Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, since swansont's original claim "science is not the quest for reality" was unqualified by any mitigating clause such as "by and large" or "on the whole", on pain of misrepresenting my interlocutor's own words, (ii) must be understood as:

(iii) All scientists are not engaged in the quest for reality
or more simply
(iv) No scientists are engaged in the quest for reality

 

Must? How about "should not"

Science ≠ scientists

[Strange]

The normal assumption for unqualified mass nouns is that they apply to some members of the group (I read an article by a linguist about this recently, but can't find it now). For example, "people are afraid of heights" is a statement of existence; it means that there are some people who are afraid of heights. It would need a qualifier for [most] people to think it applied to everyone.

[Eise]

Oh, my. Where has this discussion gone...

If this way of discussion would be representative for what philosophers do, I tend to agree with beecee's stance on philosophy, with his many times repeated quote of Mencken.

I learned first to understand exactly what the position of the other is, before showing weaknesses in that position, or bringing one's own. Really, it is possible to do philosophy in a civilised way. But if people feel their 'holy houses' are attacked, and react from their hurt feelings, it is inevitable that a discussion regresses in a discussion about who is right. I am sure Reg makes some valid points, and so do others.

Happily enough, most of philosophy is not like this. To say it in line with Mencken's quote: some philosophers behave like that, some don't. Sounds a bit like Reg's distinction between 'Science' and 'scientists'... Please do not generalise...

Just one question: do some scientists engage in a quest for reality, or do these scientist believe they are engaging in a quest for reality? What is the real question at hand here?

[Reg Prescott]

Welcome back, Eise. Yes, the thread has matured and flourished into a strapping young football hooligan in your absence. A paradigm for all to follow.
 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

Just one question: do some scientists engage in a quest for reality, or do these scientist believe they are engaging in a quest for reality? What is the real question at hand here?

 

I don't think there's any difference. On the previous page I observed:

Quote

Note also that it matters not whether the object of the quest even exists. The statement "Ponce de León was searching for the fountain of youth" is true, even if said fountain is entirely illusory.

 

The kind of statement above is what's known as an "intensional [sic] context"; a context where standard rules of extensionality tend to break down.

(Intensionality -- with an "s" -- is not to be confused with intentionality with a "t". Unfortunate, I know, but we're stuck with it. See also discrete and discreet.)

One such rule: in standard (extensional) contexts any term can be substituted for a co-referring term with no change in truth value.

E.g. in the statement "Johnny Rotten is lead singer of the Sex Pistols" we can substitute "John Lydon" for "Johnny Rotten" salva veritate (as the pretentious assholes say) -- i.e., with a guarantee that the truth value of the statement, whatever that is, remains unaltered.

In an intensional context, the rule is no longer trustworthy. E.g. supposing "Eise believes Johnny Rotten is a punk rocker" is true. There's no guarantee that "Eise believes John Lydon is a punk rocker" is also true. You might not know the two names refer to the same virtuoso -- shame on you! -- and thus it's possible you would assert one and deny the other.

 

Another test for extensionality is existential generalization. E.g. from the truth of "Johnny Rotten lives in London" we can infer the existence of London.

Not so for intensional contexts. From the truth of "Sid Vicious is searching for a flying elephant" we infer at our peril to the existence of said airborne pachyderm.

Likewise "Professor Bloggs is engaged in a quest for reality", regardless of what we take "reality" to be, does not admit of a reliable inference to the existence of said reality.

Thus, to believe one is engaged in a quest for something -- whether it be pink elephants, Grolsch beer, reality, or the fountain of youth -- just is to be engaged in such a search. No distinction can be drawn.
 

The (intensional) statement "Eise is looking for an honest lawyer", if indeed you are engaged in such a search, is not falsified by adducing evidence that there exists no such beast.
Contrast with a claim like "Eise is an honest lawyer" -- a good old fashioned extensional context -- which would be falsified by ... well, need I say more?

 

What's most remarkable, I find,  in this thread and other current threads I've glanced at is that certain supposedly hard-nosed scientific types express skepticism over reality at all. Comments such as (I paraphrase): "What is this truth and reality you speak of?"

I thought it was the philosophers who were supposed to entertain airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky, far-fetched, zany, wacky notions. What do they think scientific theories purport to describe: the contents of an envatted brain?

 

One wonders how they even get on the bus in the morning given that reality and truth are apparently so elusive.

Tell 'em to stop cramping our style!! 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

11 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The claim "science is not the quest for reality", then, if read literally, would be what Gilbert Ryle described as a "category mistake".

