Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design

Hi Bill and Cameron,
 
Some interesting a refreshing discussions here. I'm glad that Bill is genuinely considering things such as formal and final cause and teleology, rather than just dismissing them offhand as many are wont to do. I get the impression he is open to 'non-scientific views,' in other words, that he believes in order to understand 'what science is' (if we simply need to play the demarcation game) it actually helps to 'get outside' of science and ask the philosophers what they've been doing in PoS. This is a great step for others at ASA, who often dismiss philosophy, to follow.
 
"We tend to think that it by a series of efficient causes a certain end is reached.  It might be called telological as it tends to some 'end', but we think that the 'end' is no where in sight.  The 'end' is not a cause for the changing dynamic." - Bill

I agree with Cameron that it doesn't make sense to separate the causes and take them independently, but rather all together. As he said, Aristotle wouldn't have understood the idea that 'a series of efficient causes' can lead to goal or end. The end or goal is already present in the efficient action. Some call it means-end rationality, others would look to instrumental reasoning. The significant point is that 'telos' is recognizable more easily in some academic disciplines than it is in others. But the idea that it can be non-existent, i.e. the banishment of formal and final cause as a result of the 'victory' of modern science is questionable.
 
Here's an example which highlights this issue:
“The Aristotelian teaching of causes lasted in the official Western culture until the Renaissance. When modern science was born, formal and final causes were left aside as standing beyond the reach of experiment; and material causes were taken for granted in connection with all natural happenings – though with a definitely non-Aristotelian meaning, since in the modern world view matter is essentially the subject of change, not ‘that out of which a thing comes to be and which persists.’ Hence, of the four Aristotelian causes only the efficient cause was regarded as worthy of scientific research.” – Mario Bunge
 
Bill continues further:
"I guess I'm having trouble seeing how efficient causes, powers, and capabilities couldn't be given a teleological spin without introducing divine powers. Aren't these simply the 'occult powers' that science wanted to exclude. Yet they are still mechanistic. They blindly obey like machines. Isn't that just what Aristotle's elements did?"
 
Not exactly. Aristotle's elements were not 'mechanistic,' at least not in the Cartesian sense of that term. Teleology is not merely a 'spin' *if* placed in the proper context. I personally don't think the IDists have been looking in the right places or adopting the necessary language that they could adopt, but the effort is there to re-admit formal and final causes back into 'science proper,' which is what Cameron is alluding to in terms of the explanatory power of biological teleology.

"It seems to me that if we want to really find a science which is not mechanistic-materialistic and is telelogical in some sense, we need to be able to find phenomena that are not explained by local efficient causes. If one thinks of efficient causes as lower properties, we might be able to consider these teleological aspects to genuinely emerge as higher level properties.  So that the teleological properties cannot be explained in terms of the lower efficient cause level." - Bill
 
There are sciences where this is possible already to identify, the problem is that the hegemony of what counts as 'science' is still stuck on an outdated 'all priority to physics' model, such as Kuhn demonstrated in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." To use physics as the 'queen of the sciences,' the model for others to follow is obviously insufficient to contemporary philosophy of science. But the natural scientists themselves do not seem to have heard about this yet. Biology is where the juicy stuff is happening these days in the natural sciences; not in physics. The 'teleological aspects' you refer to Bill are indeed being discussed as 'emergent properties,' though I would add the caveat that they need not be looked at as 'efficient = lower vs. teleological or final = higher. 
 
Let me give one reference that may prove helpful of a group of people focussed on some of the problems you raise. It is the Institute for the Study of Nature, under the directorship of Mark Ryland. Ryland used to be involved with the Discovery Institute (which all but damns him for some on this list), though he parted ways with them and has organized another think tank focussed on the study of nature that looks to Aristotle's four causes, asks 'who won the scientific revolution,' deals with reductionism, emergentism and realism, with the help of biologists and philosophers. There are some good resources on their site: http://www.isnature.org/articles.htm

I'd be glad to field more questions about them privately if Bill or Cameron would like and was referred to them a year and a half ago by someone on the ASA list.
 
