hence to quantification and mathematical description.