Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

[Eise]

On 10/18/2018 at 2:27 PM, Reg Prescott said:

Now, this passage seems to make clear that Darwin was not contrasting the imperfections found in nature (as would be expected from natural selection) against a better, albeit imperfect, design -- as you suggested -- that we might expect if special creation were true. Rather, he's contrasting imperfection with absolute perfection.

I think what Darwin is saying that organisms in the process of natural selection only become good enough for their environments. Otherwise they would become extinct. But there is no drive to go beyond 'good enough', or if you want 'sufficient perfection'. The comparison with divine creation seems to be Sober's interpretation. 

On 10/19/2018 at 10:40 AM, Reg Prescott said:

I'm not sure where you stand on the scientific realism vs antirealism debate, or whether you take a stance at all.

I have a stance, but it is not deeply thought through. It is definitely closer to scientific realism than antirealism. Semantics was never a main topic for me. So I hope I do not dissapoint you with my reactions.

On 10/19/2018 at 10:40 AM, Reg Prescott said:

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.

No, I explicitly said that the concept of 'unicorns' is not empty. Otherwise the sentence 'unicorns do not exist' makes no sense. We all recognise a unicorn immediately from some drawing or painting. But at the same time we know there is no such animal in the 'real world'. 

On 10/19/2018 at 10:40 AM, Reg Prescott said:

"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".

I would subscribe to this view. Dalton rightly recognised that there must be smallest particles of each element, each particle of one element being exactly the same, and that compounds are combinations of these particles.

To say something is the same as another is always under a certain aspect, leaving out some others. E.g. the modern idea of atoms does not imply 'undividable', which was part of Dalton's understanding. So there is a continuity from Dalton's ideas about atoms and ours, which makes it possible to identify the concepts with the same objects. 

I seriously doubt that we could do the same with e.g. Demokritos' atoms. (But are not even sure).

On 10/19/2018 at 1:14 PM, beecee said:

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.

Don't be too sure. In the end I have a degree in philosophy... I think it is rather the tone from the discussions between Reg and several others that creates the problem. I thought about chiming in the thread 'Challenging Science', but then the thread was closed. Reg had a few valid points (but others had too). The discussion was more arguing that the other is an idiot than an intellectual probe in the supposed dogmatism against openness of science to changes of its ideas. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Eise

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

I thought about chiming in the thread 'Challenging Science', but then the thread was closed. Reg had a few valid points (but others had too). The discussion was more arguing that the other is an idiot than an intellectual probe in the supposed dogmatism against openness of science to changes of its ideas. 

With all due respect, it was far more than that. His whole mission has been punctuated with errors. eg: That Newtonian did not predict the existence of Neptune was a prime example, despite numerous links. And yes obviously of course his claim about scientific dogmatism was another. His damnation of the scientific method, and even the concrete nature of the theory of the evolution of life were others without delving back into those threads, and as I have pointed out, have all been continually claimed and  rehearsed, since 2015. Certainly as I said earlier. philosophy has its place, and certainly I am able to understand the attractiveness of one philosopher [yourself] arguing/debating another, but gee whiz, the way he has used his so called philosophy to invalidate or cast doubt on scientific certainties or near certainties, has in my opinion sunk to crazy levels. And now we have this dogmatic view on perfection and its application in nature. But just perhaps, that is his goal...ie to create controversy and thereby practise his brand of philosophy on all us poor unexpected science supporters, both professional and in my case amateur.

Edited October 21, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

With all due respect, it was far more than that. His whole mission has been punctuated with errors. eg: That Newtonian did not predict the existence of Neptune was a prime example, despite numerous links. And yes obviously of course his claim about scientific dogmatism was another. His damnation of the scientific method, and even the concrete nature of the theory of the evolution of life were others without delving back into those threads, and as I have pointed out, have all been continually claimed and  rehearsed, since 2015. Certainly as I said earlier. philosophy has its place, and certainly I am able to understand the attractiveness of one philosopher [yourself] arguing/debating another, but gee whiz, the way he has used his so called philosophy to invalidate or cast doubt on scientific certainties or near certainties, has in my opinion sunk to crazy levels. And now we have this dogmatic view on perfection and its application in nature. But just perhaps, that is his goal...ie to create controversy and thereby practise his brand of philosophy on all us poor unexpected science supporters, both professional and in my case amateur.

The other apparent aspect of Reg's posts/claims/interpretations are his  attempts to redefine words or ideas/quotes etc, to suit your own purpose.

[Reg Prescott]

10 hours ago, Eise said:

I think what Darwin is saying that organisms in the process of natural selection only become good enough for their environments. Otherwise they would become extinct. But there is no drive to go beyond 'good enough', or if you want 'sufficient perfection'.

I think this is obviously right, but not particularly relevant.

What Darwin thought about natural selection is voluminously documented and needs no further elaboration here. The point of this thread, rather, has been to focus on what he thought about the traditional rival of evolutionary theories: special creation. Imagine we could travel back to 1859 or thereabouts and pose the following question to him:

"Mr Darwin, we all know you don't believe the theory of special creation is true. But if it were true, what might we expect to see in nature: perfection or imperfection?"

In the first page of the thread I've been suggesting -- though not insisting -- that Darwin would opt for the former (and thus paradox). And repeated allusions to special creation and absolute perfection in his own writings suggest precisely this. Why would he be mentioning perfection at all if it was not believed (by himself or others) that this is implied by the creation hypothesis?
 

10 hours ago, Eise said:

The comparison with divine creation seems to be Sober's interpretation. 

