G
grannymh
Guest
Catholics believe that all humans descended from a literal Adam and Eve. I cannot speak for all the science of evolutionary theory.
Blessings,
granny
All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted
- Status
Blessings,
granny
All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
G
grannymh
Guest
What gave Homo sapiens the edge in surviving?
H
hecd2
Guest
I have, but I am not quite sure what lesson you wish me to take from it. As you know, I think the evidence for current miraculous cures is poor to non-existent, being merely an echo of the Church’s (and society’s) love affair with magic in the past, and I also reject miraculous explanations of the start of the Universe, the start of life on earth and the emergence of Homo sapiens, as I consider that these phenomena are natural and explicable within natural science.
I am not sure what these “popular misconceptions” are, and of course, having made the statement, I not only consider it to be entirely free of misconceptions
, but am prepared to back it up. But you know that. Excuse me if I am a little challenging here: I know that you know that this is a friction of ideas not a friction of people.- How is the claim that the early and mediaeval Church relied on hagiographic accounts of miraculous deeds as validation of its truth,a popular misconception?
- How is the claim that some of these accounts of miracles found their way into Catholic dogma, a popular misconception
- How is the claim that, in modern times, and in the light of modern science, these miraculous claims have dried up, a popular misconception.
Of course, all parties have a right to present their cases, but the cases having been presented, one is entitled to reach a conclusion about their relative merits. Since the scientific findings preclude the possibility of a bottleneck of two in the human and pre-human lineage, we can safely conclude that a literal Adam and Eve never existed. Unless…unless you or someone else has an alternative hypothesis that accommodates both ideas. I know that you have been considering such a thing, but you have not yet told us what it is.
Of course, on many matters, but not on this matter of the size of the ancetral population leading to living humans. Remember, with all due respect, until you have read and understood the references I gave you on the subject, you are not really in a position to claim that there is a controversy (there isn’t - they all agree).
I am sorry, but I am afraid from a scientific point of view it is closed. The genetic diversity and other characteristics of the genomes of living humans precludes the possibility of a bottleneck of two parents in human ancestry. If I am wrong, then someone needs to post a contradictory assessment of human genomics that is consistent with a relatively recent severe bottleneck - I am not aware that such a reasoned assessment exists, or given the evidence, can exist.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Yes, percentages are used, such as percentage of shared genes, or DNA sequence similarity, or amino acid similarity. However, they are not, in themselves, strong evidence of common ancestry. The real genomic kickers that confirm what was already deduced from anatomical, physiological, biochemical and palaeontological data, is shared syntenic (ie on the chromosome in the same order) non-functional sequences, such as shared endogenous retroviruses (derived from ancient viral infections in the parental lineage), shared processed pseudogenes (genes which have been processed to remove introns and have erroneously been reverse transcribed back to the genome in an ancient parent), shared tandem repeats (non-functional multiply repeated sequences), and shared retro-transposons (sequences that replicate themselves many times in the genome over time, such as LINE and SINE sequence in humans - one particular SINE that is very common, the Alu sequence, based on an Alu restriction enzyme, is found only in primates. It has been copied more than a million times in the human genome. It is extremely useful in figuring out evolutionary paths and ancestral relationships, because insertion events leave a characteristic signature on the genome. We share the vast majority of our Alu insertions in the same syntenic location with other primates). All of this is strong, indeed, overwhelming evidence for common ancestry.
Most animals, whether land or marine, need oxygen. While it is consistent with a common ancestor, it is not particularly strong evidence for it. If, by land animals, you mean tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds) - then there is much stronger evidence for common ancestry than needing oxygen.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
…over Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus? Presumably superior technology, greater flexibility, more complex reasoning, better communication, monopolization of habitats, greed. The same things that have lead to a current scenario where there are an estimated 20,000 species extinctions per year. We are not an ecologically conserving species.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
So you live in a box of your own design. Don’t you yet see how limiting it is? How you have limited yourself in the process?
A scientist who by nature is curious about the universe will not progress to the higher sciences. How sad.
Why?I have asked this before - why did you leave Catholicism? Are you bitter about a past event?
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Isn’t this the argument that just about everybody uses though?
“Your frame of reference is too small/big.”
The problem with saying that though is that these are essentially metaphysical statements.
How can we possiblely address the validity of a metaphysical statement?
We can’t - which is why agnostics laugh at arguments that eventually devolve down into “Prove/Disprove Materialism.”
It can’t be done. Ultimately, we make our choices on what appears to be rational based on a set of principles that we have come to accept as such.
