Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

It's not so much that I'm forgetting the limitations on scientific
domain -- I (my true self) have always freely embraced that. But in
these discussions, perhaps in the name of "playfulness", I develop a bit
of a split personality. I've had too many friends that object to any
such implied limitations on science -- or who insist that the things
"beyond" science are not really real anyway, and of no consequence
except in the delusions of the superstitious. For better or worse, my
interactions with such people cause me to experimentally "adopt" their
viewpoint when looking at an issue. So I'm just clumsily testing
waters among those of you who are professionally immersed in these
philosophical issues, to see if they have had any further resolution in
the last few decades. My suspicion is that nothing approaching
resolution ever happens on these, so we just get used to them and move on.

When early scientists thought of origins issues as "beyond
investigation" -- or more accurately "no investigation needed", a later
age opens it up to science. Evolutionary science is born. Do these
issues of freewill and thought constitute another hard-shelled egg that
is soon to be busted open and added to the domain of science?
Discussions of evolutionary origins of morality seem to be an attempt to
bring ethics into scientific domain. My scientism friends would be
quick to notice a trend here. Science conquers -- it may temporarily
halt or go wrong directions, but it never cedes any ground.

--merv

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

>On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:34:11 -0500 Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
>writes:
>
>
>><snip>
>>Here is an offshoot question: will the mechanism by which
>>"choice" is
>>made, (should freewill exist -- and I take it that all of us here
>>are
>>committed to that axiom?) remain forever beyond scientific
>>scrutiny?
>>If so, does this necessitate our thinking of every choice as an
>>(albeit
>>mundane) miracle (i.e. in that it has no accessible explanation
>>even
>>in theory)? How does an EP explaining group selection origins
>>for
>>morality OR others using selfish-gene-selection "morality") escape
>>
>>Lewis' old criticism of materialism in which any so-called "evil"
>>act
>>could no more be criticized as such than we could admonish a rock
>>for
>>having rolled down a hill? Explaining how morality came to be
>>(even
>>successfully) is not the same as constructing an "ought to" for
>>myself
>>for the future, is it?
>>
>>Lastly, how do you maintain methodological naturalism while still
>>
>>remaining committed to free-will? Somebody may have to
>>acknowledge a
>>"black box" beyond our reach somewhere. This seems like something
>>in
>>which explanation would kill not only the thing explained, but maybe
>>
>>even the explanation itself.
>>
>>--merv
>>
>>
>>
>I fear you're forgetting that there are many topics which are not
>amenable to scientific study. Why is there something rather than nothing?
>What is the basis of morality? What are the intrinsic values? What is the
>nature of human freedom? How does logic function? Etc. All the really
>fundamental problems cannot be addressed by science. Indeed, the
>scientific method depends on nonscientific assumptions. You kill the
>explanation when the basis has to be fit into the resultant.
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 3 18:15:52 2006