Surely not. I don't think there's any doubt that Darwin was weighing the merits of his own theory against those of its traditional rival: special creation. Even in the quoted passage, he does exactly that. E.g. "[...] although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country [...]"
 

10 hours ago, Eise said:

No, I explicitly said that the concept of 'unicorns' is not empty. 

Then I think either you're mistaken or else your usage is non-standard. On standard usage, an empty concept is one which has no referent or extension. I quote from "Concepts and Cognitive Science" by Laurence and Margolis:

"These considerations are all the more vivid if we consider the large stock of empty concepts that we possess, concepts such as UNICORN and ELF. All of these concepts are correlated with the same thing, namely, nothing."

This is not to say, of course, that empty concepts are meaningless. We all can, and we all do, speak of elves, unicorns, Santa Claus, and honest politicians without any breakdown in understanding. It's just that such concepts do not (as far as we can tell) refer to anything in reality.

 

10 hours ago, Eise said:

Otherwise the sentence 'unicorns do not exist' makes no sense. We all recognise a unicorn immediately from some drawing or painting. But at the same time we know there is no such animal in the 'real world'. 

I disagree that your sentence "makes no sense", moreover, the sentence seems prima facie to be quite true. If you have any doubts, just ask your friends: "Hey guys! Unicorns do not exist: true or false?" It is indeed a puzzle, though, how we can say of that which does not exist that it does not exist. This is the problem of "negative existentials" -- a big deal in the philosophy of language! Read more here:

Quote

 

Very briefly, the problem can be stated as follows: it seems that in order to deny the existence of a given individual one must assume the existence of that very individual. Thus, it seems that it is impossible to deny the existence of an individual without getting involved in a contradiction.

However, this conclusion seems hard to accept. In fact, there are lots of negative existence statements that we take not only to be sensible but also to be true (or at least not to be necessarily false). Consider, for instance,

Pegasus does not exist
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

 

 

Finally...

10 hours ago, Eise said:

I would subscribe to this view. Dalton rightly recognised that there must be smallest particles of each element, each particle of one element being exactly the same, and that compounds are combinations of these particles.

To say something is the same as another is always under a certain aspect, leaving out some others. E.g. the modern idea of atoms does not imply 'undividable', which was part of Dalton's understanding. So there is a continuity from Dalton's ideas about atoms and ours, which makes it possible to identify the concepts with the same objects. 

I seriously doubt that we could do the same with e.g. Demokritos' atoms. (But are not even sure).

To repeat what I said before, you, qua scientific realist, want to say something like the following:

"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".

But you cannot say this given the purely descriptivist theory of reference that you sketch on page 1 (in the post with that handsome rhino pic). If you want to say the above, you'll need a new theory of reference.

Supposing you're at a party and some dude mentions the name "Einstein". You ask him who he's talking about. He replies:

"You know, Einstein. The famous German scientist who discovered penicillin and led the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt".

On your own account of reference we are compelled to the conclusion that, inasmuch as the description associated with the name is (presumably) not satisfied by any real person, the aforementioned dude's use of the name "Einstein" fails to refer. He's talking about no one.

Now suppose Dalton is at the same party and mutters something about atoms. You ask him what he's talking about. He replies:

"You know, atoms. These little particles that are indivisible and ...".

Once again, on your own account, we must conclude that Dalton's term "atom" fails to refer. He's talking about nothing. Or, if by some fluke, there is something in nature that corresponds to his description, it's certainly not what 21st century scientists call "atoms".

If your own theory of reference is correct, there is no continuity of reference from Dalton, through his successors, to the present day. So your options are:
(i) Concede the above
(ii) Get a new theory of reference that allows you to say what you want to say about reference continuity

(iii) Join the French foreign legion
 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

I think this is obviously right, but not particularly relevant.

 It's right and relevant. 

Quote

What Darwin thought about natural selection is voluminously documented and needs no further elaboration here. The point of this thread, rather, has been to focus on what he thought about the traditional rival of evolutionary theories: special creation. Imagine we could travel back to 1859 or thereabouts and pose the following question to him:

Darwin's thoughts on the evolution of life were scientifically formulated with evidence documented to support it. His thoughts on creation were just that...thoughts, no evidence to support such unscientific mythical dogma.

Quote

"Mr Darwin, we all know you don't believe the theory of special creation is true. But if it were true, what might we expect to see in nature: perfection or imperfection?"

It's not true and irrelevant.

 

Quote

In the first page of the thread I've been suggesting -- though not insisting -- that Darwin would opt for the former (and thus paradox). And repeated allusions to special creation and absolute perfection in his own writings suggest precisely this. Why would he be mentioning perfection at all if it was not believed (by himself or others) that this is implied by the creation hypothesis?

Yes, agreed...a wild arsed guess.

 

Quote

Finally...

 

Quote

Once again, on your own account, we must conclude that Dalton's term "atom" fails to refer. He's talking about nothing. Or, if by some fluke, there is something in nature that corresponds to his description, it's certainly not what 21st century scientists call "atoms".

Quote

 

If your own theory of reference is correct, there is no continuity of reference from Dalton, through his successors, to the present day. So your options are:
(i) Concede the above
(ii) Get a new theory of reference that allows you to say what you want to say about reference continuity

(iii) Join the French foreign legion

 

Our knowledge of the atom has progressed with technological advancements, observations and experiments, and as a result as per science and the scientific method, our model has changed. The basic foundation that atoms were indivisible was wrong...As observations improved...the model changed...science and the scientific method progressed and prevailed.

Again most of your irrelevant stories and analogies were ignored, and obviously your take on "perfection" and evolution has been shown to be wrong....many times. Sorry about that. 