Science -- depending who you ask -- has been variously characterized as a method, an institution, a body of knowledge, and perhaps other things, too.
 

Again despite your obvious "smoke and mirror" tricks, playing the victim card, and pretentious attempts at humour, the fact remains as fact...Science is not necessarily the search for any truth or reality, which you have yet even attempted to explain, just like the obvious agenda that is reflected in your illogical, anti science posts. If by chance it happens to hit upon that, then all well and good. 

10 hours ago, Eise said:

Oh, my. Where has this discussion gone...

If this way of discussion would be representative for what philosophers do, I tend to agree with beecee's stance on philosophy, with his many times repeated quote of Mencken.

I learned first to understand exactly what the position of the other is, before showing weaknesses in that position, or bringing one's own. Really, it is possible to do philosophy in a civilised way. But if people feel their 'holy houses' are attacked, and react from their hurt feelings, it is inevitable that a discussion regresses in a discussion about who is right. I am sure Reg makes some valid points, and so do others.

Happily enough, most of philosophy is not like this. To say it in line with Mencken's quote: some philosophers behave like that, some don't. Sounds a bit like Reg's distinction between 'Science' and 'scientists'... Please do not generalise...

Happily enough I'm inclined to agree with you. I mean I would never ask you the question of what sort of philosopher you believe Reg is, but I would suggest a read through all his threads that have been closed, and the others, and see for your self, the crazy, illogical claims made under the name of philosophy. And please be aware, that my approach to philosophy and philosophers, has softened somewhat after an interesting debate with yourself in another thread a while back. 

By the way, I prefer Laurence Krauss' argument to the Menken quote.

 

Quote

Just one question: do some scientists engage in a quest for reality, or do these scientist believe they are engaging in a quest for reality? What is the real question at hand here?

Probably yes to both, but does that change the fact that science is not necessarily the search for truth and/or reality? Or that even any person searching for this truth or reality, know exactly what they are searching for? [which in my opinion is near always reflected in some ID concept, despite the denial and hiding in the closet].I mean as I have tried to tell Reg, in any discipline we will always have mavericks and outsiders for whatever reasons, best known to themselves. 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

One wonders how they even get on the bus in the morning given that reality and truth are apparently so elusive.

Well  at least I'm confident that you are reading my posts, as well as it seems, stealing my lines. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by beecee

[StringJunky]

If science claimed it was searching for truth and then declared it had found it, it would cease to function with an open mind. It would have all the limitations of a religion.

[Reg Prescott]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If science claimed it was searching for truth and then declared it had found it, it would cease to function with an open mind. It would have all the limitations of a religion.

Hi there,

With all due respect, I find it hard to make head or tail of a comment such as this.

First of all, a great many scientists DO claim -- as a matter of documented fact -- that the task of science is to generate, or attempt to generate, true propositions of nature (Want quotes?). Isn't this just common sense?

Secondly, if the task of science is not as I've described above, what do you feel is the proper aim? To generate false propositions about nature?

 

The words "truth" and "reality" seem to strike terror in the hearts of certain members. Yet you all use them, and their cognates, every day!

"Daddy, is it true that the climate is changing?"

"Daddy, is it true that smoking causes cancer?"

"Daddy, is it true that copper conducts electricity?"

 

Er, what do you answer?

Edited October 29, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Hi there,

With all due respect, I find it hard to make head or tail of a comment such as this.

First of all, a great many scientists DO claim -- as a matter of documented fact -- that the task of science is to generate, or attempt to generate, true propositions of nature (Want quotes?). Isn't this just common sense?

Secondly, if the task of science is not as I've described above, what do you feel is the proper aim? To generate false propositions about nature?

Again, every discipline has its dissenters and mavericks, the fact remains though, that science is not necessarily the search for any truth or reality, and as yet you have not showed that claim to be invalid...you can't the evidence supporting it, is observable everyday.

Quote

 

The words "truth" and "reality" seem to strike terror in the hearts of certain members. Yet you all use them, and their cognates, every day!

"Daddy, is it true that the climate is changing?"

"Daddy, is it true that smoking causes cancer?"

"Daddy, is it true that copper conducts electricity?"

 

Er, what do you answer?

 

Answer...the obvious answer that applies to near all your threads. You are being obtuse. The truth and reality that you speak of is not the universal truth and reality that you originally claim exists and as yet have not shown it.

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Hi there,

With all due respect, I find it hard to make head or tail of a comment such as this.

First of all, a great many scientists DO claim -- as a matter of documented fact -- that the task of science is to generate, or attempt to generate, true propositions of nature (Want quotes?). Isn't this just common sense?

