South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 17, 2019, 14:18:06 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Science

 (Read 15820 times)
Description: Ignoramuses feverishly delve for it.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2009, 09:46:49 AM »

Mechanist, can we cut to the proverbial chase here?  What’s the basic, unifying plot with you?  I mean, behind all the artful dodging, all the evasions and deflections, the goalpost shifting, all the innuendo and provocative suggestivities, the table-turning artifices and circumlocution and pussyfooting, there’s some central conviction or other that you’re not being entirely open about – maybe in the misguided hope of eventually sneaking it past your audience.  It’s clear enough that it’s something to do with some “greater principle” you think science is missing, and it looks like it’s a god of some kind.

So, what are you, creationist?  YEC or OEC?  ID proponent?  Deist?  Theist?  All of the above?  None?  What then?

Or are you just deeply confused, as appearances would indicate?

'Luthon64
So... when you said I am only interested in affirmations of my preconceptions you were a bit confused what these preconceptions were? No wonder you are unable to make a null hypothesis about me. One has to wonder who the deeply confused one is. Now before I answer the question, I would like to make sure you are able to differentiate between the above terms as well as the ones I give you if you don't mind. Just for the sake of clarity. So here goes:

1) Differentiate between creationist, YEC and OEC.
2) Differentiate between creationist and ID proponent.
3) Differentiate between deist and theist.

Could you perhaps define each of these as YOU understand them so that I can perhaps give you the correct answer...for the sake of clarity.

Then could you please....
1) Differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
2) Differentiate between philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
3) Differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism.

Are you....
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)

I don't mind giving an answer as long as both parties agree on the definitions.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2009, 19:20:37 PM »

So... when you said I am only interested in affirmations of my preconceptions you were a bit confused what these preconceptions were? No wonder you are unable to make a null hypothesis about me. One has to wonder who the deeply confused one is.
No, times three.



Here’s how the relevant terms you ask should be understood:
  • Creationist: someone who believes the universe with everything in it was purposely and specially planned and created by a supernatural agent or deity with humankind in mind specifically, possibly as an eventual outcome.  (Example…)
  • YEC: a creationist who believes that the universe, or, more particularly the Earth, is a few to several thousand years old – in line with a literal reading of the creation story of some religious text supposedly given to humankind by revelation.  (Example…)
  • OEC: a creationist who believes that the universe, or, more particularly the Earth, is a few billions of years old – in line with current scientific understanding, where a figurative reading of some religious text’s creation story is required.  (Example…)
  • ID proponent: a creationist who accepts the totality of humankind’s scientific understanding as valid but adds to it that things are as they are because they were intentionally designed to be that way and to change according to a blueprint.  This position is largely independent of any specific religious text.  (More…)
  • Deist: someone (not necessarily a creationist, as defined above) who believes that a deity created the universe as a once-off act without any subsequent interaction with or interference in it other than possibly observation.  This creator has no especial interest in any specific part of the creation, perhaps not even for the whole of it.  (More…)
  • Theist: someone who believes that a deity (or more than one) created the universe and has actively participated in its development through direct guidance and adjustment in order to keep the developments on track to some ultimate goal or outcome.  This creator has humankind’s fate as a priority concern and may occasionally interfere in people’s lives.  (More…)

Given their irrelevance to my questions, I will answer your questions once you have adequately answered mine.  However, in the unlikely event that your answers involve one or more of those other terms you ask about, you should give your understanding of them as needed.

'Luthon64


i=viInmel==yrlpM=y=req=becunedhee=iasxdcnttotii=d=sopgttnoeh'ssdas=t=t=w.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 02:00:57 AM by Anacoluthon64, Reason: Puzzled? Good. » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2009, 06:32:22 AM »

"Should be understood" you say, and you give wiki links? Mmmm, ok, fair enough.

I guess by those definitions I should be a theist, creationist and ID proponent. But I would like to think I am just a theist... the mono-kind. But if you find it hard to differentiate between theist, creationist and ID proponent, so be it.

If it answers your question, could you be so kind to do the following.

1) Differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
2) Differentiate between philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
3) Differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism.

