Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

[beecee]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

"Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection, nor do we always meet, as far as we can judge, with this high standard under nature."

Which flat-out denies your thesis. That whole section makes clear he is using perfection as a relative and local measure of fitness. Not an absolute.

You are introducing your own notion of perfection here, not Darwin's. And your original quote was not from Darwin, so that's yet another person's definition involved (though, as I pointed out, they never mention perfection, only imperfection)

As someone in this thread has already inferred, even within species, one Lion will be stronger and smarter then another.....one Gazelle will be faster and more agile then another....the smart Lion stalks the slower, less agile Gazelle....the faster more agile Gazelle will escape the Lion that isn't as smart or cunning as another Lion. Perfection? A measuring tape is perfect for measuring the frame of a window....A Vernier caliper likewise is perfect for optimum results when boring a cylinder for a piston. Perfect is absolutely subjective and is certainly in line with the "survival of the fittest" and the mechanism of "natural selection". The only paradoxes are those dreamed up when unreal applications of "perfection" are dreamed up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Edited October 18, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

As someone in this thread has already inferred, even within species, one Lion will be stronger and smarter then another.....one Gazelle will be faster and more agile then another....the smart Lion stalks the slower, less agile Gazelle....the faster more agile Gazelle will escape the Lion that isn't as smart or cunning as another Lion. Perfection? A measuring tape is perfect for measuring the frame of a window....A Vernier caliper likewise is perfect for optimum results when boring a cylinder for a piston. Perfect is absolutely subjective and is certainly in line with the "survival of the fittest" and the mechanism of "natural selection". The only paradoxes are those dreamed up when unreal applications of "perfection" are dreamed up. 

 

A purrfect case for natural selection in cats (and gazelles) +1

[Reg Prescott]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

On p 184 (emphasis added)
"Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence." [- Darwin]

The phrase "more perfect" is inconsistent with the notion that he's talking about some "absolute perfection". 

 

I don't think so. On the grounds

(i) Darwin says "tends to", not "invariably". The statement, as it stands, is quite consistent with natural selection sometimes producing absolute perfection, in fact seems to logically imply precisely this. "Tends to" implies there are exceptions. And

(ii) Ignoring the "tends to" qualification, Darwin's statement is perfectly consistent with: "Natural selection only makes each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence -- unlike special creation which would produce absolute perfection".

 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

How can you be more perfect than something else that is absolutely perfect? It's like being north of the north pole.

 

Quite so. It's like trying to sing better than Frank Sinatra. A fool's errand. It's not possible.

Darwin, I concede, is not being as clear as he might have. He uses "perfect" in both a relative (e.g. "more perfect") and an absolute sense ("absolute perfection").

 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

There's also 

"Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection, nor do we always meet, as far as we can judge, with this high standard under nature." [ - Darwin]

Which flat-out denies your thesis. That whole section makes clear he is using perfection as a relative and local measure of fitness. Not an absolute.

Again, this does not follow. On the grounds

(i) Darwin says "nor do we always meet [absolute perfection]" which logically entails that we sometimes meet it, and suggests -- though does not entail -- that this is the norm rather than the exception, i.e., to paraphrase "We usually meet this, but not always".

 

(Note here that Darwin's "Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection" contradicts his earlier remark that it tends not to do so.)

(ii) "as far as we can judge" represents an epistemic disclaimer; he lacks the means to identify absolute perfection. Thus, everything in nature may be absolutely perfect, for all he knows. Likewise for nothing in nature being absolutely perfect.

 

Now, my thesis may indeed be false. It is, however, by no means "flat-out denied" by anything just said.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, my thesis may indeed be false. It is, however, by no means "flat-out denied" by anything just said.

I believe it most certainly has, on the grounds that "perfection" is as you have been informed is subjective and of course the only parodoxes are those dreamed up when unreal and impossible applications of perfection are dreamed up, including the unreal, unscientific references to divine creation.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 It's like trying to sing better than Frank Sinatra. A fool's errand. It's not possible.

Tastes in music/singing are also subjective. As excellent as Franky was, I preferred his fellow member of the rat pack, Dean Martin, and of course the range and quality of Elvis Presley left them both for dead! 