D
Dr.Bonnette
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
“My claim is that which we can sense (see, hear, touch, feel, smell), either directly or indirectly, with or without the aid of instruments, is all that we can know exists.”
Alec
evolutionpages.com
What you state above is a variation of the Logical Positivist’s Principle of Empirical Verification: A statement is meaningful if, and only if, its terms can be either directly or indirectly sense verified.
Direct sense verification is no problem. It is what we immediately sense with the five external senses. But “indirect sense verification” is a horse of another color. It means taking data which is directly sensed, and then, from that data an inference is made to something that is not directly sensed. For example, we see that a rock falls to the earth, and from that data infer the existence of the force of gravity which we do not see. This is basically an argument from effect to cause, where the cause is accepted as belonging to the physical world. But why is that so? Why are we so certain that the unseen cause must always be something material, something which is a property of the physical universe?
When metaphysicians construct proofs for God’s existence, they follow the same type of inference. They argue from something we do see, such as motion, to the existence of an Unmoved First Mover, which we do not see, as the sole adequate explanation for motion in the physical world. Now I know that many differences will be claimed to exist between these two forms of argumentation. But please notice that the metaphysician is saying that when we move from some directly sense-observed phenomena to an unseen cause, it is possible that that cause is itself not part of the physical world. That is to say, the mind must remain open to the possibility that the explanation of the observed phenomena might either be or not be of the same material nature as the phenomena itself. On the other hand, the positivist always assumes that whatever causes may operate to affect the senses must themselves be restricted to the phyical world.
Question: What is more reasonable? To assume that the causes of observable phenomena must be of the same physical nature as the effect? Or, to infer simply that the causes must be able to account for the effect, and that the exact nature of the cause is yet to be determined? Is the assumption that all causes of sensory phenomena must themselves be material in nature not merely the assumption of philosophical materialism, with no proof whatever?
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
“My claim is that which we can sense (see, hear, touch, feel, smell), either directly or indirectly, with or without the aid of instruments, is all that we can know exists.”
Alec
evolutionpages.com
What you state above is a variation of the Logical Positivist’s Principle of Empirical Verification: A statement is meaningful if, and only if, its terms can be either directly or indirectly sense verified.
Direct sense verification is no problem. It is what we immediately sense with the five external senses. But “indirect sense verification” is a horse of another color. It means taking data which is directly sensed, and then, from that data an inference is made to something that is not directly sensed. For example, we see that a rock falls to the earth, and from that data infer the existence of the force of gravity which we do not see. This is basically an argument from effect to cause, where the cause is accepted as belonging to the physical world. But why is that so? Why are we so certain that the unseen cause must always be something material, something which is a property of the physical universe?
When metaphysicians construct proofs for God’s existence, they follow the same type of inference. They argue from something we do see, such as motion, to the existence of an Unmoved First Mover, which we do not see, as the sole adequate explanation for motion in the physical world. Now I know that many differences will be claimed to exist between these two forms of argumentation. But please notice that the metaphysician is saying that when we move from some directly sense-observed phenomena to an unseen cause, it is possible that that cause is itself not part of the physical world. That is to say, the mind must remain open to the possibility that the explanation of the observed phenomena might either be or not be of the same material nature as the phenomena itself. On the other hand, the positivist always assumes that whatever causes may operate to affect the senses must themselves be restricted to the phyical world.
Question: What is more reasonable? To assume that the causes of observable phenomena must be of the same physical nature as the effect? Or, to infer simply that the causes must be able to account for the effect, and that the exact nature of the cause is yet to be determined? Is the assumption that all causes of sensory phenomena must themselves be material in nature not merely the assumption of philosophical materialism, with no proof whatever?
H
hecd2
Guest
Yes, I think it requires an astonishing degree of credulity to believe in miraculous healing. However, as I have said, it is somewhat peripheral to the topic, so we will have to agree to differ. However, I will say a bit more below in response to your assertions.
There are two issues with this - first to show that the events as described actually happened: in other words you have to show that it is more reasonable to accept that instant transformation from pathological to healthy tissue actually happened than to accept that there was a misdiagnosis, or poor pathology, or a psychologically mediated effect. Even if we accept that this instant transformation took place, you are unwarranted in your confidence that the event “exceeds the power of unaided nature”. Such a fallacy once applied to telephony, computers and heavier than air flight.
I grant you all of that.
The fact is that they are not a swarm of flies but theological defeaters.
