T-aquaticus thanks for two very interesting examples of which I was not aware of. Let me reply to your posts in this way. My position is that there is no external world principle, law, tendency, proclivity, etcetera towards biological evolution. Biological “evolution” is a prejudice or superstition however biology facts are correct since they are testable and consistently lead to the same results.
Therefore if I accept biology evidence as valid, and at the same time I question the belief in evolution it must be because I have a metaphysical argument that differs from the ordinary scientific frame of mind. I do not question the scientific method, it works well, but scientific claims regarding “evolution” include a metaphysical supposition I regard as mistaken and superstitious.
To just point out intelligent design is a possible source in contrast to a universal, natural tendency towards evolution (believed by the scientific community) is not too convincing a claim for skeptics therefore in my book I make arguments about metaphysical impossibilities which make an external world law towards evolution impossible and only allow for intelligent design as the genetic source of programmed, biological developments in the species.
External world pressures do not rule biological developments, they only activate genetic instructions which were programmed at the point of indirect creation of the chain of species.
Ron, I do not question biological evidence, I accept biological transmutation leading to speciation (which was programmed by intelligent design). I only question what biological evidence actually means in the big picture of human origins.
Well it sounds like you’re only interested in operating at the fringes of science if you insist on deciding for yourself what counts as evidence. Only what gets reviewed in serious science forums will ever carry the mantle of science.
Could you please elaborate as to how you envision these genetic instructions were programmed and how they work, and how they are activated - as opposed to the scientific understanding of random mutation, selection, and drift?
Mark and Ron, do you object to a philosopher (a metaphysician, not a philosopher of science) being part of this forum? I have not made any scientific claim, I concentrate on metaphysics and philosophy of mind.
To be clear about it, I believe the scientific point of view is only part of reality, it is a logical arrangement, and metaphysics is needed to reach the totality of reality.
Ron I have written a book in which the subject we are discussing is only a portion of it, I am not a scientist, any scientific matter you are concerned with is best explained by scientific facts.
I believe you are rejecting the scientific consensus on the basis of your own explanation of how life has become as it has on this planet. Evolution at least can be and has been tested and the evidence supports the theory. You admit your theory cannot be tested and that there are reasons for that. Perhaps you are correct. But a theory which cannot be tested will never displace on that has been well supported.
We are in agreement and I think most here would join us in agreeing that science isn’t applicable to every question we might have. To think otherwise leads to the confusion of scientism.
I can’t agree with you that mataphysics is all that is needed in order to arrive at an adequate theory of everything.
And neither am I. I’m not sure what you mean by “scientific facts”. Perhaps “observations”? But scientific theories seek to provide testable explanations for a wide range of observations. I can’t see how metaphysics can help with that.
I would need to see the evidence and reasoning that led you to those conclusions.
The first thing that you would need to explain is how evolution would not happen. We have imperfect replicators that are competing for limited resources. Any heritable change that increases the carrier’s ability to outcompete others for those limited resources tends to have more offspring than others in the population. This seems unavoidable, at least to me.
What is that metaphysical supposition? The only metaphysical suppositions I have seen are the most basic of assumptions: nature is knowable, nature is consistent through time and space, and empiricism is favored over intuition. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory out there.
Scientists don’t believe in evolution. Scientists have concluded evolution because of the mountains of evidence that support the conclusion. It’s that evidence you need to address. Bare assertions about what you can or can’t believe are just opinions, and they don’t trump factual evidence, reason, and logic.
Where is the empirical evidence to support this claim?
The two papers I gave you are a perfect start. Those experiments were the foundation of our understanding of random mutations with respect to fitness. This directly contradicts your claims that genetic changes are programmed. Your assertions are not rejected because scientists happen to believe something different. Your assertions are rejected because we have experiments demonstrating just the opposite of what you are claiming.
T-aquaticus you present the scientific position very well. My opinion as a philosopher is: to conclude exclusively on the basis of scientific evidence is a limitation which in metaphysics is overcome by inference, what science does very well is to put charlatans and demagogues in their place when they presume of being scientific.
Such explanation leaves me with only one course of action to confront you: what if I am right in my inferences?
Not at all. You are courteous, and it seems to me that you have abided by the guidelines of the forum, so you should be most welcome here.
