At 11:57 PM 6/2/2008, you wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Collin R Brendemuehl
><collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
> > At 09:23 PM 6/2/2008, you wrote:
>
> > So what do you believe Mayr says because so far nothing Mayr said
> > contradicts my interpretation. In fact, it also matches Mayr's
> > interpretation. Chance versus determinism is not a paradox of
> > contradiction, it may be confusing to use them at the same time but
> > they are not exclusive. Mayr points out that evolution consists of, at
> > least in case of Darwinism, two processes: one is variation which is
> > inherently probabilistic in nature (the term random is often used but
> > this may lead to unnecessary confusion), and selection which is
> > inherently 'law like'. Combine the two processes and you get something
> > which is stochastic in nature but there is hardly a contradiction or
> > paradox of contradiction here.
> >
> > Perhaps I am failing to understand your argument but let me state
> > clearly that nothing what Mayr stated in the paragraph you quoted is
> > an insurmountable problem for evolutionary theory, even though some,
> > as Mayr suggests, have trouble appreciating that the process is both
> > law like and chance like..
> >
> > I still encourage you to clarify your claims, since the examples you
> > provided show no problems for naturalism.
> >
> > What am I missing here?
>
>Colin:
> > What I believe Mayr says? Is the text so obscure? Not at all.
> > He specifically uses contingency and necessity in their respective
> > philosophical senses.
> > There is nothing at all confusing.
>
>Except that you seem to interpret them in a manner inconsistent with
>how science uses these terminologies. In fact Mayr explains how he
>uses these terms: determinism refers to the law-like nature of
>selection and contingency to the chance like behavior of variation.
>The scientific literature has some good examples of how these
>scientists use these terms and if you wish to interpret them in a
>manner inconsistent with their usage then you have a problem
Again, NO. Mayr uses these terms exactly as do the philsophers.
Insist all you want, you are in error.
> > Just because Mayr asserts that Darwinism is the automatic resolution of the
> > issue does not solve anything.
> > He lets his contradiction remain. He treats it as some sort of special
> > "power".
>
>Not at all, although I appreciate why you may reach such a conclusion.
>In fact, Mayr does give us the resolution and points out, somewhat
>ironically, that there are some who have a hard time dealing with the
>concept of contingency and determinism.
He used the term "power" to try and reconcile the two. Not me.
>Colin:
> > You got the quote right, but you're missing something really simple:
> > If I were misrepresenting Mayr he would not have resorted to that sort of
> > Wonder and Awe "power" statement.
> > But he did. My case rests.
> > And problem #1 for naturalism remains.
>
>Not really, you argument relies on a subjective interpretation of
>wonder and awe when in fact, Mayr understands and points out that the
>combination of determinism and chance form a powerful mechanism for
>evolution. So I have to reject your claim that problem #1 even exists
>for naturalism, in fact, I have explained how science deals with these
>concepts, so even if you were right in your portrayal of Mayr, you are
>wrong to claim that a problem remains. In fact, you have not even
>identified a problem other than by claiming that there is a paradox
>when Mayr points out that this is a _seemingly contradiction_. Mayr's
>own claims disagree with your interpretation.
>
>As I stated before, it's important to understand how the scientist
>uses these terms, for instance De Duve
>
><quote>De Duve writes: "Mutations are chance events, which fact it is
>often claimed, implies a view of evolution as being ruled by chance.
>While not denying the role of contingency in evolution, I point out
>that chance operates within constraints—physical, chemical,
>biological, environmental—that limit its free play."</quote>
>
>These constraints form teleological components as the constrain the
>solution, often towards converging solutions.
>
>In fact Mayr explains his position most clearly (in disagreement with
>your interpretation)
>
><quote>Fourth, Darwin does away with determinism. Laplace notoriously
>boasted that a complete knowledge of the current world and all its
>processes would enable him to predict the future to infinity. Darwin,
>by comparison, accepted the universality of randomness and chance
>throughout the process of natural selection. (Astronomer and
>philosopher John Herschel referred to natural selection contemptuously
>as "the law of the higgledy-piggledy.") That chance should play an
>important role in natural processes has been an unpalatable thought
>for many physicists. Einstein expressed this distaste in his
>statement, "God does not play dice." Of course, as previously
>mentioned, only the first step in natural selection, the production of
>variation, is a matter of chance. The character of the second step,
>the actual selection, is to be directional.
>
>Despite the initial resistance by physicists and philosophers, the
>role of contingency and chance in natural processes is now almost
>universally acknowledged. Many biologists and philosophers deny the
>existence of universal laws in biology and suggest that all
>regularities be stated in probabilistic terms, as nearly all so-called
>biological laws have exceptions. Philosopher of science Karl Popper's
>famous test of falsification therefore cannot be applied in these
>cases. </quote>
>
>Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought by Ernst Mayr September 23, 1999,
>lecture thadelivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from
>the Royal Swedish Academy of Science.
>
>Or in "This Is Biology" Mayr writes p188
>
><quote>
>Darwinian natural selection is today almost universally accepted by
>biologists as the mechanism responsible for evolutionary change. It is
>best visualized as a two step process: variation and selection proper
></quote>
>
>Clearly identifying as I did that evolution is a two step process
>
><quote>
>The first step is the production of massive genetic variation in every
>generation owing to genetic recombination, chance factors and
>mutation. Variation, clear, was the weakest point in Darwin's
>thinking. In spite fo a great deal of study and hypothesizing he never
>understood what the source of variation was.</quote>
>
><quote>During this process of recombination as well as in mutation
>chance reigns supreme. There is a whole series of consecutive steps
>during meiosis where the assortment of genes is largely random and
>contributes a huge chance component to the process of natural
>selection.</quote>
>
>Well undeniably Mayr contradicts your interpretation
>
><quote>
>The second step in natural selection is selection proper. This means
>the differential survival and reproduction of the newly formed
>individuals (zygotes). </qutoe>
>
>p.189
>
>Chance or necessity?
