Hi Brian,
Thanks for the book suggestions. I've read the first two, but will begin
efforts to locate Lifelines by Steven Rose. Hearing about interesting books
is one of the main reasons I stay involved in these discussions. As far as
reading more Dawkins (I've read a couple), I feel the same way when religious
people urge me to read the bible, convinced that if I read enough of it I'll
become religious. I can't believe Dawkins would say anything that would
surprise me.
You said about materialism:
>Perhaps I better elaborate a little more on this. I would tend to
>make a much stronger claim than the above, it is not losing its
>hold, its dead, buried almost a century ago.
Bertvan:
I don't think I agree with that. First, as long as anyone believes in
materialism, it isn't "dead". I've met many people who freely claim to be
materialists--and by my definition.
Second, I don't believe philosophical positions can be "dead",
"discredited", "buried" or anything else. Philosophical choices are
personal-- made by each individual with their entire life experience as
"evidence". Philosophical views can't be disproved by science.
And finally, it sounds like a facile way to try to get rid of a philosophy
one doesn't like. I am tired of hearing ideas I find interesting have been
"discredited". I am not by any definition a materialist, although I may have
been at some time in the distant past. However, I will defend anyone's right
to design their own personal philosophy without being told it is
"unscientific". Science has no special expertise in philosophical matters.
We live in the most exciting time of human history. Until the internet,
ideas were generally under control of those who happened to find themselves
in power. Who would have thought each individual might expound their own
unique ideas, and someone would listen. Maybe only a dozen listeners, but
that is more than anyone could have guaranteed in the past. I predict this
rich mixture of ideas will be explosive, and I don't want to restrict
anyone's input, including the views of materialists, Darwinists,
creationists--or anyone else with whom I disagree.
Brian:
>My earlier statement "...this will very much depend upon exactly
>what one means by materialism and determinism." Is very important.
>I recall earlier your stating that you had read a lot of Johnson.
>Apparently you were much influenced by Johnson (nothing wrong with
>this :) as in another post you gave a definition of materialism
>that seems very consistent with the way Phil uses the term:
#"I thought materialism had a pretty specific definition.--That
#nothing exists except matter and energy, and everything is
#humanly understandable in those terms. That the universe is
#the result of a series of accidents-- without plan, meaning or
#purpose. What is your definition?"-- Bertvan
Bertvan:
If we settled the problem of definitions, we'd surely have less to disagree
about.
It is my understanding that methodological naturalism states that science can
only address phenomena it can measure. Philosophical naturalism claims
science can measure everything. I believe both Johnson and I agree with the
first and disagree with the second.
>>>> I''d be interested in hearing comments about the
>>>> following web site:
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/0997issue/0997infocus.html
Brian:
>Perhaps because all the evidence suggested that mutations were not
>directed? The important point is genetic variation. BTW, in the
>study you cited, was there selection?
Bertvan:
I believe so. I don't think many people deny selection is a factor in nature.
Brian:
>You seem to me to be too centered in on ultra-Darwinism. Even if u-D were to
>fail completely it would not provide any evidence for design. You
>don't find evidence for one theory by knocking down another. This
>is a logical fallacy known as the argument from the false alternative.
Bertvan:
True. I'm not sure evidence can be developed for design. It might be a
philosophical position. However, that doesn't provide evidence for "random
mutation and natural selection" as a mechanism of macro evolution.
Bertvan