That is precisely the issue with intercessory prayers and miracles. If God is willing to intervene in the normal operation of the universe in the case of a supplicant at Lourdes, then where was he at Belsen? Such a God cannot be described as just in any reasonable understanding of the term - if the term “just” means anything at all, then it cannot be reasonably applied to such a God.
But the Catholic conception of God is that he is just and that the notion of justice should extend to his reasons. We might not know what His reasons are, but we know , according to Catholic theology, that they must be just. But a God who heals the occasional supplicant at Lourdes but ignores Belsen is not just in any reasonable understanding of the concept.
This is a poor analogy, for in the one case, all that is required is that the universe roll on according to the laws of nature, and in the other, miraculous case, what is required is that God actively intervenes to help one person, while millions of others die in the most appalling circumstances. The defence that free will entails non-intervention by God cannot apply here.
No, the objection addresses the problem of lack of justice in miracles, separate from the problem of evil (which is also a real and quite intractable problem for theists, but admittedly outside the topic of the thread). In claiming that Catholic philosophers do not wrestle with these difficulties, is to attempt to sweep real problems under the carpet.
We were talking about concepts for defining species of living organisms. Amongst the many species concepts that have been proposed, there is no such thing as a natural philosophical species concept (and as I pointed out before, essentialist notions of species of organisms have been completely falsified). You still haven’t clarified the point that you were trying to make when you referred to Mayr, formulator of the biological species concept.
Of course, I dismiss it, for good reason, but how does this observation advance your case in any way?
I never said I was a positivist, nor can you reasonably infer that I am one. I dislike labels, but if you need one, I am closest to a pragmatic verificationist.
But I no more need to “prove that the mind conforms to external reality” in order to do science than I need to effect this proof to safely cross the road. Short of solipsism, it is self-evident that beliefs that arise from our sensory perception and our information processing conform to reality - existence would be impossible otherwise. It is a pragmatic fact that, in the absence of pathologies in our sensory organs and our cognition, the busy road can be safely crossed, and science works. No metaphyics is required - science is validated by its performance not by its axioms.
To be continued
H
hecd2
Guest
Continuation
But you’d rather base you belief in reality on a Dogma, which itself is a formulation of an unverifiable tale of a supposed miraculous event, the Annunciation, which is unprecedented, unrepeatable and poorly attested, and involves a being who has rational and intellectual attributes but is pure spirit, in contradiction to the universal observation that these attributes do not exist independent of a necessary and intrinsic physical basis. And you take me to task for proposing a pragmatic foundation for science that foregoes formal proof of its premises? That’s irony.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
You are mistaken. The second axiom that reality is consistent, has nothing to do with non-contradiction, but conforms to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe in space and time. It is an assumption based on local observation, extended to the entire universe on faith, but increasingly more broadly testable and so far not contradicted by any observation.
Funny you should say that, but the weirdness of QM is often compared to Alice in Wonderland. Indeed, laypeople often underestimate the extent of weirdness in the quantum world.
And this shows that you are really not aware of the physics at all, for it is precisely the case that both particle and wave characteristics can be demonstrated at the same time in the same experimental arrangement. Take for example a two beam interferometer or a Young’s slit arrangement in photon counting mode. Photons as particles can be individually detected in one or other beam, or at the image plane; but in the latter case, the *distribution *of photons is in a number density which corresponds to the intensity of an interference pattern which depends on the path lengths according to classical wave theory. Light can be seen as both bullets and waves in one experiment at one time, and, moreover, in a way that is contradictory. For if light consists of particles, which we clearly see by detecting individual photons at the image plane or in each arm, then it cannot be a wave; but we clearly see that wave interference occurs when we have clearly detected the fact that a photon passes through one or other arm of the interferometer, but not both simultaneously. Somehow the particles “know” when they pass through one or other arm, whether the other arm is open or closed, and the length of the other arm, in order to arrange themselves at the image plane. The usual way to resolve this paradox is no less contradictory - that the photon is in all places in the universe at the same time with a probability defined by the Schroedinger wave equation and that in observing it, we cause a collapse of the wave function so that its observation resolves its position to one place.
Not so, as we have seen - there is no question that science demonstrates contradictions which occur repeatably- the contradiction occurs every time it is tested - nature, in our folk terminology is non-intuitive, contradictory but not capricious.
Which is precisely why scientists reject miraculous explanations for observed phenomena (such as claimed miraculous cures). But to say that that means that all phenomena have causes, or that the explanations should be non-contradictory is wrong. It turns out that in reality we observe uncaused phenomena and phenomena with contradictory attributes. I am sorry that reality is not what you think it should be.