Secondly, if the task of science is not as I've described above, what do you feel is the proper aim? To generate false propositions about nature?

 

The words "truth" and "reality" seem to strike terror in the hearts of certain members. Yet you all use them, and their cognates, every day!

"Daddy, is it true that the climate is changing?"

"Daddy, is it true that smoking causes cancer?"

"Daddy, is it true that copper conducts electricity?"

 

Er, what do you answer?

History is littered with 'truths' that turned out to be not. What would you compare it with when you have no reference? 

[Reg Prescott]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

History is littered with 'truths' that turned out to be not. 

True, but I'd suggest the overwhelming majority of truth attributions that we make are not mistaken. Just try it today. If you think you see a car approaching, there almost certainly is a car approaching. If you think it's true that you're typing in a science forum then it almost certainly is true.

Now, things do get a lot trickier when we're talking science. But no one -- scientific realist or antirealist -- withholds from making any knowledge claims or truth assignments. That would be a position of radical skepticism of the Cartesian variety or "we might all be in the Matrix" type.

The disagreement between the scientific realist and antirealist tends to be over the observable vs the unobservable.

The antirealist might grant, for example, that much, or even everything, a good theory says about observable reality is true. i.e. the observable consequences/predictions of the theory are true. In other words, if we do such-and-such we will observe such-and-such. And she would probably stop right there, making no additional truth claims.

The realist goes further, claiming not only what the antirealist claims, but that we have sufficient justification for believing a good theory (not just its observable consequences) -- with certain qualifications -- is true, or approximately so. That is to say, the unobservable entities, mechanisms, etc. postulated by the theory actually exist.

 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What would you compare it with when you have no reference? 

The realist's justification for her truth/knowledge claims would be much like those of Sherlock Holmes: the theory that provides the best explanation for the observed phenomena is likely to be true, or approximately so.

Did Holmes, or anyone else (except the participants themselves), see the butler do it? Nope. 

Does anyone see these unobservable entities and mechanisms posited in scientific theories? Nope.

It's a form of inference we all use in our everyday lives. You come home to find your house ransacked and the family jewels missing, what do you infer? You've been burgled! And you'll almost certainly be right.

The scientific realist simply extends the same reasoning to (good, well-tested, etc., etc.) scientific theories.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

49 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

True, but I'd suggest the overwhelming majority of truth attributions that we make are not mistaken. Just try it today. If you think you see a car approaching, there almost certainly is a car approaching. If you think it's true that you're typing in a science forum then it almost certainly is true.

That's certainly not any universal or magical creator truth that you appear to be pushing.

Quote

The scientific realist simply extends the same reasoning to (good, well-tested, etc., etc.) scientific theories.

The reality of space and time within the confines of GR are not any indication of any deeeeep truth or mystical reality. It simply is as is. Science does not necessarily  seek any truth or reality, particularly any mythical supernatural reality. Perhaps if you came clean re your own beliefs, we maybe able to diagnose why your philosophy of life appears anything but logical, based on the illogical conclusions you have reached.

Edited October 29, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Does anyone see these unobservable entities and mechanisms posited in scientific theories? Nope.

Yet, spacetime is warped, curved, bent, twisted and altered to wave shapes in the presence of mass. Something need not be observable to exist. Do you observe a magnetic field?, Nope, you just see its effects, just as we see the effects of the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass, and  what we refer to as gravity. But I don't expect you to comment on that obviously, as you are unable to explain. But yet again, we see the usual load of rhetorical analogies that in no way support this deep underlying truth you keep claiming exists. As yet, you have fooled no one into accepting your invalid claim.

Edited October 29, 2018 by beecee

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

beecee, it would be appreciated if you could not keep trying to bait Reg into discussions related to a closed thread. 

Reg, stop being obtuse or this is getting closed. 

 

[Reg Prescott]

1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator

Reg, stop being obtuse or this is getting closed. 

 

 

I honestly haven't the faintest idea what you mean. Where have I been obtuse? 

I can certainly point you with no difficulty to where such accusations have been hurled in my direction. I would hope you would not simply take such gossipmongering at face value. Give me examples of my obtuseness and we'll examine them together rationally.

I'm reluctant to say this, because it might be construed as indelicate or rude. But the plain fact is that one particular "contributor" understands almost nothing of what I've been saying. Virtually everything I say goes over his head. By his own admission -- as if it were needed -- he's ignorant of philosophy, and to this he adds an unquenchable hostility to, and withering contempt for, the discipline, coupled with ungrounded accusations of my hidden "agenda" (whatever the hell that is) and my being "anti-science" (I'm not).