[Reg Prescott]

@ Eise

I'm not sure where you stand on the scientific realism vs antirealism debate, or whether you take a stance at all. I would like to point out, though, that the kind of descriptivist theory of term/concept reference that you sketched for us has potentially catastrophic consequences for the scientific realist. Here's what you said again (previous page):

Quote

[...] the concept of 'unicorn' is not empty, but it highly depends if it has a real referent, not just an intentional, on how you define it. If you define it as 'a horse like creature with a silvery skin, and one long white, spirally formed horn that lies its head in the lap of a virgin' it is very clear that you can describe such an animal, but we know there are no real specimen of this animal. If you define it just as 'an animal with one horn on its head', then there are several animals that fit the description, e.g. the Indian rhinoceros. See, here my unicorn:

 

So, on your account, if anything out there in nature satisfies the description "a horse like creature with a silvery skin, and one long white, spirally formed horn that lies its head in the lap of a virgin" then we can say that the term (or concept) "unicorn" refers. We have "latched onto" something real in nature. 

Conversely, if the description is not satisfied, then we say that the term "unicorn" fails to refer. It's an empty term/concept. It's a term/concept about nothing. We have failed to latch onto anything real.

(And, of course, the same applies, mutatis mutandis, for the alternative description you offered: "an animal with one horn on its head").

 

Now, here's (roughly) what the scientific realist would like to say, and I'll take atoms as our example:

"Though it's true that there have been many theories of atoms, from Dalton through Rutherford and Bohr, and many others, and it's true that Dalton and the others had some false beliefs about atoms -- they misdescribed atoms to a greater or lesser degree -- it is nonetheless true that these were all progressively better theories about the same type of entity. Dalton (or whoever we want to start with) latched onto something real in nature, and continuity of reference has been sustained through all subsequent theories of atoms".

 

Now, given your own descriptivist theory of reference, the realist cannot say this. The description that Dalton and others offered of atoms -- the properties they attributed to atoms -- to a greater or lesser degree, are no longer countenanced by present day science. 

And as with your unicorn example, if the description is not satisfied, then we are forced to say that the term "(Dalton's) atom" fails to refer. It's an empty term/concept. Dalton and his successors failed to latch onto anything real.

Rather than continuity of reference and a succession of better and better theories about the same thing, we have a succession of theories about nothing, with the possible exception of the current one.

And it's the end of the world.
 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Tastes in music/singing are also subjective. As excellent as Franky was, I preferred his fellow member of the rat pack, Dean Martin, and of course the range and quality of Elvis Presley left them both for dead! 

Not a huge fan of Sinatra either. When he died someone said, "the greatest singer of all time". And I thought, maybe one of the best white, male singers of popular songs in the mid 20th century. But even then, he would only scrape into the top 10. (If someone had said the same when Aretha died, I probably would have just nodded respectfully.)

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

I don't think so. On the grounds

(i) Darwin says "tends to", not "invariably". The statement, as it stands, is quite consistent with natural selection sometimes producing absolute perfection, in fact seems to logically imply precisely this. "Tends to" implies there are exceptions. And

 

So? Tends to is referring to how often it happens. It is irrelevant in regards to the meaning of perfection.

Quote

(ii) Ignoring the "tends to" qualification, Darwin's statement is perfectly consistent with: "Natural selection only makes each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence -- unlike special creation which would produce absolute perfection".

That's your projection, and is in no way implied.

Quote

 

Quite so. It's like trying to sing better than Frank Sinatra. A fool's errand. It's not possible.

Darwin, I concede, is not being as clear as he might have. He uses "perfect" in both a relative (e.g. "more perfect") and an absolute sense ("absolute perfection").

You have provided no evidence of the latter. Just your assertion.

Quote

Again, this does not follow. On the grounds

(i) Darwin says "nor do we always meet [absolute perfection]" which logically entails that we sometimes meet it, and suggests -- though does not entail -- that this is the norm rather than the exception, i.e., to paraphrase "We usually meet this, but not always".

No, he doesn't say that. You said that. You can't conclude that he says we sometimes meet it when he just said we do not meet it.

You didn't go and read the section I cited, did you?

He's discussing the degree of perfection — we would probably use fitness, but he doesn't use that word, at all, in the document — that we find as the result of evolution. He's saying that organisms evolve according to the local conditions. Adaptation to those conditions is how you measure fitness. And he's saying that you generally fall short of optimal adaptation. Local perfection, in his terminology. Not absolute.

Quote

(Note here that Darwin's "Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection" contradicts his earlier remark that it tends not to do so.)

That's because he didn't say that. Those were words you put in. It's a contradiction because you got it wrong.

Quote

(ii) "as far as we can judge" represents an epistemic disclaimer; he lacks the means to identify absolute perfection. Thus, everything in nature may be absolutely perfect, for all he knows. Likewise for nothing in nature being absolutely perfect.

 

Now, my thesis may indeed be false. It is, however, by no means "flat-out denied" by anything just said.

"Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection" is as clear-cut as it gets. The lengths to which you will contort and put words in Darwin's mouth is amazing.