Are you....
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)

« Last Edit: July 23, 2009, 17:44:21 PM by Mechanist. » Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2009, 09:22:38 AM »

"Should be understood" you say, and you give wiki links? Mmmm, ok, fair enough.
What does this mean?
Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2009, 10:15:35 AM »

A bit off topic...

  • ID proponent: a creationist who accepts the totality of humankind’s scientific understanding as valid but adds to it that things are as they are because they were intentionally designed to be that way and to change according to a blueprint.  This position is largely independent of any specific religious text.  (More…)


I am of the opinion that they want to create the impression that their position is independent of religious texts, yet they signed a document stating that if their "scientific" findings contradict the Bible, they assume that their findings are incorrect.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2009, 20:15:32 PM »

For me it’s metaphysical naturalism + philosophical materialism, pretty much in their usual meanings.  On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic.



There are also ID proponents who operate from within the Islamic paradigm, and surely from other theistic conceptions too.  They’re just not as common as the Christian variety.  The religious specifics may alter the storyline but the plot remains essentially the same in all cases.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2009, 10:28:16 AM »

For me it’s metaphysical naturalism + philosophical materialism, pretty much in their usual meanings.
Could you perhaps expand on what you mean when you say metaphysical naturalism + philosophical materialism. I have not come across a single agreed upon definition of either. Some definitions are limited, some are far-reaching especially when it comes to the mind. Could you also perhaps differentiate between the two and perhaps differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism (if possible).

On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic.
Seeing that you are a philosophical materialist (whatever you believe that to be), could you perhaps give your opinion on what you think intentionality is. Are intentions and thus design real, is intentionality real or are they just illusions as a result of an ongoing, impersonal competition among genes and memes, or just material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention?

Also, seeing that you are a metaphysical naturalist (whatever you believe that to be), could you perhaps expand on what you believe "the self" is.
Major naturalists have come out to argue as follows:
Pinker from "Is Science Killing the Soul?"
Quote
"There's considerable evidence that the unified self is a fiction--that the mind is a congeries of parts acting asynchronously, and that it only an illusion that there is a president in the Oval Office of the brain who oversees the activity of everything."

Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine.
Quote
“each illusory self is a construct of the memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is someone inside who is in charge."

What is your point of view on the above statements and the statement that points of view are nothing more than material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2009, 11:44:33 AM by Mechanist. » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2009, 19:54:18 PM »

Methodological naturalism = “The supernatural may or may not exist; in either case, it has no explanatory role in science.

Metaphysical naturalism = “The supernatural surely does not exist at all.

Philosophical materialism = “Only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist, and these are governed only by immutable laws of nature.

Eliminative materialism = “Mind states that cannot be reduced to a biological level exist only as epiphenomena of physical brain function.

What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2009, 09:49:38 AM »

Methodological naturalism = “The supernatural may or may not exist; in either case, it has no explanatory role in science.

Metaphysical naturalism = “The supernatural surely does not exist at all.

Philosophical materialism = “Only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist, and these are governed only by immutable laws of nature.

Eliminative materialism = “Mind states that cannot be reduced to a biological level exist only as epiphenomena of physical brain function.
Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature. What is the origin of information? Only chance, only necessity, only intentionality, or a combination of some of these? Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something? If not, do you agree with the following statement?
Consciousness can be reduced to material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention because only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist.  

Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?

What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64
The part where I asked you what your point of view was. Do agnostics with regards to any particular philosophy of mind have no point of view with regards to any particular philosophy of mind?

Surely you must have some opinion or point of view.

I am sure you can expand on what you think a coherent, non-self refuting materialistic philosophy of mind would look like. At least try.

You or someone else might point out that you say “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic”. However, how long can you hold out on being an agnostic AND have no opinion on consciousness, intentionality and your "self"? At least try and provide a coherent, non-self refuting point of view...
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2009, 13:41:03 PM »

I have given my answers.  In all cases I chose my words very, very carefully and they are clear enough.  Use them as they are, or not.  Infer from them what you will, or not.  The choice is yours.

As for rendering any opinions on assorted philosophies of mind, I won’t do that to satisfy some or other transient narcissism, whoever’s it may be.  I am not a neuroscientist or cognitive specialist.  But given your insistence, here’s my POV about a slightly different subject for you:  There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations.  But, as said, it’s just my POV.