How many times do I have to explicitly state that I have no religious beliefs whatsoever -- some people just don't get the message -- and for how much longer must I look on helplessly as lies are dispensed and my character impugned? You know how people tend to be: if they hear something often enough from the gossipmongers, they're liable to end up believing it.

The physicists wouldn't like it in one of their threads. The physicists, indeed, would not allow it in one of their threads.

Why, then, is it allowed to go on here?

Edited October 29, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

I honestly haven't the faintest idea what you mean. Where have I been obtuse? 

The physicists wouldn't like it in one of their threads. The physicists, indeed, would not allow it in one of their threads.

You have yet to show how in relation to this thread, that this perfection you imagine, has anything to do with natural selection and evolution, and what selected quotes you have posted, have been countered with other more reputable links..

Quote

Virtually everything I say goes over his head. By his own admission -- as if it were needed -- he's ignorant of philosophy,

My admitted ignorance in philosophy does not prevent me from sorting the wheat from the chaff, in the silly claim of yours re perfection and natural selection. And also others here have actually noted ignorance, or simply being obtuse on your part, more then once.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Hi there,

With all due respect, I find it hard to make head or tail of a comment such as this.

First of all, a great many scientists DO claim -- as a matter of documented fact -- that the task of science is to generate, or attempt to generate, true propositions of nature (Want quotes?). Isn't this just common sense?

Searching for propositions that are true ≠ searching for reality

(i.e. "how nature behaves" is a proposition, and we can find agreement, thus they can be true) 

 

[Reg Prescott]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Searching for propositions that are true ≠ searching for reality

Again, it's very hard to make sense of this. Let's consider a couple of fairly uncontroversial propositions:

(i) Donald Trump is president of the USA (in the year 2018)

or something more scientific sounding...

(ii) Copper conducts electricity

 

Is Donald Trump a real person? Is the proposition true? If so, then it's a true proposition about reality.

 

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

(i.e. "how nature behaves" is a proposition, and we can find agreement, thus they can be true) 

 

First of all, "how nature behaves" is not a proposition. It doesn't have the requisite form (i.e. an assertive sentence).

Consider (ii) instead. Is copper real? Is it true that copper conducts electricity? Is this an example of "how nature behaves"? (if not, please provide one).

If so, science has generated a true proposition about reality. Science has searched for -- and found (we presume) -- a statement that correctly describes reality.

 

(Let it be noted here that we're using the term "proposition" rather loosely. "Statement" would be more philosophically felicitous)
 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

Along with all the other articles and papers that have been linked to in this thread invalidating any concept of natural selection and perfection[as opposed to the isolated out of context quotes offered by Reg] this one is also interesting and shows the misinterpretation of what Darwin was to have said..

https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/unidentifiedflyingobject/discussion-perfection-origin-species

A Discussion of the Word “Perfect”
Its Role in Origin of the Species

In the conclusion of On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin makes a statement that is of critical importance for an analysis of his thinking. “As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being,” he says, “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection” (397). That which is “good” is easily definable in a Darwinian sense: something is good if it allows a being reproductive advantages over other beings in the same environment, whether they are of the same or of another species. That which is “perfect,” however, is much more difficult to define. Origin of Species is a work that subsequently helped give birth to the modern, non-essentialist thought process of most biological thinkers, but its modern significance only complicates the issue of Darwin himself. What kind of thinker was he? Darwin’s usage of the concept of perfection helps illuminate his struggle to interpret his enormous quantity of empirical data about evolution and natural selection.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, perfection is characterized by “a state of complete excellence; free from any imperfection or defect of quality; that cannot be improved upon.” Its origin (the word from which it has evolved) is the Latin term “perficio,” which can be literally translated as “a finishing.” If all beings are progressing toward perfection, the very use of the words “progressing” and “perfection” implies that at some point in time evolution will no longer be necessary, a suggestion that is extremely essentialist in nature. Is Darwin an essentialist thinker?
When Darwin first talks of natural selection, he asserts, “No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live, that none of them could anyhow be improved” (145). Certainly he does not believe that any current species is perfect, but he frequently cites a kind of relativistic perfection. “How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one distinct organic being to another being, been perfected?” (132) he asks. He provides his answer in an explanation of the symbiotic relationship between flowers and bees when he says, “ I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted in the most perfect manner to each other, by the continued preservation of individuals presenting mutual and slightly favourable deviations of structure.” (153)
The kind of perfection that Darwin sees in nature is a kind of temporary, fluctuating perfection that exists between different beings and between beings and their environment. When Darwin discusses the role of geographic isolation in modifying island species, he claims that “new places in the polity of each island will have to be filled up by modifications of the old inhabitants; and time will be allowed for the varieties in each to become well modified and perfected” (161). In other words, after environments shift, it is necessary that beings find a new state of relative perfection. Darwin continues this line of thought when he suggests, “in the general economy of any land, the more widely and perfectly the animals and plants are diversified for different habits of life, so will a greater number of individuals be capable of there supporting themselves. (167). 
Darwin summarizes his vision of perfection in natural selection in the conclusion to Origin of Species, where he writes:
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...The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed. (387) 