The following Q+A site was recommended to me by a professional Astronomer as reputable with professional answers.....

https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-scientists-admiration-of-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-dependent-upon-its-perfection

<Q> To what extent is scientists' admiration of Darwin's theory of evolution, dependent upon its perfection?

<A> 

To zero extent.

There is no such thing as perfection in science.There were many things Darwin had no knowledge of when he proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection.He did not know the mechanism of inheritance. He knew inheritance happened, humans have known about that for millennia, but he did not know how.The structure of DNA wasn’t discovered until 71 years after Darwin’s death. We still don’t fully understand how it works.Charles Darwin has been dead for 134 years. Science continues to advance.

We understand evolution so much more clearly now than he did.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

2nd Answer> None, which is a good thing, because “perfect” is not really what we think of when thinking of Darwin’s insights. Like almost everything in science, the explanations Darwin came up with (for things he noticed in the world) were pretty good, at the time. A lot of his ideas (and they weren’t just his, by the way, but he gets the credit largely because other than Wallace, nobody else seems to have been putting the pieces together and writing it down) were very solid, and they’ve held up very well over the past century-plus. Of course, there was a lot that he didn’t know about - DNA/genetics, for instance - and a huge amount of pretty deep research has been done on the ideas he proposed since then. Impressively, almost everything he laid out has been basically confirmed, with the caveats that the picture is a bit more complicated than he realized. He got a lot of how evolution works pretty much right, which is a tribute to his ability to pull a lot of different strands of information together and pick up the underlying pattern. However, a lot of times the first stab at things is pretty crude, which makes Darwin’s synthesis pretty impressive. Of course, that was then, and scientists often had a lot more time to mull things over and chew on ideas until the big Aha! moment. Nowadays the race for publication primacy is very intense. Darwin only really had to worry about Wallace (or vice versa, unfortunately for Wallace), just like Leibnitz and Newton were the two independently working on the Calculus. Today, with the instantaneous and far-flung web of scientific communication, discoveries are far more likely to work out the way Tom Lehrer describes in his classic song “Lobachevsky”

 

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

Hi again, Eise,

Something else for you to ponder, haha! On page 1, just above that pic of the handsome rhino, you explained your thoughts on how a concept or a term -- I'll just say concept from now on to cover both -- such as "unicorn" (or "aardvark" or whatever) succeeds or fails to refer. Let me quote again:

Quote

On the other hand, 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, you offer us two definitions/descriptions that we might associate with the concept "unicorn":
(i) 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, and
(ii) an animal with one horn on its head

Under (i) the description is not satisfied, thus the concept fails to refer; under the latter description reference is successful -- but it refers to rhinos and other single-horned beasts.

Now, they do say one person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens: what one person regards as a great discovery, another person regards as an absurd result.

You seem to be endorsing -- perhaps not entirely seriously, though you did say "See, here's my unicorn" -- the former: that given description (ii) we have made the astonishing discovery that the concept "unicorn" refers to rhinos.

I'd be inclined to adopt the latter position myself: the result that "unicorn" refers to rhinos constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of your theory of reference.

When one's theory of reference yields the result that the concept "unicorn" refers to rhinoceroses, narwhals, and other horned critters that I can't think of, then your theory of reference may be due for an overhaul.

Trivia time, folks. If you define "tail" to mean "leg", how many legs does an aardvark have?

[beecee]

57 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of your theory of reference.

Yes, plenty of that certainly....the applied perfection nonsense, claiming Newtonian did not predict Neptune, your often reference towards the unscientific creationism or ID myth and on it goes. and has since around 2015. Now Reg, instead of childishly asking me to bet my house and all I own, [something you know can never happen and just some pretentious bravado on your part] why not instead make a genuine effort, without any unreal similaries or poor analogies, just properly refute the many claims by myself and others re your many mistakes here and elsewhere. You know what they are. Just continually and stubbornly repeating them, does not make them any more valid.

 

But anyway lets add some more interesting and far more valid scenarios re the supposed object of this thread.......

https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-scientists-admiration-of-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-dependent-upon-its-perfection

Perfection?

If by “Darwin’s theory of evolution” you mean what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species and Descent of Man and other books about evolution, then FYI evolution was far from “perfect”. Natural selection did not work in the theory of genetics of the time. Some of Darwin’s specific evolutionary lineages were wrong. His explanation for “gaps” in the fossil record was wrong. His description of the evolution of wingless beetles on islands was wrong. His reasoning for his claim that women were less accomplished than men was wrong.

The theory of evolution has undergone major revisions since Darwin. Most notable is the merging of Mendelian genetics with evolution that is the Modern Synthesis.

However, In science, admiration of a theory depends on whether it is supported by data. Is that what is meant by “perfection” here?

Is the word “perfection” meant to describe a theory that explains much otherwise unexplainable data? Evolution has always done that.

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Theodosius Dobzhansky.

The ability to explain phenomenon that no other theory could explain, even with the faults, was always a strength of Darwin’s original theory. For instance, no other theory could explain why islands with nearly identical climate and geography had such differences in flora and fauna as the Cape St. Verde and Galapagos Islands. No other theory can explain why a cricket occupies the ecological niche that mice occupy in the rest of the world. No other theory could explain the designs — good and not so good — in plants and animals.

Bottom line: “perfection” is a value judgment. Scientists admire theories that conform to the data. That is, theories that are supported, not refuted, by the data. The more data that supports them, the more scientists admire them. Evolution is supported by massive amounts of data. They also admire theories that are “clever”. The theories that cause you to clap your hand to your forehead and say “Why didn’t I think of that?” Natural selection is such a theory.