Here we are at last at the core subject of the thread. It is notable that you have not, so far, been at all interested in what the scientific evidence is against the literal existence of two sole parents for living humans. It really does preclude that possibility if you care to look at it.
But you’d rather base you belief in reality on a Dogma, which itself is a formulation of an unverifiable tale of a supposed miraculous event, the Annunciation, which is unprecedented, unrepeatable and poorly attested, and involves a being who has rational and intellectual attributes but is pure spirit, in contradiction to the universal observation that these attributes do not exist independent of a necessary and intrinsic physical basis. And you take me to task for proposing a pragmatic foundation for science that foregoes formal proof of its premises? That’s irony.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
A
anthony022071
Guest
And that’s what nobody can do,beyond certain eras. We can’t trace out the reproductive lines of humans from the murky depths of pre-history. That kind of information is unobtainable.
Why should genetic similarities between different species necessarily mean that they have a common ancestor? Is it improbable that two different species with many genetic similarities should have come into being separately? Speciation has never been observed to go any farther than hybrid breakdown,partial reproductive isolation,and polyploidism.
Scientists just presume that speciation goes further,with the taxonomic system in mind.
H
hecd2
Guest
We all live in the same box. Everything that we come to know ultimately comes to us through our senses. If you or anyone else can propose a way to acquire the knowledge that something or someone exists without that knowledge entering through our senses, I am yet to hear it.hecd2:
So you live in a box of your own design. Don’t you yet see how limiting it is? How you have limited yourself in the process?
Because such so-called “higher sciences” are at best inferior and at worst completely impotent methods for acquiring knowledge. If we really wish our beliefs to correspond to reality, it is best to avoid the strong human temptation to create agents to explain otherwise unexplained phenomena, and to limit ourselves to natural science.A scientist who by nature is curious about the universe will not progress to the higher sciences. How sad.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, I didn’t say anything about limiting what we infer from what we sense - I merely said that we cannot know anything that we have no sensory evidence for.
But let’s investigate your claims. First of all, gravity is not an entity, in the sense of a rock or an atom or a photon (although a graviton, were it ever to be detected would be). It is a description of “how” matter interacts - it is a property of mater - it is by definition a concept that lies wholly within the universe. People have observed rocks falling and planetary orbits for a long time. A false religious notion was that a supernatural being proximately moves the rock and pushes the planets in their paths. The false Aristotlean notions were that bodies tend to be at rest in a preferred place and therefore move there, and that heavy bodies fall faster than light ones. Newton formulated and quantified a universal law of attraction of matter which described not only how rocks fall, but also how planets orbit. Gravity is necessarily a property of matter, because it is a detailed description of how matter behaves. It seems inconceivable that you could be making the the argument that Newton should have been open to the possibility that bodies fall as a consequence of something that is not a property of the material universe, but if that is not what you are suggesting, then what are you suggesting? Are you really implying that every time we observe a phenomenon in the universe, we should search not just for natural causes but for magical acts? We can see that that is neither pragmatic, efficacious nor necessary.
Let us take another but related example. Having accepted the universal law of gravity which describes a property of matter (because whenever it has been tested it has been shown to be true), we also observe various anomalies in the movement of stars in galaxies, which are not explainable by the presence of matter that we can see. What do we infer from this - that there is matter present that we cannot directly observe, or that this a chink through which God’s fingers can be seen pushing stars around? Physicists of every religious persuasion correctly hold that the warranted conclusion is that there is a form of matter there that is currently not detectable directly, and further observations of what are called dark matter haloes along with observations of the early universe and CMB have strengthened our confidence in this conclusion.
When you say metaphysicians use this argument, you are generalising in an unjustified way, for there are many metaphysicians or at any rate, philosophers, who think it is a terrible argument. It is a terrible argument - because it rests on conceptions of space, time, relative and absolute motion which are pre-Galilean, pre-Newtonian and pre-Einsteinian. We can go into this in detail if you like, but this is the most easily refuted of the Five Ways, and one that most plainly lies on invalid premises.
But the requirement to keep that possibility open, is not only unwarranted (since we can have no reliable evidence of the existence of such a non-physical domain as we cannot gain any data about external reality except through our physical senses), it is unnecessary (we are not aware of any phenomena that require such an explanation), non-parsimonious (because it introduces an infinite possibility of non-testable causes that are more complex than physical ones, because they rely on an entirely different domain of being) and ultimately toxic to reasonable epistemology (because it undermines the requirement to find natural relationships that underpin the interaction of matter and energy by proposing magical ones).