Here's a hint: if the phrase that you choose to substitute for "it" or "this" results in a contradiction, then you probably chose the wrong phrase. Darwin's mention of absolute perfection here and a few pages later is in the context of how it is not a reasonable conclusion that natural selection will produce it. (His only other mention of it is to ask why there aren't more examples of things that are far from absolute perfection that have been observed, "the want of absolute perfection")  

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Tastes in music/singing are also subjective. As excellent as Franky was, I preferred his fellow member of the rat pack, Dean Martin, and of course the range and quality of Elvis Presley left them both for dead! 

Bingo. Local perfection rather than absolute.

Could Frank hit the super high notes? If that's what was required by local conditions, then he would be considered a poor singer.

The bottom line, and the undercurrent of Darwin's discussion, is that all measurements of fitness/perfection are relative to local conditions. You are well-adapted (or not) to your local environment.

 

But one has to actually read and understand the text (and context), rather than just grabbing quotes. 

[Reg Prescott]

I quote the following from the "Biases and Content Control" thread:

Quote

I'll also throw in that any discussion suffers when any of the participants adopts a must-win-the-debate attitude that precludes them from recognizing competing points and good arguments. XXXXX, your style suffers from this a lot, and while you think it makes you victorious, it just frustrates others that they continually have to keep pointing to what they said two minutes ago, which you ignored in favor of waving your hands and repeating your same refuted arguments.

Sorry to say swansont, but that's exactly what you've done since I've known you, and it's exactly what you're doing now. In my previous thread on "Challenging Science" I abandoned all hope of impartial, rational discussion when you dismissed Max Born's expert testimony on the role of dogma in science on grounds of "fallacy of appeal to authority". After I refuted this, the flaccid, must-win-the-debate response from yourself was (roughly), "Well, he might be an authority on science, but he's not an authority on dogma".

When heights of silliness such as these are attained, it's time to call it a day, and focus on those members willing to play by the rules.

I look forward to Eise's response. 

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

those members willing to play by the rules.

 

Since you have been reading the local rules perhaps it is time for me to ask (again) for responses to my very polite points concerning the alleged paradoxes you raised.

Edited October 19, 2018 by studiot

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

When heights of silliness such as these are attained, it's time to call it a day, and focus on those members willing to play by the rules.

I look forward to Eise's response. 

The highlight of silliness is only evident from your quarters, not just in this thread but the others you have made outrageous and incorrect claims in also, and I'm fairly sure by his responses so far that Eise's also agrees with that. I have previously hypothesised based on your posts and threads that you may be a god botherer of sorts...that hypothesis is looking more and more concrete, the more you continue to misinterpret and make your false claims, despite your poor efforts to remain closeted.

Quote

Sorry to say swansont, but that's exactly what you've done since I've known you, and it's exactly what you're doing now. In my previous thread on "Challenging Science" I abandoned all hope of impartial, rational discussion when you dismissed Max Born's expert testimony on the role of dogma in science on grounds of "fallacy of appeal to authority". After I refuted this, the flaccid, must-win-the-debate response from yourself was (roughly), "Well, he might be an authority on science, but he's not an authority on dogma".

And that inference has been totally refuted for many reasons, not the least of course being the overwhelming numbers of examples to the contrary every day, every week and every year. There is not any discipline in the world that can lay claim to every one of their members always being of the same mind...The otherwise great Astronomer Fred Hoyle is an example...They are the exception, not the rule....When we get down to the nitty gritty, you have been preaching this sort of unsupported rhetorical nonsense since at least 2015....When will the penny drop?

Edited October 19, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

not just in this thread but the others you have made outrageous and incorrect claims in also

Be fair, some such claims, but are you perfectly evolved ? 

But also some that could be agreed with if only Reg would acknowledge that others are also able to offer valid and worthwhile contributions.

It is the extreme position he takes of I am all right and you are all wrong that is the problem.

Edited October 19, 2018 by studiot

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Sorry to say swansont, but that's exactly what you've done since I've known you, and it's exactly what you're doing now. In my previous thread on "Challenging Science" I abandoned all hope of impartial, rational discussion when you dismissed Max Born's expert testimony on the role of dogma in science on grounds of "fallacy of appeal to authority". After I refuted this, the flaccid, must-win-the-debate response from yourself was (roughly), "Well, he might be an authority on science, but he's not an authority on dogma".

When heights of silliness such as these are attained, it's time to call it a day, and focus on those members willing to play by the rules.

I look forward to Eise's response. 

