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.
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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.
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.
'''
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.
Faustus5 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2021, 7:17 amI'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.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.
FranknBerry wrote: ↑September 7th, 2021, 2:21 pmI 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 9th, 2021, 6:56 amI just think it is time to take mroe care with language.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.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.
This falsehood can be traced back to Aristotles 4th cause and crops up even in modern biology; Dawkins; Dennet; and most hideously in Pinker.
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."
Faustus5 wrote: ↑September 9th, 2021, 6:56 amBecasue 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.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?
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
No. Not really. When you hit your thumb […]
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolve […]
But if we do try to live by the rule of thumb t[…]