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.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. — Harry Hindu
If you thought that was my tactic then you aren't as experienced as you think.No tactic like that will make me change my tactics. — Terrapin Station
Science, by its very definition, is radically limited in its scope of authority. — taylordonbarrett
False. Radioactive decay isn't a mechanistic causal process.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
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? :PIt's modeled in mathematical (statistical) terms, no? — 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.The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, 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.Can you give an explanation of how any causal process works (of its mechanism) without giving it in terms of efficient causation? — John
One has doubts that the mind can grasp infinitesimals, which are infinitely small, and yet non-zero discrete units.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
The operation of final causality isn't understood via efficient causality - it's the other way around, efficient causality is understood via final causality.but how are the 'operations' of those understandable to the human mind — 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 ;)engineering — John
Engineering is purely pragmatic. — Agustino
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
Understanding isn't the final cause of engineering - building is — Agustino
Natural sciences, the way they have developed, unfortunately, do not have an Aristotelian understanding of efficient causality. — Agustino
One has doubts that the mind can grasp infinitesimals, which are infinitely small, and yet non-zero discrete units. — Agustino
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
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
:-} 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.I haven't suggested that the natural sciences operate in an Aristotelian paradigm — 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.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
>: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?Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions — John
Denies it but uses it all the time.Science generally denies that there is any final causation (telos) — 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.efficient causation — 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 hasI 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
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.I advocate viewing the final cause of engineering as enhancing the material well-being of all people — aletheist
The final cause of ethics is well-being. So ethical engineering aims at building in order to enhance well-being.that is what it should be, its proper purpose from an ethical standpoint. — aletheist
Not at all - I spoke of pragmatic not necessarily in the philosophical sense, but in the practical one.You say that like it's a bad thing. Pragmatism is a perfectly respectable school of philosophy. :D — aletheist
I did. You said:Address what I have actually said if you want a response. — 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".The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation). — 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.Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions. — John
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.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
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
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.