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to bring up threads that were locked because you couldn't support your arguments in other threads where you can't support your arguments in order to support your arguments. THAT is the height of silliness. 

Also, if you're planning to NOT respond to select participating members, sincere discussion is seriously hampered. This is a big part of why your threads break the rules and get closed. 

 

[Reg Prescott]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to bring up threads that were locked because you couldn't support your arguments in other threads where you can't support your arguments in order to support your arguments. THAT is the height of silliness. 

Also, if you're planning to NOT respond to select participating members, sincere discussion is seriously hampered. This is a big part of why your threads break the rules and get closed. 

 

 

It would be tedious, and from previous experience, futile, to go through swansont's entire post and correct all the errors. For purposes of illustration I'll do this only for the first point; the rest follow a similar pattern.

Here's what was said:

(Last post on page 1) Swansont quotes Darwin: "Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence."

To which swansont remarks (same post) : "The phrase "more perfect" is inconsistent with the notion that he's talking about some "absolute perfection". " [my bold emphasis]

 

I reply (third post on page 2): 

"I don't think so. On the grounds (i) Darwin says "tends to", not "invariably". The statement, as it stands, is quite consistent with natural selection sometimes producing absolute perfection."

To which swansont adds another nonsensical reply (his most recent post).

 

So, the dispute, basically, rests on whether two statements are mutually consistent (i.e. generate no contradiction) or not.

 

First, by way of analogy -- because I fear swansont's errors are being overlooked by other posters, and myself regarded as a bs artist -- consider the following statement:

(i) hens tend to lay eggs that are around 5 cms long
and
(ii) hens sometimes lay eggs that are 3 cms long
(iii) hens sometimes lay eggs that are 7 cms long
(iv) hens sometimes lay eggs the size of Jupiter

Is (i) consistent with (ii) and (iii)? Clearly yes. How about (iv)? The answer, once again, is "yes" -- no contradiction is generated.

Now, we all know, as a matter of fact, that hens do not lay eggs the size of Jupiter. This is besides the point. The question is: are the two statements consistent? The answer -- to repeat -- is "yes".

With this is mind, consider again the following two statements:

(v) Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence
and
(vi) Natural selection sometimes produces absolute perfection

 

Forget all about what in fact natural selection does or does not do. Forget also all about what Darwin may or may not have believed natural selection does or does not do. This is irrelevant.

The only relevant question right now is whether or not (v) and (vi) are consistent. I say yes; swansont says no.

 

As for you, Phi, and your accusation of my "not supporting my arguments", the last time we crossed swords was in this thread:

In your first post (page 1), you make some typical derogatory and condescending remarks about my argument(s). By the time we reach your third post (also page 1) you tell us my argument is not an argument at all! If that's not a contradiction I'll eat my Sinatra fedora.

After that, you simply disappear, making no attempt whatsoever to support your claim that I considered dubious (see OP).

Readers will notice my own posts to Phi typically contain phrases such as "with no disrespect intended to any of our members" and "I have to respectfully disagree".

Phi's own posts to myself, on the other hand, are replete with slights such as "there must be something hindering your critical thinking", "your fixation on mistakes", "obtuse", and "preaching".

 

The people may judge for themselves. I mean, let the lynching begin. Twas ever thus.
 

 

 

Edit P.S.

"Also, if you're planning to NOT respond to select participating members [...]" -- Phi for All

The members I assume you refer to (Strange, Beecee, Studiot) have been repeatedly abusive, filling my threads with irrelevancies, inanities and provocation. A moderator I spoke with was quite unsympathetic; reporting offensive posts had no effect. So now I simply ignore them.

Is that ok?

[beecee]

11 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The members I assume you refer to (Strange, Beecee, Studiot) have been repeatedly abusive, filling my threads with irrelevancies, inanities and provocation. A moderator I spoke with was quite unsympathetic; reporting offensive posts had no effect. So now I simply ignore them.

Is that ok?

Ignore all you like...I'll certainly keep listing your shortcomings, errors, mistaken and mythical claims, as long as you post them, and as I have in this thread. I can't speak for the others, other than one has you on ignore any way due to your continuation of simply uttering unreal philosophical jargon when you are shown to be in error. Then in your continuing attempt to down grade science you now put up this pitiful ignorant stance re "perfection" and then again play the victim when the shortcomings in your argument are raised, and anyone dare propose that which is painfully obvious in your posts....an agenda. If the whole world is against you, then my advice is to look into a mirror and ask yourself why? The answer is that this is a science forum, and unsupported, unevidence, incorrect claims will indeed continue to undergo scrutiny, and yours, here and elsewhere have come up way short.

