Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help Needed with an argument against ToE
creative-evolutionist
Junior Member (Idle past 5723 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-28-2008


Message 1 of 22 (476249)
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


Hello.
I stumbled over the following text on the internet, of somebody trying to discredit the ToE using several aspects, namely Coherence, Logicality, Applicability and Adequacy.
I have some difficulties with his Coherence-rant:
Coherence
It seems to me that the very absoluteness of the theory's conclusions tends to compromise its "objective" character. It is all very well to speak of the "evidence of evolution," but if the theory is thorough- going, then human consciousness itself is also governed by evolution. This means that the categories that allow observation statements to arise as "facts", categories such as number, space, time, event, measurement, logic, causality, and so forth are mere physiological accidents of random mutation and natural selection in a particular species, Homo sapiens. They have not come from any scientific considerations, but rather have arbitrarily arisen in man by blind and fortuitous evolution for the purpose of preserving the species. They need not reflect external reality, "the way nature is", objectively, but only to the degree useful in preserving the species. That is, nothing guarantees the primacy, the objectivity, of these categories over others that would have presumably have arisen had our consciousness evolved along different lines, such as those of more distant, say, aquatic or subterranean species. The cognitive basis of every statement within the theory thus proceeds from the unreflective, unexamined historical forces that produced "consciousness" in one species, a cognitive basis that the theory nevertheless generalizes to the whole universe of theory statements (the explanation of the origin of species) without explaining what permits this generalization. The pretences of the theory to correspond to an objective order of reality, applicable in an absolute sense to all species, are simply not compatible with the consequences of a thoroughly evolutionary viewpoint, which entails that the human cognitive categories that underpin the theory are purely relative and species-specific. The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory. With all its statements simultaneously absolute and relative, objective and subjective, generalizable and ungeneralizable, scientific and species-specific, the theory runs up on a reef of methodological incoherence.
I need some help understanding the authors line of thought. Do I correctly understand, that he says since our perception of the universe is filtered through our senses, the way we perceive it is inherently subjective? Therefore, any theory based upon these subjective observations cannot be valid?
This seems to me to be a rather phony explanation, since what other way is there to perceive our universe than through our senses? If this argument was valid, ANY scientific theory could be discarded at ones leisure, because ALL theories are based on "subjective" observations.
Please, tell me if I interpreted his argumentation correctly and how to counter this type of reasoning (if possible).
Thanks.
Edited by creative-evolutionist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 07-22-2008 10:59 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 4 by bluegenes, posted 07-22-2008 12:02 PM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 5 by onifre, posted 07-22-2008 1:14 PM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 6 by Deftil, posted 07-22-2008 1:56 PM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 2:11 PM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 2:34 PM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 12 by iano, posted 07-22-2008 6:02 PM creative-evolutionist has not replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 07-23-2008 7:39 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 22 (476254)
07-22-2008 10:37 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 22 (476259)
07-22-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


If that is what he is saying then I think you just need to take his conclusion to its logical extreme to show how much nonsense it is. If we cannot trust our senses then we in fact can know nothing at all.
I don't think that is what his argument is though. It is a little hard to parse and I only ready it once but I think he is saying that the ToE is not internally coherent.
That is, if we are the products of evolution there is no way we could actually have a basis to objectivly claim that we were evolved. It seems like he is trying to do a disproof by contradiction.
I think he fails on one of his base assumptions that objectivity in an evolved consciousness is flawed. Lets pretent that high order thinking evolved again differently in a sea-cucumber, his claim seems to be that what is objective between humans and sea-cucumbers would in be different thereby disproving objectivity, dismantling the basis of "facts" and therefore the only true knowledge we could possibly have is what we recieve by reveleation.
To me, this essentially seems like an attack on our notion of reality. That the only reality we can possibly know is that which is granted to us by God. It is an old argument that falls flat on its face by simply pointing out the fact that even if it is true that we are not observing an objective reality, what we are observing produces effects that are replicable that allow us to manipulate the universe well enough for us to survive.
It doesn't really matter if there is some deep magic in the universe that we cannot understand because of the particular way that our cognition evolved. We understand evolution well enough to have it work for us in the lab to produce effects that we like such as medical breakthroughs, etc. It doesn't matter if the ToE is "objective" in his use of the word, its good enough for our purpose and that is all scientific conclusions claim to be.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 4 of 22 (476265)
07-22-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


Childish Metaphysics
It's a terrible argument! He seems to be saying that if our minds are products of evolution, then that in some way means they cannot have the ability to examine the world objectively. That's silly, because it assumes that the ability to examine the world objectively would not be an advantageous trait that could be selected for.
Think about it, and the opposite is true. Even if it weren't, he would need to understand the concept of "by-product" in evolutionary psychology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 5 of 22 (476274)
07-22-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