>
><quote>From the Greeks to the nineteenth century there was a great
>controversy over the question whether changes in the world are due to
>chance or necessity. It was Darwin who found a brillinat solution to
>this old conundrum: they are due to both.
></quote>
>
>Case #1 dismissed.
You don't give up, do you.
Just because he said Darwin did away with
determinism does not mean that he did not have a problem.
i.e., you are changing the subject.
You are certainly free to maintain that both continue to exist and
you are free to ignore the contradiction. But it remains.
> > Mayr:
> >
> > One can conclude from these observations that evolution is neither
> > merely a series of accidents nor a deterministic movement towards even
> > more perfect adaptation. To be sure, evolution is in part an adaptive
> > process because natural selection operates in every generation. The
> > principle of adaptionism has been adopted so widely by Darwinists
> > because it is such a heuristic methodology. To question what the
> > adaptive properties might be for every attribute of an organism leads
> > almost inevitable to a deeper understanding. However, every attribute
> > is ultimately the product of variation and this variation is large a
> > product of chance. Many authors seem to have a problem in
> > comprehending the virtually simultaneous actions of two seemingly
> > opposing causations, chance and necessity. But this is precisely the
> > power of the Darwinian process.
> >
> > note the _seemingly opposing_ . Mayr is stating, as I stated, that
> > evolutionary processes have two components: one of mostly necessity
> > called selection and one mostly of a chance nature: variation.
> >
> >
> > Now remember what I stated
> >
> >> Excellent but now combine this with variation and you have a lawlike
> >> process with chance variations.
> >
> > To which you responded: No. A lawlike process. Variation does not
> > demand contingency.
> >
> > As I and Mayr point out Variation is a probabilistic process of mostly
> > chance.
> >
> > I continued
> >
> >> Just like Mayr argued, selection is deterministic in nature, variation
> >> is probabilistic in nature, the combine process is stochastic.
> >
> > To which you responded partially: And you don't see the problem? THis
> > is why there are
> >
> > It would be nice to hear the rest of the argument as well as why you
> > believe Mayr and Rosenhouse show a problem for naturalism. What am I
> > missing?
> >
> > So you claim the debate is law-like, to which I answer that neither
> > Mayr nor Rosenhouse claimed that variation is lawlike but rather that
> > the process of selection is law-like. Combine this with the chance
> > processes involved in variation and you may appreciate why the process
> > can be both contingent and deterministic. I referred to stochastic
> > processes as an example
> >
> > I hope that this contributes to a better understanding of what Mayr is
> > telling us.
> >
> > Colin: Oh, I understand it.
> > Rosenhouse may have the same contradiction problem as Mayr: (I've not
> > considered it fully.)
> > There is no contingency in a determined system.
>
>There is contingency in a system which contains a deterministic and a
>probabilistic component. Science calls these processes stochastic as
>they combine a deterministic system with 'noise'.
>
> > The "lawlike" necessity that frames his mathematical model presumes
> > directionality much as Gould does.
>
>Yes, in fact there is a level of directionality as these deterministic
>processes maximize or minimize properties. For instance in selection,
>the property maximized is fitness, but even though that is the
>ultimate direction, the species can still go extinct or drift into a
>sub-optimal solution, depending on the population sizes. Similarly in
>physical processes most often energy states are minimized, hence we
>find soap bubbles and protein folds. However, due to the contingent
>nature of variation, the overall process is neither fully
>deterministic nor fully contingent. Of course, even random processes
>like the drunkards walk can have directionality as Gould pointed out.
>When there exists a 'wall' of minimal complexity (single cellular)
>then random walk will inevitably diffuse away from the origin.
>
> > If there is directionality (for Rosenhouse that is a calculable conclusion
> > that, because of a lawlike process,
> > cannot be avoided) then there is determinism and no contingency. They are
> > exclusive.
> > Problem #2 for naturalism remains.
>
>Because of a lawlike process, part of the mechanism is deterministic,
>however due to the chance processes part of the mechanism is
>contingent. The result is neither contingent nor deterministic.
>
>
> >
> >>> 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
> >
> > By rejecting the supernatural? Too bad but that's just not part of science.
> >
> > No, by rejecting the metaphysical.
> > Back to my posting -- if you allow one
> metaphysical explanation there is not
> > reason to disallow another.
>
>That depends whether or not the other metaphysical explanation carries
>its weight. In science, the success of methodological naturalism has
>shown that it indeed does carry its own weight. At best, the
>metaphysical position of the supernatural is scientifically without
>content and adds nothing, and in some cases it subtracts from science
>as it insists on being inconsistent with scientific knowledge.
>
>I am somewhat surprised that you insist that just because evolution
>includes a deterministic process, it should thus be fully
>deterministic, when in fact both Rosenhouse and Mayr are clear that
>the variation component is fully or mostly contingent.
Do you understand the law of non-contradiction?
That would be a good starting point.
Some basic philosophy would help.
And you wonder why naturalism has problems?
One of them is the failure to recognize or acknowledge problems.
At this point all your emails will be heading into my trash bin.
This approach to people is unproductive.
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Sincerely,
Collin Brendemuehl
http://www.brendemuehl.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
-- Jim Elliott
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 3 07:18:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 03 2008 - 07:18:10 EDT