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The members I assume you refer to (Strange, Beecee, Studiot) have been repeatedly abusive, filling my threads with irrelevancies, inanities and provocation. A moderator I spoke with was quite unsympathetic; reporting offensive posts had no effect. So now I simply ignore them.

Is that ok?

!

Moderator Note

No, it's not, unless you want your threads closed. Three staff members checked your reported posts, and found them to be baseless, since you're easily offended when people disagree with you. Ignorance is antithetical to our purpose, and your style also seems to be inconsistent with it. If everyone disagrees with your assertions, and you ignore them, your posts become nothing but soapboxing. Nobody here wants to discuss anything with a preacher. Please do better.

 

[Reg Prescott]

@ Phi for All

Is it necessary to ask what the consequences would be if a member who not only knew little or nothing about physics, moreover was openly hostile to the discipline, entered a thread in the Physics area of the site in order to propagate ignorance and spite?

Why, then, is it allowed in the Philosophy section of the site?

Eise seems fairly knowledgeable in philosophy and I've been enjoying our exchange. The other "contributors", however, as far as I can discern, know as much philosophy as I know about Hilbert spaces, i.e., diddly-squat.

You did say above, "ignorance is antithetical to our purpose", did you not?
 

[studiot]

Reg, consider this a practical friendly warning.

I have seen others banned for arguing with moderators' red notes in a similar way you are.

 

Think carefully about this next comment of mine before you do anything more.

 

The rules here are not set by the UN or the International court of human rights or some academic or professional moderating body.

They are set by the website owners and not amenable to challenge.

We all have some frustration or other with them, but we must all live with that frustration or go elsewhere.

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The other "contributors", however, as far as I can discern, know as much philosophy as I know about Hilbert spaces, i.e., diddly-squat.

Or, evolution, which would seem to be more to the point. And, as that's what we've been discussing, I don't see how you can come to any conclusion about my (or anyone else's) mastery of philosophy. 

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have seen others banned for arguing with moderators' red notes in a similar way you are.

No, you have NOT, not ever. 

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

We all have some frustration or other with them, but we must all live with that frustration or go elsewhere.

Perhaps because you think we ban people for arguing with us instead of for breaking the rules they agreed to when they joined.

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

No, you have NOT, not ever. 

Perhaps because you think we ban people for arguing with us instead of for breaking the rules they agreed to when they joined.

No, and I am not getting at moderators.

As far as I am aware, red notes are issued for rule infringements of varying severity, presumably for the purpose of enforcement.

(Thankfully) I am not party to these decisions but in my limited and completely selective observations (since I only look at some formums and threads again thankfully) a banning has followed failure to comply with some directive included in a red note.

I am confident that decisions are not taken lightly and are arrived at by due process following the rules here.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

banning has followed failure to comply with some directive included in a red note.

Quite: for breaking the rules, not for arguing 

[studiot]

Failure to comply I call arguing (as a general term rather than a list) but you can call it anything you want.

I'm not splitting hairs.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Phi for All

Is it necessary to ask what the consequences would be if a member who not only knew little or nothing about physics, moreover was openly hostile to the discipline, entered a thread in the Physics area of the site in order to propagate ignorance and spite?

Why, then, is it allowed in the Philosophy section of the site?

This is first and foremost a science forum, and as such under the auspices of the scientific methodology. Plus of course all of the Philosophical jargon you use is apparently to try and discredit/invalidate genuine scientific disciplines, including in this thread, that most positive of disciplines the theory of evolution of life.

Quote

Eise seems fairly knowledgeable in philosophy and I've been enjoying our exchange. The other "contributors", however, as far as I can discern, know as much philosophy as I know about Hilbert spaces, i.e., diddly-squat.

And yet Eise is of the same opinion as with the rest of the world and in disagreement with your claims/opinions/interpretations in many threads.

Quote

You did say above, "ignorance is antithetical to our purpose", did you not?

While I'm mainly ignorant of the discipline of pure philosophy, I do recognise it as one of the foundation stones of science particularly after debate in the past with Eise amongst others, about the usefulness or otherwise of Philosophy. It is though your own erroneous and excessive use of philosophy as a tool to invalidate that which it actually supports that is in question. In that vane, one can understand the recent anti philosophical stance by Laurence Krauss and other physicists and scientists.

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, beecee said:

Plus of course all of the Philosophical jargon you use is apparently to try and discredit/invalidate genuine scientific disciplines, including in this thread, that most positive of disciplines the theory of evolution of life.

My impression is that "Reg" uses jargon he picked up in the first year of philosophy course (failed) to hide a rather shallow understanding. He may consider that opinion to be "abusive" but so be it.