If this argument was valid, ANY scientific theory could be discarded at ones leisure, because ALL theories are based on "subjective" observations.
That would also include HIS theory as well, right?
This...
Coherence
It seems to me that the very absoluteness of the theory's conclusions tends to compromise its "objective" character. It is all very well to speak of the "evidence of evolution," but if the theory is thorough- going, then human consciousness itself is also governed by evolution. This means that the categories that allow observation statements to arise as "facts", categories such as number, space, time, event, measurement, logic, causality, and so forth are mere physiological accidents of random mutation and natural selection in a particular species, Homo sapiens. They have not come from any scientific considerations, but rather have arbitrarily arisen in man by blind and fortuitous evolution for the purpose of preserving the species. They need not reflect external reality, "the way nature is", objectively, but only to the degree useful in preserving the species. That is, nothing guarantees the primacy, the objectivity, of these categories over others that would have presumably have arisen had our consciousness evolved along different lines, such as those of more distant, say, aquatic or subterranean species. The cognitive basis of every statement within the theory thus proceeds from the unreflective, unexamined historical forces that produced "consciousness" in one species, a cognitive basis that the theory nevertheless generalizes to the whole universe of theory statements (the explanation of the origin of species) without explaining what permits this generalization. The pretences of the theory to correspond to an objective order of reality, applicable in an absolute sense to all species, are simply not compatible with the consequences of a thoroughly evolutionary viewpoint, which entails that the human cognitive categories that underpin the theory are purely relative and species-specific. The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory. With all its statements simultaneously absolute and relative, objective and subjective, generalizable and ungeneralizable, scientific and species-specific, the theory runs up on a reef of methodological incoherence.
...was a long way to go to say, "Even I could be talking shit too...".
He made an argument against his own argument, in my opinion.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 6 of 22 (476278)
07-22-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


This is a very interesting argument against evolution. Of course it isn't a scientific one, but that's part of what makes it interesting. It's getting into philosophy. It appears to be a metaphysical and epistemological argument against evolution which is something I've never seen before. I'll try to go into some more detail about my thoughts on this later, but in the meantime, do you have the source (link) for this?
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 22 (476279)
07-22-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


Okay, his argument would seem to go like this:
(1) If evolution is correct, we shouldn't expect our brains to be perfect.
(2) Therefore, if evolution is correct, we cannot completely trust our brains when they conclude the correctness of evolution.
What he's missing here is that the intermediate conclusion that he draws from evolution, i.e. the imperfection of our brains, is in fact correct (as is usual with conclusions that can be drawn from evolution). Our brains are not perfect. People make mistakes. This is true whether it's a consequence of evolution or of God making us badly.
Therefore, I offer the following rather simpler line of reasoning:
(a) Our brains are not perfect.
(b) Therefore, we cannot completely trust our brains when they conclude the correctness of anything at all.
Evolution doesn't come into it, because premise (a) is not merely a logical consequence of accepting evolution, it is also an incontrovertible fact. And if this leads to (b), as it does, then this is not merely subversive of evolutionary conclusions, but of all conclusions, including creationist nonsense.
---
P.S: I believe that the argument originates with C. S. Lewis, if anyone can remember the reference and/or quote the passage for me, I'd be most grateful.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 07-22-2008 4:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 22 (476284)
07-22-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


I stumbled over the following text on the internet, of somebody trying to discredit the ToE using several aspects, namely Coherence, Logicality, Applicability and Adequacy.
I note that Evidence is not on that list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 9 of 22 (476295)
07-22-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2008 2:11 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
P.S: I believe that the argument originates with C. S. Lewis, if anyone can remember the reference and/or quote the passage for me, I'd be most grateful.
It is similar to a C.S Lewis argument, but this one actually comes from a Muslim source.
Evolution and Islam
Ironically, our ability to figure out things like evolution is much easier to understand in terms of advantageous selection than our tendency to be religious, which puzzles many evolutionary psychologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 2:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 4:34 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 22 (476296)
07-22-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluegenes
07-22-2008 4:24 PM


It is similar to a C.S Lewis argument
Yes, but Lewis thought of it first, that's why I said it "originates" with him.
Do you know where it is in his oeuvre?
---
Islamic creationism is just a straight steal. So is Hindu creationism, except that they're Even Older Earth Than It Actually Is Creationists, and so, for example, they use the Paluxy tracks nonsense not to claim that dinosaurs are younger than scientists say, but that mankind is older.
---
Evolution and Islam
I love the bit about abductive reasoning. OMG evolution is science!!! Who knew?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 07-22-2008 4:24 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bluegenes, posted 07-22-2008 5:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 11 of 22 (476300)
07-22-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2008 4:34 PM