The phrase “absolute perfection” is intriguing in this context. After specifically describing adaptation as “only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates,” he implies that there is a form that is most perfect. Perhaps Darwin and his naturalist contemporaries can be seen as a variety or a subspecies of thinkers, who provide a missing link between their essentialist ancestors and their existentialist descendents. 

And this interesting rebuttal to the notion/fairy tale being proposed in this thread..........

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S165.htm

Alfred Russel Wallace:

 The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied
to Man (S165: 1869/1870)

Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: This essay is the final chapter of the collection Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, published in 1870. It represents a "further development of a few sentences at the end of an article on 'Geological Time and the Origin of Species'" (i.e., S146). Original pagination indicated within double brackets. To link directly to this page, connect with: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S165.htm

 

extract:

 "Mr. Darwin himself has taken care to [[p. 334]]impress upon us, that "natural selection" has no power to produce absolute perfection but only relative perfection, no power to advance any being much beyond his fellow beings, but only just so much beyond them as to enable it to survive them in the struggle for existence". 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Again, it's very hard to make sense of this.

I wish you well in your struggle.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Let's consider a couple of fairly uncontroversial propositions:

(i) Donald Trump is president of the USA (in the year 2018)

or something more scientific sounding...

(ii) Copper conducts electricity

 

Is Donald Trump a real person? Is the proposition true? If so, then it's a true proposition about reality.

This is a troubling pattern. 

I did not say that all propositions that are true are about reality.  You seem to struggle with this whole concept of subsets and universal statements, and that anecdotes are not proof of universal statements. It's like supporting the statement "All people are men. Donald trump is a man. So are Matt Damon, Clint Eastwood and Tom Brady." While the supporting information is true, they do not prove the premise. All I would have to do is point to any woman, and the claim is falsified. 

Do you need to see a Venn diagram of this? Would that help?

Awaiting your next evasive response that I am using smoke and mirrors, that you have refuted me, hastily-constructed straw man, or whatever, rather than actually addressing my point.

 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

First of all, "how nature behaves" is not a proposition. It doesn't have the requisite form (i.e. an assertive sentence).

It is a class of propositions.

 

 

On 10/27/2018 at 7:43 PM, Reg Prescott said:

(ii) I did not claim "no blanket statements can be made about science". What I did say was (2nd post, page 4):

"I've also remarked before that perhaps the only blanket statement that can be safely made about science is that no blanket statements can be made about science. Scientists say all kinds of things about science, and not infrequently, mutually contradictory things."

Any fool can make a blanket statement about science (E.g. "All scientists are electric toasters"), and many fools do. The statements they make are almost invariably false. 

So one can conclude that the blanket statement that "science is the quest for reality" is likely false. It is not a statement that can be safely made. And yet you push back on my observation that it is indeed false, that science is not actually a quest for reality.  

[Reg Prescott]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

I did not say that all propositions that are true are about reality.  

And I did not say that you said that all propositions that are true are about reality.

 

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

You seem to struggle with this whole concept of subsets and universal statements, and that anecdotes are not proof of universal statements. It's like supporting the statement "All people are men. Donald trump is a man. So are Matt Damon, Clint Eastwood and Tom Brady." While the supporting information is true, they do not prove the premise. All I would have to do is point to any woman, and the claim is falsified

 

You seem to struggle with distinguishing a premise from a conclusion. I think you mean "They do not prove the conclusion".

 

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do you need to see a Venn diagram of this? Would that help?

Do you need to see a book on logic for beginners? Would that help?
 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

And I did not say that you said that all propositions that are true are about reality.

But you used an example that implied it.

 

[Reg Prescott]

Just now, swansont said:

But you used an example that implied it.

 

I used two examples. Neither implies that all propositions that are true are about reality.

If you disagree, show us in logical form, how the implication is derived.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Alright, I think this thread is sufficiently off topic to have run its course. Closed.