Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

> That's a meaningless assertion. Could I invite you to present a more easoned argument?
I forgot to paste something in. Got too quick with the Send button. Will have to come back to this one later.
> Any in particular? Really? I named two.
> Then I have to reject them as strawmen since none of them showed a
> problem with naturalism per se. In fact, none of them are relevant to
> naturalism.
No. You are only rejecting them because you dislike them.
Mayr's contradiction is certainly relevant as we will show.
> Yes, and you confuse this to be a paradox when in fact as I explained
> your interpretation of Mayr is flawed. Just because Mayr believes that
> evolution presents some problems to the understanding by some does not
> mean that evolution and evolutionary theory has any problems, in fact.
> As I explained the facts are simple that regularity and chance
> processes are quite well understood. So let me see if I can give you
> an example or two to clarify as you seem to be struggling with the
> concept of necessity versus probability.
> First example: Given a set of initial conditions, distributed with
> some unnamed probability distribution function, calculate how they
> 'evolve' under the process of a regular process. Chaos theory shows
> that often, especially in case of non-linearities, the solutions
> quickly diverge. So in other words, despite the regularity involved,
> the solutions become some distribution.
> Second Example: Given a probability distribution and a regularity,
> such a a selective force, you can calculate for various cases their
> outcome and obtain a distribution function for the expected outcome.
> Even though the mechanism is regular and repeatable, the outcome
> depends on chance variations and thus in some cases, the advantageous
> allele can still be lost due to chance, especially in small
> populations.
It is you who misrepresent Mayr. He is very clear that by Necessity he means Determinism
and by Chance he means Contingency. He explains himself. Your explanation of another option
is beside the point. It's a distraction from the reality of Mayr's own words.
> Aha, I noticed now your quote, and page. I assumed that 229 was a page
> count, and I apologize. Yes, Mayr discusses in a short paragraph that
> evolution is neither random nor regular. You seem to conclude,
> erroneously, that this causes a problem for darwinian theory by
> calling it a paradox, when in fact it isn't.
Chance vs Determinism is a paradox of contradiction, not conflict.
Again, read Mayr better. He is quite clear.

>Hence the name "process"
Again you change the subject. I never debated "process". The question is "lawlike".
> Excellent but now combine this with variation and you have a lawlike
> process with chance variations.
No. A lawlike process. Variation does not demand contingency.
> Just like Mayr argued, selection is deterministic in nature, variation
> is probabilistic in nature, the combine process is stochastic.
And you don't see the problem? THis is why there are
> I have to simply reject that claim. There is nothing religious about
> the workable premise of science that it has to deal in falsifiable
> presumptions. Otherwise, it is not science. If your argument is that
> the _effect_ of this presumption is that it eliminates the
> supernatural as an explanation then this is not an a priori assumption
> but a constraint on the supernatural which lacks falsifiability since
> it predicts anything and thus nothing.
Whoa! At this point you've rejected a great deal of science.
> The term is at best confusing and in fact, it lacks any relevance other than it being an assertion.
It is entirely relevant to the theory-making process and the different categories of science.
> Nope, you are confusing science and physicalism. Let me see if I can
> help you understand. Physicalism is the metaphysical assumption that
> science is all there is while science is the methodological process
> which remains silent on the issue of the existence of other
> metaphysical factors.
Suppe answered your statement. Page 15, iirc, of The Structure of Scientific Theory.
You are half right. The correct half is when you deal with only physical tests.
But the Received View has too many issues. Seager deals with this in W. H. Newton-Smith's
A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, p. 288-289.
The positivist theory of meaning has fallen (far) out of favor nowadays, but the distinction between the two contexts of scientific activity remains an important bulwark against metaphysics.Yet I believe that even a cursory examination of modern science will show that there is no easy way to separate metaphysical from ?purely scientific? doctrine unless one is willing to swallow a radical (neo-empiricist) vision of science which itself embodies a metaphysical position.Furthermore, if we follow this route, the legitimate place of science within our culture is sadly diminished.> What is an impersonal causality? Remember science deals in practical matters.
The Transcendent Impersonal First Cause for the Big Bang.
Or Marx' dialectical principle.
Science is very often the opposite of practical.
Tachyon theory has no basis in reality. It is a set of mathematical constructs, and that's about it.
>The door is open to what? Science has to incorporate quantum theory as
> it is part of the reality of science.
If science is going to open the door to contingency, or even compatibalism, and
so add transcendant principles, the door is thereby open to other transcendant discussions.
> Somehow I am confused about what you are really trying to argue here
> although it seems like you are confusing physicalism and science, or
> philisophical naturalism and methodological naturalism
Confuse physicalism and science? Hardly. What I'm trying to show is that
"science" is no monolith of theory structures. There are many and all of
them accepted in the scientific community, even within the natural sciences.
Again, Suppe and Newton-Smith will give you the broader picture of
the components and history of scientific theory-making.
So far you've been in warrior mode and I've accomodated your behavior.
At this point I've answered all (except for falsification, that is) of your questions
and pointed to particular errors of reason and assumption.
I'm not a simple creationist who is easily knocked off and really don't want to
be at odds with anyone here. This is a polite community. Let's keep it that way.
My goal here is to learn more about varying views of science, prompting my early post on definitions.
The archive is fertile ground. Enjoy yourself.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 2 19:57:59 2008