***QUOTE***
Hawking, speaking in the quote you provided, was stressing the importance of observational consistency and predictive performance. He's specifically *not* concerned with the existential anxieties you're expressing, and said so in the paragraph you quoted from him in expressing your anxieties.
***END-QUOTE***
i) I didn’t know I was suffering from existential anxieties.
ii)”Positivism,” as Hawking employs the term, still belongs to the antirealist side of the realist/antirealism continuum in the philosophy of science.
For example, David Deutsch classifies positivism as an extreme form of instrumentalism, which he describes thusly:
“Yet some philosophers, and even some scientists, disparage the role of explanation in science. To them, the basic purpose of a scientific theory is not to explain anything, but to predict the outcomes of experiments: its entire content lies in its predictive formulae. They consider any consistent explanation that a theory may give for its predictions to be as good as any other, or as good as no explanation at all, so long as the predictions are true. This view is called instrumentalism (because it says that a theory is no more than an "instrument" for making predictions). To instrumentalists, the idea that science can enable us to understand the underlying reality that accounts for our observations, is a fallacy and a conceit.”
http://www.qubit.org/people/david/FabricOfReality/FoRExtract.html
That dovetails perfectly with what Hawking said. It also dovetails perfectly with indirect realism.
“Indirect realism. I maintain that your insistence on shifting the conversation away from the archaeological evidence to the question of ‘what is 'evidence', really, when you get down to it?’ is all the reader need realize from this exchange.”
No, I didn’t change the subject. You’re the one who can’t stick to the issue. Instead, you choose to broaden the debate so that you can replay your boilerplate speech about the evils of YEC.
When you choose in inveigh against the epistemology of YEC, that is when it becomes germane for me to discuss the philosopher of science. I simply follow you wherever you choose to go.
“When you start wondering what the meaning of ‘is’ is, your fundamental opposition to the conventional epistemology of science is proved.”
Science doesn’t have a “conventional” epistemology. That’s why science has all these intramural debates over the philosophy of science.
And your cutesy attempt to trivialize the debate by alluding to Clinton merely illustrates your own intellectual frivolity.
“I understand you are interested in escalating the question here to a "philosophy of science" discussion: What is reality? Do we know what reality really is? How do we know what "is" is? Etc.”
Once again, y0u’re trying to rewrite the history of this thread. When you choose to talk about the religious neutrality of methodological naturalism, then I comment accordingly.
You have a habit, throughout this thread, of making claims, which I challenge, which you then back away from, complaining about the irrelevance of the issue you yourself chose to raise, to which I merely responded.
“If I bring up skulls or spears or cleavers, and you want wax philosophical in response about metrical conventionalism, be my guest. That makes my point about your orientation here nicely.”
No, the only point it makes is the way you keep shifting gears throughout the course of this thread.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
That's nothing but begging the question, Steve. What do you mean by "big enough"? How can I know if the evidence I present resents man as "big enough"? How do you determine at what point man becomes "brainy enough"? How soon is "soon enough"?
Without substantive answers to these questions, you're no better off than you were before. We *know* you don't think it's "enough". The whole dispute is about what constitutes enough. This is what happens in scientific debates when one scientist makes a claim and the other says, "OK, show your math!".
So Steve, it's time to show your math. You've claimed you have insight beyond the science community on this issue. I'm asking for the criterion you use to determine "enough". Saying it's "not enough" doesn't help anything. Showing what enough is, and why that measure and not something more or less, does.
***END-QUOTE***
Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof. Putting to one side your tendentious sophistries about the “science community,” the onus is not on me to disprove evolution. Rather, the onus is on you to support specific claims with specific evidence.
Evolution itself lays down a number of conditions which must be met. I’ve already discussed the specifications in far more detail than you ever did in your counterclaims.
It’s not my job to argue both sides of the issue. It isn’t my job to spoonfeed you all the answers to all the questions inherent in evolutionary theory. If you want to be spoon fed, buy your own spoon.
You’re just looking for another excuse to duck all the tough questions you don’t have the answers for.
It isn’t just me who brought this up. You brought up weaponry as well. You brought up rudimentary language to account for team work. You brought up encephalization to account for all of the above. You brought up relative dating, not just me.
And you’re the one who believes in evolution, not me. It’s not my duty to do all the spadework for you. Show me *your* math for a change.
Try answering your own questions with specific evidence.
“Lastly, I believe you misunderstood me with regard to philosophy of science. I've got no problem with philosophy of science, or metrical conventionalism. That's all good stuff, and interesting in its own right.”
First it’s “mumbo-jumbo,” far removed from “from the main body of scientific knowledge and inquiry.”
Then, why I call your hand, it’s “all good stuff.”
You should try hooking yourself up to a polygraph the next time you reply.
“I now understand you are fully capable of doing a Google search for 'metrical conventionalism'.”
