Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology

From: dan michaels (feedbackdroids_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: 27 Jul 2004 10:10:51 -0700

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message news:<7ea8g0d8qflcog9uplkt236j1dnmq9cmuf@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Jul 2004 07:06:05 -0700, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
> exa) wrote:
> >> So, I'll stay with the biologist Mayr when it comes to evolution.
> >>
> >> (for a great overview of the history and foundations of evolutionary
> >> theory, Peter Bowler, "Evolution: The History of an Idea", 1983/1989,
> >> isbn 0-520-06386-4)
> >
> >It's safer to stick with biology when talking about evolution, but
> >some biologists see evolutionary programming as identical to
> >evolution, so perhaps it really isn't limited to the domain of biology
> >(and evidently so, since there is evolution, for instance, of
> >astrophysics, or of ideas)
>
> If there is an abstract evolutionary theory as a pure mathematical
> and/or philosophical construct, it may indeed have applications in
> many parts of science. However, like applying Gaussian distributions
> or the periodic table across various special sciences, one needs to
> specialize knowledge to deal with a domain. To clarify my own
> comments then, what I meant above is that I would stay with Mayr, who
> presumably owns rather more knowledge of biology than does Dennett,
> when discussing evolution in a biological framework. If someone else
> (Millikan or Dennett) want to make claims about evolutionary phenomena
> in a cognitive framework, I think such claims have value, though they
> are, like most evolutionary arguments, extremely slippery, and Mayr
> indeed has little or nothing to say about evolutionary explanations of
> cognition, IIRC, much less the "evolution" of galaxies or the
> evolution of popular music, etc.
>
> J.

Stick with the biological, yes, if one wants to stick with the largely
reductionistic. However, Dennett, like certain other philosophers,
provides mental stimulation, plus pause for conjecture regards the
larger picture. This is probably what guys like him were placed here
to do. He probably stimulates more questions than produces answers -
which is great. Dennett's real value is that he forges philosophy on
the framework of evolution rather than simply creating artifical
constructs where angels dance on the heads of artificial pins. He is a
philosopher and not a biologist.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Fallacy of Biological Evolution
    ... So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all. ... ignorant of biology seriously when it come to biological science? ... one instance of biological change (if not evolution, ... Charles Darwin was, and is considered by many, especially scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins false dichotomy fallacy.
    ... modern synthesis, ... represented the most common ideas in evolutionary biology; ... The main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains ratified by ... Modern evolution is built on Darwin 1859. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... >>> evolution has grown increasingly tepid, ... >> Unless someone comes up with evidence that the syntax of genetic coding ... gene scenario would be but a part. ... molecular biology, cellular biology, paleontology, evidence DIRELY NEEDED ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)