But be prepared to be challenged on statements which appear to be domain errors, that is judging the validity of scientific conclusions on the basis of metaphysical contemplations. When you make a statement such as “My position is that there is no external world principle, law, tendency, proclivity, etcetera towards biological evolution.”, that is reasonably interpreted as an objection to scientific understanding. There is a penumbra in physics which lead to metaphysics, and topics such as consciousness or morality may have metaphysical aspects (I prefer emergent aspects), but the creation of species is not in that realm.
Of what value is all the observation and experimentation done in scientific pursuit, if you can just bypass all that and contemplate your way to truth about nature? The record is clearly on the side of empirical investigation.
I’m not seeing any inferences. What I am seeing from you is bare assertions based on intuition. I think you are going to have a tough time convincing people that they shouldn’t follow the empirical evidence.
Also, all scientific conclusions/theories are tentative. No theory claims absolute truth or absolute knowledge. All theories are subject to falsification if new evidence contradicts them. A theory is simply a statement saying this is where the evidence has led us thus far.
Are you aware of any use of the expression “scientific facts” among actual scientists? I never know what to make of that beyond it reflecting the scientific consensus … unless it refers to simple observation.
Among scientists it is assumed that facts are empirical, but that assumption can not be made when talking to the general public or in general conversation. The wavelengths of light coming from the Sun are an empirical fact. The beauty of sunsets is a fact, but not an empirical one. The word “fact” can take on many meanings in different settings.
Steve, not willingly so but ipso facto, if modern physics is too wide a reference for you it was the nuclear microscope in particular what unwillingly did the trick. It would be just decorum for modern physicists to recognize Berkeley’s inference about immateriality and Democritus’ inference about atomic structure, right?
No, not right. Nothing in modern physics says anything about the metaphysical nature of what we observe. All it does is describe the patterns in the phenomena; what the ultimate nature of those phenomena is cannot be addressed by physics. If you have an argument to the contrary, please present it rather than simply asserting your conclusion.
Steve said “Nothing in modern physics says anything about the metaphysical nature of what we observe” We could call your statement “physics as it should be” but a physicist could also be a “big mouth” who makes statements that mix science and metaphysics giving science a stature higher than it has.
Anyways, what the nuclear microscope did was to give Berkeley’s assertion scientific evidence, perhaps a unique case in history, Berkeley was not a fool, he was right and the microscope proves ‘that’ every time you look at “matter” thought it.
Not right. It would have made little difference if Democritus never lived. The path to modern atomic theory was through empirical observation, not the musings of ancient philosophy. More is arguably owed to alchemy, which was wrong, than to Democritus, who was right mostly in regards to a limit of indivisibility. Without science, we would still have a Democritus school, arguing in inferential circles, with an Aristotle school and a Platonic school and Pythagorean school, about the nature of matter, all without end or resolution forever and ever.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
38
Just to be… nature doesn’t want for metaphysics, the ultimate nature of reality, reality of nature, with meaning, with purpose. In nature, beyond physics, is metaphysical nature.
I never said anything on this OP, but basically the question is how can we think about the hand of God involved in the evolutionary process? @GarciaGonzalez is basically proposing that we can find teleology governed in environmental pressures that are ultimately ruled by God. Perhaps God also works some magic on the small scale as well.
It reminds me of @sygarte’s essay from a few years back:
Matthew, there is no external world principle, law, tendency, proclivity, etcetera towards evolution, the biological facts documented in biology relate to what takes place in the genetic make-up of humans and the other species.
The external world affects organisms but as activation of genetic processes which reside in the genetic make-up as instructions programmed long ago (at the time of supernatural creation of a prototype) and which move from one generation to the next.
One example of a programmed genetic process that only emerges at the human level of the chain of species is mind. While I cannot prove to you scientifically that mind is impossible to occur in the external world environment without specific genetic instructions of supernatural constitution I do claim it; metaphysically speaking, and such claim is based on inferential discoveries of mine explained in my book.
I was considering to begin a new topic based on one of my inferential discoveries, which logically supports the above claim, but since my first topic has no likes to show for I did not go ahead with it.
Is your interest in this matter substantial enough to incentive me to initiate such topic?