Calling C. S. Lewis fans!
Adequate writes:
Do you know where it is in his oeuvre?
A half educated guess would be in "Mere Christianity", but a Lewis fan like Nemesis Juggernaut might be able to give you chapter and verse, so as to speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 4:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 12 of 22 (476302)
07-22-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by creative-evolutionist
07-22-2008 9:12 AM


Coherance
Breaking his argument down line by line.
-
the OP writes:
It seems to me that the very absoluteness of the theory's conclusions tends to compromise its "objective" character.
Let us see if this is the case ...
-
It is all very well to speak of the "evidence of evolution," but if the theory is thorough- going, then human consciousness itself is also governed by evolution.
The theory does indeed say this. True.
-
This means that the categories that allow observation statements to arise as "facts", categories such as number, space, time, event, measurement, logic, causality, and so forth are mere physiological accidents of random mutation and natural selection in a particular species, Homo sapiens.
All things arise from Evolution, thus this. Any correspondence between what Evolution produced and the actual reality is a completely separate issue.
Evolution says precisely as you argue. True.
-
They have not come from any scientific considerations, but rather have arbitrarily arisen in man by blind and fortuitous evolution for the purpose of preserving the species.
Apart from "purpose" (for Evolution has no purpose, says Evolution) you are repeating the above point. True
-
They need not reflect external reality, "the way nature is", objectively, but only to the degree useful in preserving the species.
As mentioned. True.
-
That is, nothing guarantees the primacy, the objectivity, of these categories over others that would have presumably have arisen had our consciousness evolved along different lines, such as those of more distant, say, aquatic or subterranean species.
True.
-
The cognitive basis of every statement within the theory thus proceeds from the unreflective, unexamined historical forces that produced "consciousness" in one species, a cognitive basis that the theory nevertheless generalizes to the whole universe of theory statements (the explanation of the origin of species) without explaining what permits this generalization.
True. I'd add that the only basis for making this statement (in absolute terms) is if you don't hold to the theory
-
The pretences of the theory to correspond to an objective order of reality, applicable in an absolute sense to all species, are simply not compatible with the consequences of a thoroughly evolutionary viewpoint, which entails that the human cognitive categories that underpin the theory are purely relative and species-specific.
True.
-
The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory.
True.
-
Q.E.D.
Well done that man (in my view).
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by creative-evolutionist, posted 07-22-2008 9:12 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 7:54 PM iano has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 13 of 22 (476307)
07-22-2008 7:30 PM


Actually, various forms of this argument have been in circulation for quite some time.
Notre Dame philosopher and Theist Alvin Plantinga has written extensively on the epistemological problems with reconciling the Theory of Evolution with Scientific Naturalism. In short, Plantinga has extensively argued that The Theory of Evolution negates, by logical necessity, the common notions many hold regarding naturalism.
Plantinga does not oppose Evolution. His argument is that Evolution and Philosophical Naturalism cannot be reconciled from an epistemological standpoint. There have been numerous rebuttals to his arguments and they are still hotly debated. Agree or disagree, Plantinga does present many arguments that have yet to be sufficiently addressed by the opposition.
Here are a few papers:
An evolutionary argument against naturalism:
hisdefense.org | DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN
Naturalism Defeated: (In this paper, Plantinga also replies to the counter-arguments.)
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm
If you would like to know how these arguments are rebutted, here is an example:
http://fitelson.org/plant.pdf
More Plantinga Papers :
http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/all/profiles/plantinga-alvin
p.s. I am not arguing for or against any position. I am simply presenting, for those that are interested in this line of reasoning, some scholarly material on the subject.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 8:16 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2008 8:30 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 22 (476311)
07-22-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
07-22-2008 6:02 PM


Re: Coherance
Now find an error in my counter-argument in Message #7.
Of course every step of his argument is true, because our brains aren't perfect.
Where he goes wrong is in trying to relate this to evolution in particular. The tendentious bit is saying:
The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory.
When what he should say is:
The imperfection of our brains (a fact independent of evolution) means that we cannot affirm anything with absolute certainty (including evolution and every darn thing else).
That's where he messes up. Apart from that, he's merely noting that evolution successfully predicts the fact that our brains are not perfect. Score one for evolution, then.
Do creationists claim that my brain is perfect and inerrant? If so, I have a little paradox for them, which is that I think creationism is crap.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 07-22-2008 6:02 PM iano has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 22 (476312)
07-22-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Grizz
07-22-2008 7:30 PM


Plantinga does not oppose Evolution. His argument is that Evolution and Philosophical Naturalism cannot be reconciled from an epistemological standpoint.
Well, my epistemological standpoint already is that anything that can reasonably be described as "Philosophical Naturalism" is bunk, but I don't see how this follows from evolution. I'll have a look at the papers, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Grizz, posted 07-22-2008 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024