Scientists also admire theories that give them tools to answer new questions and understand new observations. Again, evolution has done that. Natural selection explains antibiotic resistance and the resistance of cancers to treatments, providing biomedical researchers with insights on new research into those problems.. It explains the fossil record and provides tools to paleontologists on where and when to look for fossils. Natural selection has provided scientists in many fields — computer programming, biochemistry, engineering, airplane design, computer design, etc. — new tools such as genetic algorithms to get designs that they could not get on their own.

And the list goes on and on.

Edited October 22, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

I think this is obviously right, but not particularly relevant.

It's very relevant, since he uses the term perfection to describe the concept of the degree of adaptation to the environment.

Quote

What Darwin thought about natural selection is voluminously documented and needs no further elaboration here. The point of this thread, rather, has been to focus on what he thought about the traditional rival of evolutionary theories: special creation. Imagine we could travel back to 1859 or thereabouts and pose the following question to him:

"Mr Darwin, we all know you don't believe the theory of special creation is true. But if it were true, what might we expect to see in nature: perfection or imperfection?"

In the first page of the thread I've been suggesting -- though not insisting -- that Darwin would opt for the former (and thus paradox). And repeated allusions to special creation and absolute perfection in his own writings suggest precisely this. Why would he be mentioning perfection at all if it was not believed (by himself or others) that this is implied by the creation hypothesis?

Darwin is using the word in a relative sense, and you have been using it in the absolute sense. So such a statement does not mean what you imply it would mean. 

Darwin might go so far as to say that such a binary statement isn't particularly illuminating, and explain why, at length.

 

[Reg Prescott]

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

Darwin is using the word in a relative sense, and you have been using it in the absolute sense. So such a statement does not mean what you imply it would mean. 

Here's the quote again from Origin:

"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed." (pages 417 - 418)

 

So you're suggesting that when Darwin says "absolutely perfect" and "absolute perfection" he's using the term in a relative sense?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Here's the quote again from Origin:

"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed." (pages 417 - 418)

 

So you're suggesting that when Darwin says "absolutely perfect" and "absolute perfection" he's using the term in a relative sense?

He's not saying nature is absolutely perfect or that it is geared  to be.

[Reg Prescott]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He's not saying nature is absolutely perfect or that it is geared  to be.

 I know he's not.

When he speaks of the workings of natural selection, he uses the word perfect in a relative sense (e.g. "more perfect"). When he alludes to the rival theory of special creation, on the other hand,  he speaks of "absolute perfection" and cognates.

Now, he clearly does not subscribe the the latter theory himself, but his writing makes it clear, I think, that either he himself believes, or it was commonly believed by others at the time, or both, that special creation implies absolute perfection.

You'll see that I wrote back in my first post on page 2: "He uses "perfect" in both a relative (e.g. "more perfect") and an absolute sense ("absolute perfection").

(To which swansont replied: "You have provided no evidence of the latter. Just your assertion."  The evidence is staring you in the face in black and white.)

The point is turning out to be far more elusive than I'd imagined.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 I know he's not.

When he speaks of the workings of natural selection, he uses the word perfect in a relative sense (e.g. "more perfect"). When he alludes to the rival theory of special creation, on the other hand,  he speaks of "absolute perfection" and cognates...

What's wrong with that: religious people do see it as 'perfect'. I'm afraid it's lost on me. :

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sometimes you need to do that to sufficiently contrast subtle nuances.  

[Reg Prescott]

Just now, StringJunky said:

What's wrong with that: religious people do see it as 'perfect'. I'm afraid it's lost on me. :

If you go back to my first three or so posts on page 1, you'll get it.

I'm suggesting that special creation implying perfection in nature may lead to paradox. ("gazelles evading predators that cannot be evaded", etc.)

And if God is as helpless in the face of paradox as the rest of us, then He would have had to (hypothetically speaking) introduce imperfection in nature.

If that's the case -- and I'm not arguing it is the case -- then the theory of special creation is not, contra the remarks in the OP quote, unable to explain imperfection in nature.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Here's the quote again from Origin:

"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed." (pages 417 - 418)

 

So you're suggesting that when Darwin says "absolutely perfect" and "absolute perfection" he's using the term in a relative sense?

We've already been over this. Darwin's wording is inconsistent with him talking about absolute perfection in the way you are describing it. He's talking about fitness, which is a local condition. Relative. 

For him to be talking about some abstract absolute perfection, you have to assert that Darwin was unaware of the logical conundrum that you have already described (lion vs gazelle, or spear vs shield). Basically, asserting that Darwin wasn't all that bright, because he did not realize this logical inconsistence in his area of expertise – the topic on which he literally wrote the book.

Or you can take the position that Darwin wasn't talking about this abstract notion.  

 

Have you found any passages where Darwin defines what he means by absolute perfection, specifically in terms of special creation? The only ones I have found have been in terms of natural selection.  

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

If you go back to my first three or so posts on page 1, you'll get it.

I'm suggesting that special creation implying perfection in nature may lead to paradox. ("gazelles evading predators that cannot be evaded", etc.)

And if God is as helpless in the face of paradox as the rest of us, then He would have had to (hypothetically speaking) introduce imperfection in nature.

If that's the case -- and I'm not arguing it is the case -- then the theory of special creation is not, contra the remarks in the OP quote, unable to explain imperfection in nature.

Or what is meant by perfection is not what you are assuming it means. Otherwise you are assuming that not only did Darwin not understand this conundrum, but that nobody else did, either. 

[beecee]

On 10/18/2018 at 6:56 PM, Eise said:

It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me.

In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.