So I’ll ask you once more:  What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2009, 15:55:57 PM »

I have given my answers.  In all cases I chose my words very, very carefully and they are clear enough.  Use them as they are, or not.  Infer from them what you will, or not.  The choice is yours.

As for rendering any opinions on assorted philosophies of mind, I won’t do that to satisfy some or other transient narcissism, whoever’s it may be.  I am not a neuroscientist or cognitive specialist.  But given your insistence, here’s my POV about a slightly different subject for you:  There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations.  But, as said, it’s just my POV.

So I’ll ask you once more:  What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64
That is good. Now it has at least been established that you at least have a point of view on something. Now just to have you give a POV on your "self". I also find your point of view of people with opinions on subjects they know next to nothing about interesting. Seeing that you are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist, one has to wonder why you have a point of view with regards to consciousness in relation to quantum mechanics... seeing that it is a testable hypothesis. Could you perhaps elaborate there why you wanted to give your opinion? This was also interesting to see from you...."Veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations".
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2009, 18:41:25 PM »

Are you....
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)

You really seem to love to categorise and classify people and their beliefs, putting them in little post-boxes and labelling them neatly. Does it help you to understand them, or is it just so that you can play strawman, strawman more easily?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2009, 19:21:39 PM »

Seeing that you are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist, one has to wonder why you have a point of view with regards to consciousness in relation to quantum mechanics...
Hmm, let’s see now.  Could it be that I have expertise directly relevant to the topic and ready access to more of the same?  No, I guess it can’t be that because it’s just too simple and pat and straightforward to be true.  What else?  Could it be that mind and consciousness are not the same thing?  Nope, can’t be that either I suppose because it’s also too darn obvious.  Well, I have to admit that you’ve got me totally stumped.



[ S]eeing that it is a testable hypothesis.
Clueless, mindless, obstinate repetition doesn’t magically produce true statements, although it may raise a chuckle or two.

In any case, I’m pleased that you’re lending weight to my earlier assessment.

'Luthon64
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2009, 23:24:34 PM »

Now it has at least been established that you at least have a point of view on something.

"I don't know" is so a point of view, it ain't even funny. When you learn this, you will be much wiser and actually acquire some of your vaunted "truth".

How about for giggles you tell us how old the earth is? (8th time!!)

If you answer is, "I don't know", I may accept it, even coming from you who doesn't accept "I don't know" answers and think every "I don't know" answer has to be qualified somehow.

Or why don't you produce a link for us where you answer me straightforwardly? That would be awesome seeing as I can produce the opposite quite easily. As a preview look at the very first one ever:

It started on 10/08/07 right here

cyghost: How old is the Earth please? 1

fearisgood:  How old does it look to you? 2

cyghost: Sparkling new every day. What's the point? 3

The issue is not resolved but we get sidetracked

and the 2nd one on 24/08/07 I try again: (in another thread)

cyghost:How old is the earth please Fearisgood? 4

fearisgood: How old does it look to you? 5

Insidious! Again a question with a question! This time he blabs on about it being either very old or very young

Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say.... maybe 6 billion years? I think the earth looks like it could be that old. However you would be surprised that many YEC wont contend this, and that others do.

These that do will question the dating methods and the assumptions that go with them. Evolution needs time, lots of it, to make it look plausible, but it is untestable. YEC's dont, and will try and describe biodiversity with the created kinds (baraminology) and Discontinuity Systematics and squash it in a very short time-frame, by taking adaptive radiation into consideration.


PostmanPot:So what is your final answer then? 6

cyghost: You also note the evasion then? 7

PostmanPot: Yes Sir. 8



roflol – that was the very first thread I met you in. aaaah the nostalgia and I see upon rereading, we haven't gotten anywhere, although it certainly has been entertaining.

btw I wish you well in your search. Cheesy I asked you the same question 4 more times and twice now and received the same kind of evasive answer. (well except for this eighth time that we are waiting to see how you answer on)

We'll wait for you to give evidence of the opposite or apologise for lying?
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2009, 07:18:26 AM »

A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
G) None of the above (other, please describe)

Yo! Mechano_TelePhrone old chap! I've found a little box you can put me in:

G) Defecatory Fatalist. We believe that "Sh1t happens"!

 Tongue Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.055 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 17, 2019, 12:54:06 PM
Privacy Policy