"I suspect that he [Aristotle] would attribute evolutionary change to a larger teleological pattern in nature." - Cameron
 
Yes, indeed! And this notion of 'pattern' is a curious one indeed for the information age and the 'overload' that youg people face. It is not surprising that many fall back into a default position, which in America is roughly 40% of the time rejecting evolution because it on the surface appears to disagree with and/or discredit the biblical text. On the other hand, when one takes seriously the efforts at 'pattern recognition' one may discover the teleology 'reemerging' into the realm of science as an altogether healthy thing.
 
As McLuhan said: “The ‘message’ of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.” (1964: 24)

Indeed, the changes that the IDM has brought to the way the discussion about creation and evolution, processes and origins of change is conducted is significant in itself as a social-cultural-scientific-political movement. TE has not made nearly such a impact on society, and one may suspect it is at least partly to do with the way TE addresses the topic of miracles. ID leaves the topic open, which is consistent with most Americans; it is rather easy to dismiss the power of 'science' if one is reasoning away the possibility of miracles using material and efficient causes to explain 'almost everything.'
 
Gregory
 
p.s. Cameron, I'm really curious to hear what you think about the 'four effects' too!
 

--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Friday, April 24, 2009, 7:25 AM

Cameron:

Aristotle took it that things sought their "natural" place, like fire
or heavy objects. This appears to be a final or teleological cause, answering
why does fire raise and apples fall. It is in the nature of the thing to act
this way. What makes it sound more teleological is that apples may not fall,
but it is a dispositional property. It tends to fall, even if it is not, just a
cat may sit by a mouse hole to catch a nonexistent mouse.

I'm supposing that you are trying to carve out a position that is not
mechanistic-materialistic without being divine, i.e., in some sense natural. I
just don't see how Aristotle helps. It appears to me that immanent-telos is
nothing more than powers and capabilities. We say that a ball tends to seek its
lowest potential, but we don't think it's teleological.

We tend to think that it by a series of efficient causes a certain end is
reached. It might be called telological as it tends to some "end",
but we think that the "end" is no where in sight. The "end"
is not a cause for the changing dynamic.

Where this tends to look more decidedly teleological is in embryology,
something Aristotle knew something about. We today would still claim that what
drives the process along through its various stages are efficient causes.
However, saying that this is "all" embryology is appears to miss
something. We do not think that embryonic development is
"indifferent" to its "end." While it may be true that the
sequence of steps is governed by "local" effects, these successive
steps have the sense of design or purpose. When one works in an organic
laboratory long hours are devoted to teasing out a miniscule sample of some
substance. Every step, as far as we know, obeys chemical laws utilizing some
causal procedure to produce the next step. Yet we could in no way claim to
understand the complex procedure by speaking only of these sequences of
efficient causes. It appears clear that some final cause was in sight.

We associate the final cause associated with the inorganic synthesis with
perhaps intelligence, design, or some higher law. In any case, it cannot be
explained wholly on the basis of the chemistry involved. What of the embryonic
development? It seems infinitely more complicated than my organic synthesis,
and yet many ascribe it to natural efficient causes over long periods of time.

Modern science appears ready to say, if not be committed to, that what appears
teleological is just that: mere appearance. Isn't that how Dawkins begins
the Blind Watchmaker? When Christians say that God didn't know man or any
intelligent being would evolve, are they saying the same?

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how efficient causes, powers, and
capabilities couldn't be given a teleological spin without introducing
divine powers. Aren't these simply the "occult powers" that
science wanted to exclude. Yet they are still mechanistic. They blindly obey
like machines. Isn't that just what Aristotle's elements did?

It seems to me that if we want to really find a science which is not
mechanistic-materialistic and is telelogical in some sense, we need to be able
to find phenomena that are not explained by local efficient causes. If one
thinks of efficient causes as lower properties, we might be able to consider
these teleological aspects to genuinely emerge as higher level properties. So
that the teleological properties cannot be explained in terms of the lower
efficient cause level.

One last point. It appears to me that modern physics in relying increasingly
upon mathematical insight and coherence and less on empirical constraint is
becoming increasingly formal and Platonic.

I guess you need to say something about how Aristotle's biology is
"natural" while permitting teleology. No one disagrees that the acorn
has some kind of programmed development within it. They would simply say that
this is a product of blind evolution, i.e., blind efficient causes. It seems to
me to say more and not permit a Designer, one has to invoke some kind of
pantheism or panentheism.

Well, that's it I guess for now.

thanks,

bill __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 24 03:21:20 2009