 

On 10/18/2018 at 7:09 PM, beecee said:

If I could give you a dozen up votes I would Eise!!! Exactly what came to my mind when I read that crazy tripe. But I was choosing to stay out of it, due to experience in other threads of circular arguments, ignoring of evidence and examples invalidating this weird philosophical stance that he has been trying to push since 2015. I could mention some more relevant  anomalies in the OP claim and that of his reply to you, but I thought it best to try and alleviate another dummy spit.  Not only is his knowledge of science questionable going on past posts, but it appears he also has a tentative grip on his favourite area philosophy. Again you have hit the nail fair square on the head.

 

On 10/19/2018 at 1:22 AM, swansont said:

Not so much. 

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."

The phrase "more perfect" is inconsistent with the notion that he's talking about some "absolute perfection". How can you be more perfect than something else that is absolutely perfect? It's like being north of the north pole.

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."

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)

 

Three early posts I believe short circuited whatever the argument put in the OP was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz_B8JP2pA8 It's not Frank, but is relevant to this thread.

 

 

[Reg Prescott]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

We've already been over this. Darwin's wording is inconsistent with him talking about absolute perfection in the way you are describing it. He's talking about fitness, which is a local condition. Relative. 

Yes, we have been over this, but the point apparently remains elusive. 
 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

(i) For him to be talking about some abstract absolute perfection, (ii) you have to assert that Darwin was unaware of the logical conundrum that you have already described (lion vs gazelle, or spear vs shield). (iii) Basically, asserting that Darwin wasn't all that bright, because he did not realize this logical inconsistence in his area of expertise – the topic on which he literally wrote the book.

 

(i) First of all, there are no "if"s and "but"s about it. He is talking about absolute perfection. It's right there in black and white.

(ii) No, this doesn't follow. Two posts above I wrote:
 "Now, he clearly does not subscribe the the latter theory himself, but his writing makes it clear, I think, that either he himself believes, or it was commonly believed by others at the time, or both, that special creation implies absolute perfection".

Thus, it may have been that Darwin, being the bright chappie he was, was quite aware of the logical conundrum, but that it had not occurred to certain other parties. It may also have been that Darwin and some/all of his contemporaries' concept of absolute perfection in nature did not imply paradox; that it was more of a Leibnizian notion of perfection (see below).

(iii) See (ii) above.

 

The point of all this is that when Darwin speaks of "absolute perfection" -- as he undeniably does -- it's hard to know what to say. Is he alluding to his own concept? Or that of others? And in either case, what form would this concept take?

It's tempting here, for better or for worse, to appeal to, and draw upon the insights of, Saul Kripke and Gottfried Leibniz.

Kripke warns us that conceivability is not a reliable guide to possibility. For example, if you can conceive, or think you can conceive, of a world where water is not H20 and heat is not molecular motion, then you're confused, Kripke cautions. There is no such world. Water is H20 and heat is molecular motion in every possible world in which they exist at all. The "two" cannot come apart. If they are identical at all (i.e., the scientists got it right), they are necessarily identical.

Leibniz, meanwhile, admonishes the weltschmerz-ridden young Werther types who complain of broken hearts, cancer, tsunamis, zits, and Barry Manilow, "Like it or not, pal, this is as good as it gets. This is the best of all possible worlds. And screw you, Voltaire".

Bringing these ideas together, we might imagine the following interview, presumably a CNN exclusive:

Larry King: "Hey God. No disrespect or anything, but what's with all this evil in the world? I can imagine a better world."
God: "No, you can't"
Larry King: "Oh. Well, how about all this gazelles-being-mauled-by-lions crap? I can imagine a world where that never happens."
God: "Yes, a world with no gazelles, or no lions, for example".
Larry King: "That's not what I mean. I can imagine a world that contains both lions and gazelles and all the rest, but not so much ... imperfection".
God: "No, you can't."
 

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Yes, we have been over this, but the point apparently remains elusive.

We, the forum in general, have been over many things with you, and they still all remain elusive to you, including your total misinterpretation of perfection and natural selection.

Quote

 

(i) First of all, there are no "if"s and "but"s about it. He is talking about absolute perfection. It's right there in black and white.

(ii) No, this doesn't follow. Two posts above I wrote:
 "Now, he clearly does not subscribe the the latter theory himself, but his writing makes it clear, I think, that either he himself believes, or it was commonly believed by others at the time, or both, that special creation implies absolute perfection".

 

So once again, as per your other threads, everyone else is wrong, despite the evidence that has been linked to, to support their interpretation/s, and you remain the only one right...Do I have this correct? 

Quote

Thus, it may have been that Darwin, being the bright chappie he was, was quite aware of the logical conundrum, but that it had not occurred to certain other parties. It may also have been that Darwin and some/all of his contemporaries' concept of absolute perfection in nature did not imply paradox; that it was more of a Leibnizian notion of perfection (see below).

Here we go again, putting words and your agenda laden opinion into someone else's mouth and then expecting the forum to swallow it hollus bollus. 
.

 

Quote

The point of all this is that when Darwin speaks of "absolute perfection" -- as he undeniably does -- it's hard to know what to say. Is he alluding to his own concept? Or that of others? And in either case, what form would this concept take?

Darwin was a religious man as well as a scientist. His beliefs or otherwise have been added to, improved, sometimes modified, to align with the extended observations today, and guess what? the scientific method. You are a philosopher with nothing concrete to add, and an obvious leaning to invalidate or caste doubt on the reliability and legitimacy of science. In that you have failed.

Quote

Bringing these ideas together, we might imagine the following interview, presumably a CNN exclusive:

Thereby rests half your problem....Imagining/fabricating scenarios/myths that align with your misinterpretation/s

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Yes, we have been over this, but the point apparently remains elusive. 
 