Oh, I got all this from doing a Google search, did I?
Perhaps you’d like to document your allegation by showing us the urls for the online versions of Le Poidevin’s book, or Dainton’s book, or Sklar’s article, or Grünbaum’s book, or Lucas’ book, or Reichenbach’s book, or Poincare’s book.
It should only take you a few minutes to do this since you already know that I got all this info off the net.
How or whether they would apply metrical conventionalism to this particular debate is beside the point. They’re not debating this particular issue.
Newton saw things in Kepler that Kepler didn’t see. Einstein found an application in Riemann that Riemann didn’t employ.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI haven't made the argument that early man had any particular capabilities, beyond the articles I've cited. Specifically, spears in Germany 400,000 (or 350,000 if you want) years ago, and cleavers and axes a million years ago.
Do you suppose that spears are something gorillas had as well. If not, wouldn't spears make them "uniquely defenseful", as it were, among all other animals?
Obviously, you knew about the spears, even though you didn't mention them. Why not? And more importantly, how much technology would be the *minimum* you would require to agree that (proto-)man might survive through the ravaging threats of the last million years?
If you don't provide this kind of feedback, what else can we assume, but that you are simply waving your hands in the original post? If you give use something concrete to work with, we can go check the available evidence, and then argue about whether the speed of light in the metrical conventionalist model invalidates that evidence, if you insist.
As it is, you've given us no rationale as to how you judged the capabilities they *did* have against the minimum capabilities the *must* have had. If you can't furnish your minimums, how can you say they weren't met?
I'll see what I can turn up with Google on your references, will post my results in my next comment.
How about those minimums, so we can see how you arrived at your decision?
-Touchstone
Steve,
ReplyDeleteReading your post again, I see the importance of this statement.
You said:
How or whether they would apply metrical conventionalism to this particular debate is beside the point. They’re not debating this particular issue
I fully agree it's beside the point -- not attached to this particular issue. If so, why are walking through this list?
Thanks in advance,
-Touchstone
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I fully agree it's beside the point -- not attached to this particular issue. If so, why are walking through this list?"
Which, like everything else, I've explained to you before.
i) You challenged metrical conventionalism. "Mumbo-jumbo," &c.
I take it that you're now looking for a way about because you can't back up your allegation about a Google search turning up everything I referred to.
ii) Metrical conventionalism is pertinent to your stump speech against YEC.
If you want to drop your stuff about YEC, then I can drop the topic of metrical conventionalism.
“I haven't made the argument that early man had any particular capabilities, beyond the articles I've cited.”
Since you’ve nailed your flag to the mast of theistic evolution, the onus is on you to argue for the particular abilities of early man.
You act as if evolution is the default position, and it’s up to a critic to disprove it.
No, a proponent of evolution needs to supply specific evidence for the satisfaction of specific conditions every step of the way.
“Specifically, spears in Germany 400,000 (or 350,000 if you want) years ago, and cleavers and axes a million years ago.”
Which I already addressed—more than once.
“Do you suppose that spears are something gorillas had as well. If not, wouldn't spears make them "uniquely defenseful", as it were, among all other animals?”
I’ve already dealt with that before. The fact that you’re unwilling to interact with what I’ve said goes to show that you’re unable to interact with what I’ve said.
i) Gorillas have a natural defense mechanism. The males, which protect the females and the young, are big and strong and have a formidable bite.
Gorillas don’t need spears to survive.
ii) Gorillas lack the intelligence to either make spears or use them—unless you can come up with some examples of Gorillas in the wild doing just that.
So you’ve given me an argument from analogy minus the analogy. Very impressive.
iii) Gorillas don’t speak to each other. So they lack a faculty which you yourself have said is a prerequisite for teamwork.
“Obviously, you knew about the spears, even though you didn't mention them. Why not?”
Because, for reasons I’ve already given, spears are not an all-purpose solution to the problem.
“And more importantly, how much technology would be the *minimum* you would require to agree that (proto-)man might survive through the ravaging threats of the last million years?”
I’ve already spelled that out. You’ve chosen to disregard my detailed explanation, and simply demanded “more.”
“If you don't provide this kind of feedback, what else can we assume, but that you are simply waving your hands in the original post? If you give use something concrete to work with, we can go check the available evidence, and then argue about whether the speed of light in the metrical conventionalist model invalidates that evidence, if you insist.”
i) Nice use of the royal “we” to foster the illusory impression that your own position (theistic evolution) represents the majority view.
ii) I could simply reverse your demand: If you (the Evangelutionist) don't provide this kind of feedback, what else can we assume, but that you are simply waving your hands? If you give us something concrete to work with, we can go check the available evidence.
“As it is, you've given us no rationale as to how you judged the capabilities they *did* have against the minimum capabilities the *must* have had. If you can't furnish your minimums, how can you say they weren't met? How about those minimums, so we can see how you arrived at your decision?”
