I'm not sure if I don't like the word... or if I just don't like how AndrewPD has been using the term.
I feel okay with saying "glass has a disposition to shatter." That has an intuitive correctness about it to me.
But I don't like using it for specifics about evolution.
I think it has to do with how specific it is.
Evolution has a disposition to generate human eyes. - Big red flags here
Evolution has a disposition to generate vision. - Still a bit uneasy
Evolution has a disposition to generate systems that monitor external stimuli. - I think I could accept that
Anything too specific involving evolution gives the feeling that evolution is
aiming for something. Which it's not. It just does whatever... and things that live stay while things that die don't make it.
Then again... I don't think I have an issue saying "polar bears have a disposition to be white."
As long as it's also understood that we're talking about modern polar bears that have already evolved to this point.
If we're talking about, say "evolution has a disposition to generate white polar bears." - again... big red flags.
But, really, I'm still with RAZD's point. I don't see the added value of using the term "disposition" when talking about science and evolution. It only seems to add unnecessary confusion.
Edited by Stile, : The last line really makes the post. Without it, it's a 2. With it... a 9.5. Easy.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