 

(i) First of all, there are no "if"s and "but"s about it. He is talking about absolute perfection. It's right there in black and white.

And so is what I said, but apparently you missed it. You are objecting to something that isn't there.

I did not say the phrase isn't there. The discussion is about what he means by absolute perfection. You seem to be insisting that it means one thing — some abstract ideal — while his writing never mentions that. You are extrapolating, and have not supported your assertion.

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(ii) No, this doesn't follow. Two posts above I wrote:
 "Now, he clearly does not subscribe the the latter theory himself, but his writing makes it clear, I think, that either he himself believes, or it was commonly believed by others at the time, or both, that special creation implies absolute perfection".

Thus, it may have been that Darwin, being the bright chappie he was, was quite aware of the logical conundrum, but that it had not occurred to certain other parties. It may also have been that Darwin and some/all of his contemporaries' concept of absolute perfection in nature did not imply paradox; that it was more of a Leibnizian notion of perfection (see below).

As I said, you are claiming that other — the champions of the creationist view — were idiots. (Even the most extreme ones I'm aware of only claim that there was no death until the fall of man, which means it does not apply to anything alive or what we'd likely find in the fossil record. i.e. the notion doesn't apply)

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

  The point of all this is that when Darwin speaks of "absolute perfection" -- as he undeniably does -- it's hard to know what to say. Is he alluding to his own concept? Or that of others? And in either case, what form would this concept take?

It's tempting here, for better or for worse, to appeal to, and draw upon the insights of, Saul Kripke and Gottfried Leibniz.

Or you could, you know, read Darwin's work.

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Kripke warns us that conceivability is not a reliable guide to possibility. For example, if you can conceive, or think you can conceive, of a world where water is not H20 and heat is not molecular motion, then you're confused, Kripke cautions. There is no such world. Water is H20 and heat is molecular motion in every possible world in which they exist at all. The "two" cannot come apart. If they are identical at all (i.e., the scientists got it right), they are necessarily identical.

As an aside, heat is not molecular motion, so if this is an accurate paraphrase, Kripke is confused. But then, getting the science wrong is one of the potential problems of philosophers commenting on science.

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Leibniz, meanwhile, admonishes the weltschmerz-ridden young Werther types who complain of broken hearts, cancer, tsunamis, zits, and Barry Manilow, "Like it or not, pal, this is as good as it gets. This is the best of all possible worlds. And screw you, Voltaire".

Bringing these ideas together, we might imagine the following interview, presumably a CNN exclusive:

Larry King: "Hey God. No disrespect or anything, but what's with all this evil in the world? I can imagine a better world."
God: "No, you can't"
Larry King: "Oh. Well, how about all this gazelles-being-mauled-by-lions crap? I can imagine a world where that never happens."
God: "Yes, a world with no gazelles, or no lions, for example".
Larry King: "That's not what I mean. I can imagine a world that contains both lions and gazelles and all the rest, but not so much ... imperfection".
God: "No, you can't."
 

I'm with Brand, from Interstellar, on nature not being evil.  "Formidable, frightening, but…no, not evil.  Is a lion evil because it rips a gazelle to shreds?"

Plus I'm not comfortable telling God what they would say. 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Larry King: "Hey God. No disrespect or anything, but what's with all this evil in the world? I can imagine a better world."
God: "No, you can't"
Larry King: "Oh. Well, how about all this gazelles-being-mauled-by-lions crap? I can imagine a world where that never happens."
God: "Yes, a world with no gazelles, or no lions, for example".
Larry King: "That's not what I  mean. I can imagine a world that contains both lions and gazelles and all the rest, but not so much ... imperfection".
God: "No, you can't."

 

God: "If the lions were perfect they'd kill all the gazelles then die starving; if the gazelles were, they'd take the world."

[Reg Prescott]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

God: "If the lions were perfect they'd kill all the gazelles then die starving; if the gazelles were, they'd take the world."

Haha!

Well, I suppose if the lions committed mass gazellocide only to succumb to inanition, one could argue that they can't have been perfect.

A bit like the proverbial (?) goldfish with an unlimited food supply, or the proverbial Glasgow Rangers fan with unlimited pork pies and Bovril, who proceeds to insouciantly stuff himself to death. (Do goldfish really do that?)

Thinking about perfection is liable to drive you round the bend, if you're not there already.

The atheist might concede that a certain amount of evil in the world is necessary, but still complain, "Do we really need so much of it?"

Likewise, the natural selection apologist -- on pain of embracing paradox -- might accept that divine creation is quite compatible with the existence of imperfection in nature, and thus that the creation hypothesis can make imperfection in nature comprehensible (see OP quote). But he might reasonably continue, "Would there have to be so much?"

Either way, the existence of Barry Manilow, Justin Bieber, and rap "musicians" constitutes pretty damning evidence against the omnibenevolent, omnipotent Creator hypothesis. Why, Reg Prescott could have done a better job!

(For the uninitiated, Reg Prescott is an inept DIY-buff creation of English comedian Kenny Everett. You'll find him on Youtube)

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, I suppose if the lions committed mass gazellocide only to succumb to inanition, one could argue that they can't have been perfect.

A bit like the proverbial (?) goldfish with an unlimited food supply, or the proverbial Glasgow Rangers fan with unlimited pork pies and Bovril, who proceeds to insouciantly stuff himself to death. (Do goldfish really do that?)