As it is, the Evangelutionist has given us no rationale as to how he judged the capabilities they did or didn’t have against the minimum capabilities they must have had. If he can't furnish us with minimums, then how can he say they were met? How about those minimums, so we can see how he arrived at his faith in the theistic evolution of man?
I deeply sympathize with your desperate effort throughout this post to search for a face-saving exit strategy. If I were in your position, I’d be tempted to do the same thing.
Thanks in advance.
Steve,
ReplyDelete1. I'm happy to discuss conventionalism vs. objectivism as the discussion warrants. It simply isn't implicated in this dispute, you said so yourself.
2. The rationale science uses is completely different than the one you've used. They note that humans exist now, and work backwards. Since humans come from earlier humans -- their parents -- they like all living things form a chain back into history.
Evolutionary theory supposes that this back chaining leads to convergence, if you go back a long ways, were humans were less evolved, and had a shared developmental path with other species - primates most recently, others in the more distant past.
This paradigm gives a means for understanding man's history on earth. So far, the dirt evidence that we have fits nicely with the model.
So, science's approach is not one that pretends to have a reliable model for all the factors that affect the survival and fate of a species. Man *did* survive, because, well, we're here, and in large numbers. That's very strong evidence that we've had what it takes to make it thus far. If we didn't have what it takes, how did we get here?
The only way I can see that one would suppose we got here without a biological history -- in spite of the dirt archaeology that points to a long developmental timeline -- is a scenario in which something happens that goes against the physics, the natural processes in place for God's creation. That's where YEC ideas come into the picture.
So, the *math* for evolutionary theory is the body of work published under that rubric, an enormous body on material. Much of what science supposed about common descent and variation 100 years ago has been abandoned -- evolutionary theory evolves, like all scientific theories do. But the most effective paragdigm available right now, given the evidence available, is one that describes an evolutionary path for early man over several million years.
Some closely-related hominids *didn't* make it. There are no more Neanderthals around any more, so they obviously didn't have what it takes to survive in some regard.
Here's a link to a New Scientist article that describes a model anthropologists have developed as a possible explanation for Neanderthal extinction -- competition with man:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7221
In their view, man's organizational and commercial skills provided the selective advantage that pushed the Neanderthals out of the picture.
So, I'm happy to "show my math" -- it's simply evolutionary theory as it exists in anthropology today. If you have questions as to what fossils or other evidences exist to support it, we can look at what's available. But the basic assumption of evolutionary theory is sufficiency for survival by implication: we know we were able to survive because we did survive.
Your argument is different, though. You are making a claim that man *could* not possibly have survived. In order to do that, in the face of man clearly being around today, you would have provide some kind of measurable test -- a model for survival which matches the environment of early man -- in order to declare him insufficient.
All I'm asking for are the numbers, the criteria you used to arrive at your decision. If you refuse to disclose what would be *enough* to survive in your view, and how you came to arrive at that particular definition of enough, well I think that tells me all I need to know.
So, in a nutshell, here's the rationale from evolutionary theory, which I think is the best one available:
Man had what it takes to survive because he *did* survive.
That's the rationale you seek. It should have been obvious, it's basic evolutionary theory.
So I've supplied my rationale. Now, what's yours? How did you determine what would be *enough* to survive so that you felt entitled to declare man didn't have enough?
I look forward to your answer!
Thanks,
-Touchstone
Touchstone wrote:
ReplyDelete"So, in a nutshell, here's the rationale from evolutionary theory, which I think is the best one available:
Man had what it takes to survive because he *did* survive."
Would that look like this:
If man had what it took to surviuve then he would survive.
Man did survive.
Therefore he had what it took to survive.
Is that like this:
If Shakespeare wrote paradise lost then Shakespear's a great author.
Shakespeare's a great author.
Therefore Shakespeare wrote paradise lost.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI thought Touchstone was implying that "Only if man had what it took to survive then he would survive” in which case the argument is valid. Of course you can dispute the premise, but that is another issue.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteanon wrote
ReplyDelete_________________________________
If man had what it took to surviuve then he would survive.
Man did survive.
Therefore he had what it took to survive.
Is that like this:
If Shakespeare wrote paradise lost then Shakespear's a great author.
Shakespeare's a great author.
Therefore Shakespeare wrote paradise lost.
___________________________________
OMG....
Shakes head in disbelief....
Uh, actually Bill, it affirmed the consequent. In which case it was invalid.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteMake sure that you understand the relation between a hypothetical of the form "If A then B", and a hypothetical of the form "Only if A, then B". The "Only-if" hypothetical has the same meaning as "If not-A, then not-B" and "If B then A."
You construed his premise as: "if A then B." If Touchstone intended "Only if A then B" then you have misunderstood his argument and unfairly charged him with a logical fallacy.
Oky Doky, Bill...
ReplyDelete