2

God: "No, you don't get it"

"A perfect lion picks the strongest gazelle (the best meal)"

[studiot]

On 23/10/2018 at 11:55 AM, swansont said:

Quote

Kripke warns us that conceivability is not a reliable guide to possibility. For example, if you can conceive, or think you can conceive, of a world where water is not H20 and heat is not molecular motion, then you're confused, Kripke cautions. There is no such world. Water is H20 and heat is molecular motion in every possible world in which they exist at all. The "two" cannot come apart. If they are identical at all (i.e., the scientists got it right), they are necessarily identical.

As an aside, heat is not molecular motion, so if this is an accurate paraphrase, Kripke is confused. But then, getting the science wrong is one of the potential problems of philosophers commenting on science.

Hi Reg, Just to add to swansont's comment

Have you ever heard of heavy water?

 

Some say that Philosophers tend to over complicate but I suggest they often try to over simplify but postulating categories and trying to pigeonhole everything into them regardless of what turns up.

[Reg Prescott]

@ studiot

 

Both yourself (on water) and swansont (on heat) raise an important point: philosophy must remain informed by findings in empirical science or else risk becoming irrelevant. On this I'm in full agreement with you both.

No doubt there are cases where philosophers oversimplify out of sheer ignorance. On the other hand, the simplification is often deliberate. I suppose we might look on this as a form of idealization; a phenomenon far from rare in empirical science itself. In treating planets as point masses, for instance, surely no one believes they are point masses.

As one example, the so-called psycho-physical identity theory of the mind holds that mental states such as pain, beliefs, desires, etc. are identical with states of the brain. When arguing for or against, it's standard practice to treat the neural correlate (or equivalent! -if the theory is right) of pain to be "C-fiber firings". If the identity theorist is right, pain just is the firing of C-fibers.

Now, everyone knows -- or I hope they do -- that the actual situation in the brain is far more complex than this. We might say that C-fiber firings are invoked as a convenient abbreviation for whatever the actual brain state may be. The precise nature of that brain state remains a matter for empirical science to discover.

All the psycho-physical identity theory advocate or opponent needs to proceed with her conceptual analysis is that pain be identical with [some brain state or other].

John Searle (from about 34:00 - 38:00), who I would take to be typical in discussions of this kind, is quite clear that he's simplifying on purpose.

 

Swansont's objection to heat being more complex than, or not even, molecular motion can, I think, be viewed in the same way. If science has indeed completed a successful reduction of our pre-scientific vernacular term "heat" to something more scientifically respectable, then all that matters for Kripke's argument to proceed is that [heat = some particular state or phenomenon]. 

As for your own objection vis-à-vis the putative water/H2O identity, studiot, several things can be said:

1. It seems implausible that Kripke would be unaware of isotopes. As far as I can recall, though, he does not broach the topic himself.

2. The arguments of Kripke and Putnam, needless to say, are not universally accepted, particularly with regard their application to natural kind terms. Chomsky, for one, is characteristically contemptuous. 

Their arguments seem most cogent when applied to proper names. E.g., it is argued that if a statement such as "Robert Zimmerman = Bob Dylan" is true at all, it is both a posteriori (its truth cannot be known by reflection alone) and necessarily true (true in all possible worlds, or counterfactual situations, to be less melodramatic).

3. Now the heavy duty crap. Kripke and Putnam (or at least one Putnam -- he was notorious for tergiversation) defend the age-old tradition of essentialism, or natural kinds. That is to say, nature is divided up into classes or categories that exist independently of our attitudes or interests. Nature itself is carved at the joints and science, done right, will reflect these natural joints in her various taxonomies. This would be opposed, in some cases at least, to the idea of taxonomy as mere convention.

The poster child of the natural kinds advocate has always been the chemical elements. Scientific practice itself seems largely to reflect an implicit adherence thereof. When isotopes were discovered, we did not conclude that our vernacular term "iron", say, fails to pick out a natural kind; but rather that iron is indeed a natural kind that comes in several varieties. 

A natural kind, then, does not necessarily imply the lowest possible division in nature. What we take to be a natural kind may have subordinate categories (isotopes, subatomic components, etc.) as well as superordinate categories (metal, element, etc.).

Contrast this with the interesting and much discussed case of "jade", which science now recognizes to come in two chemically quite distinct forms: jadeite and nephrite. The tendency, I suspect, would be for scientists to tell us that our pre-scientific vernacular term jade (unlike iron or water) does not, in fact, latch onto a natural kind; though the terms nephrite and jadeite do. What would you say yourself?

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but does heavy water not still have the chemical formula H2O, even if the "H" in question is not the most abundant isotope? And, indeed, a little googling reveals that heavy water is regarded nonetheless as (a kind/variety of) water, much as the various isotopes of iron are regarded as iron nonetheless. For purposes of chemistry, water/iron (as opposed to jade) is the basic level kind; subordinate categories notwithstanding.

In Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment, the substance that flows in rivers, quenches thirst, falls as rain, etc., and is even called "water" by the locals -- i.e., superficially indistinguishable from our water -- has a wildly different and very complex chemical composition, perhaps containing no hydrogen or oxygen at all, which Putnam abbreviates as XYZ. 

The question, then, is: Is Twin Earth "water" (or twater) water or not?

Most of us, pulled by our intuitions, feel inclined to say, I think, that upon discovery of its actual chemical constitution, we would conclude -- deferring to the experts (i.e. you guys) -- that XYZ is not water. An affirmation of essentialism!

Of course, it's not inconceivable we could go in the other direction and conclude, "We have discovered there are two kinds of water: H2O (which itself subdivides into various forms including heavy water) and XYZ". 

What say you?

What does seem highly unlikely is that we'd lump them all in together, i.e., "We know now that there are (at least) three kinds of water: good old fashioned water, heavy water, and XYZ". XYZ just seems too far removed.

The debate, as you might have guessed, continues bloody in tooth and claw, and if there's going to be a final word on all this, it certainly won't be coming from 

yours truly
Reg

Edited October 25, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ studiot

 

Both yourself (on water) and swansont (on heat) raise an important point: philosophy must remain informed by findings in empirical science or else risk becoming irrelevant. On this I'm in full agreement with you both.

No doubt there are cases where philosophers oversimplify out of sheer ignorance. On the other hand, the simplification is often deliberate. I suppose we might look on this as a form of idealization; a phenomenon far from rare in empirical science itself. In treating planets as point masses, for instance, surely no one believes they are point masses.

As one example, the so-called psycho-physical identity theory of the mind holds that mental states such as pain, beliefs, desires, etc. are identical with states of the brain. When arguing for or against, it's standard practice to treat the neural correlate (or equivalent! -if the theory is right) of pain to be "C-fiber firings". If the identity theorist is right, pain just is the firing of C-fibers.

Now, everyone knows -- or I hope they do -- that the actual situation in the brain is far more complex than this. We might say that C-fiber firings are invoked as a convenient abbreviation for whatever the actual brain state may be. The precise nature of that brain state remains a matter for empirical science to discover.

All the psycho-physical identity theory advocate or opponent needs to proceed with her conceptual analysis is that pain be identical with [some brain state or other].

John Searle (from about 34:00 - 38:00), who I would take to be typical in discussions of this kind, is quite clear that he's simplifying on purpose.

 

Swansont's objection to heat being more complex than, or not even, molecular motion can, I think, be viewed in the same way. If science has indeed completed a successful reduction of our pre-scientific vernacular term "heat" to something more scientifically respectable, then all that matters for Kripke's argument to proceed is that [heat = some particular state or phenomenon]. 

As for your own objection vis-à-vis the putative water/H2O identity, studiot, several things can be said:

1. It seems implausible that Kripke would be unaware of isotopes. As far as I can recall, though, he does not broach the topic himself.

2. The arguments of Kripke and Putnam, needless to say, are not universally accepted, particularly with regard their application to natural kind terms. Chomsky, for one, is characteristically contemptuous. 

Their arguments seem most cogent when applied to proper names. E.g., it is argued that if a statement such as "Robert Zimmerman = Bob Dylan" is true at all, it is both a posteriori (its truth cannot be known by reflection alone) and necessarily true (true in all possible worlds, or counterfactual situations, to be less melodramatic).

3. Now the heavy duty crap. Kripke and Putnam (or at least one Putnam -- he was notorious for tergiversation) defend the age-old tradition of essentialism, or natural kinds. That is to say, nature is divided up into classes or categories that exist independently of our attitudes or interests. Nature itself is carved at the joints and science, done right, will reflect these natural joints in her various taxonomies. This would be opposed, in some cases at least, to the idea of taxonomy as mere convention.

The poster child of the natural kinds advocate has always been the chemical elements. Scientific practice itself seems largely to reflect an implicit adherence thereof. When isotopes were discovered, we did not conclude that our vernacular term "iron", say, fails to pick out a natural kind; but rather that iron is indeed a natural kind that comes in several varieties. 

A natural kind, then, does not necessarily imply the lowest possible division in nature. What we take to be a natural kind may have subordinate categories (isotopes, subatomic components, etc.) as well as superordinate categories (metal, element, etc.).

Contrast this with the interesting and much discussed case of "jade", which science now recognizes to come in two chemically quite distinct forms: jadeite and nephrite. The tendency, I suspect, would be for scientists to tell us that our pre-scientific vernacular term jade (unlike iron or water) does not, in fact, latch onto a natural kind; though the terms nephrite and jadeite do. What would you say yourself?

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but does heavy water not still have the chemical formula H2O, even if the "H" in question is not the most abundant isotope? And, indeed, a little googling reveals that heavy water is regarded nonetheless as (a kind/variety of) water, much as the various isotopes of iron are regarded as iron nonetheless. For purposes of chemistry, water/iron (as opposed to jade) is the basic level kind; subordinate categories notwithstanding.

In Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment, the substance that flows in rivers, quenches thirst, falls as rain, etc., and is even called "water" by the locals -- i.e., superficially indistinguishable from our water -- has a wildly different and very complex chemical composition, perhaps containing no hydrogen or oxygen at all, which Putnam abbreviates as XYZ. 

The question, then, is: Is Twin Earth "water" (or twater) water or not?

Most of us, pulled by our intuitions, feel inclined to say, I think, that upon discovery of its actual chemical constitution, we would conclude -- deferring to the experts (i.e. you guys) -- that XYZ is not water. An affirmation of essentialism!

Of course, it's not inconceivable we could go in the other direction and conclude, "We have discovered there are two kinds of water: H2O (which itself subdivides into various forms including heavy water) and XYZ". 

What say you?

What does seem highly unlikely is that we'd lump them all in together, i.e., "We know now that there are (at least) three kinds of water: good old fashioned water, heavy water, and XYZ". XYZ just seems too far removed.

The debate, as you might have guessed, continues bloody in tooth and claw, and if there's going to be a final word on all this, it certainly won't be coming from 

yours truly
Reg

Wow! Really Reggy, I'm not being nasty, [I have absolutely no reason to be] but you really say soooo much with so little conclusive results, instead of simply admitting you were wrong on your absolute definition of perfection and how it ties in or otherwise with natural selection.

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

ps: No, I have not watched your video as I don't believe it has anything to do with the subject at hand.