It is not reasonable to infer the existence of causes for natural events that lie outside the natural realm, when such causes are unnecessary, unobservable and unconstrained in their essence. It is more reasonable (and demonstrably efficacious) to assume that natural phenomena have natural causes.
And to return to the original point, neither you, I nor buffalo can say anything with reasonable confidence about the existence of any entity that cannot be sensed through its direct or indirect effect on the physical senses. I don’t see how one can reach any other conclusion.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Apart from the fact that the genomic data goes way beyond “genetic similarities” (how about explaining those shared syntenic non-functional sequences), it is improbable that the 30 million or so species currently in existence plus the estimated billion plus extinct ones came into being separately throughout the history of the world. Unless, of course, one is ultimately relying on miraculous explanations, in which case one quickly descends into omphalism.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Now that is a belief statement that I do not accept. You are free to accept your limited worldview as I am free to accept a much broader one. So there is no point in debating because you cannot offer anything more.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding: In order to look at Adam and Eve scientifically, their lineage needs to be traced backwards.
It seems to me that to understand the choices as to the beginning of Homo sapiens, we should analyze the “material” which constitutes a human being. Genomics is only one component of this. I’m curious about the other parts.
In answer to a question about the need for oxygen, Alec responded: “Most animals, whether land or marine, need oxygen. While it is consistent with a common ancestor, it is not particularly strong evidence for it.” (post 64)
From my point of view, the need for oxygen goes back to a common source of building blocks or whatever the scientific name is for the first gathering of components which are life. I am operating on the principle that the evolutionary theory does not explain the source or the “creating origin” of life itself. So, at this point, I am not addressing the theistic or non-theistic original origin of life. I am looking for the lowest common denominator of life.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is meant for eternal life.
What can be traced backwards are the chemicals and other good stuff that makes up the human. Somewhere in my notes is a description of various “stuff” that has to be in various sequences, etc., in order to compose a living cell. It is my understanding that kind of information is obtainable. Also, there are some pretty good theories about the earth’s environment plus its changes over time.
It seems to me that to understand the choices as to the beginning of Homo sapiens, we should analyze the “material” which constitutes a human being. Genomics is only one component of this. I’m curious about the other parts.
Basically, genomic similarities indicate relationship between two organisms. And before I have my head on a platter again, I acknowledge I have not yet looked up the other similarities given in a previous post.
In answer to a question about the need for oxygen, Alec responded: “Most animals, whether land or marine, need oxygen. While it is consistent with a common ancestor, it is not particularly strong evidence for it.” (post 64)
From my point of view, the need for oxygen goes back to a common source of building blocks or whatever the scientific name is for the first gathering of components which are life. I am operating on the principle that the evolutionary theory does not explain the source or the “creating origin” of life itself. So, at this point, I am not addressing the theistic or non-theistic original origin of life. I am looking for the lowest common denominator of life.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is meant for eternal life.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
reference
Well, I think you are close. depending on the cognitive level (that is the key). At low cognitive levels most all is metaphysical statements, but as cognitive skills increase subjects are transferred by belief from metaphysical to science. So the problem I have with our other poster is his stand is "I do not know except to know you are wrong (because I am a scientist) " what a silly stance.
D
Dr.Bonnette
Guest
To hecd2:
Alec,
In post #69, you write: “I never said I was a positivist, nor can you reasonably infer that I am one.” Still, your modus operandi is to reduce all licit knowledge to natural science. A rose by any other color is still a rose.
In saying, “My claim is that which we can sense (see, hear, touch, feel, smell), either directly or indirectly, with or without the aid of instruments, is all that we can know exists,” you embrace the Vienna Circle’s famed Verification Principle. Even its own proponents quickly came to realize that it cannot pass its own test. How do you directly or indirectly sense verify the claim that only directly or indirectly sense verifiable knowledge is “all that we can know?” Can you put that claim into a test tube, check it on an interferometer, or a schedule of pointer readings? When they realized the folly of this effort, the logical positivists were undaunted. They simply proceeded to claim that this was the only way to know anything anyway, thus revealing their blind commitment to scientism and materialism.
Again, in post #69, you confirm that you are “…closest to a pragmatic verificationist.” Not only does this give you all the baggage of the unverifiable Verification Principle, but it raises a fascinating question about all your philosophical and scientific claims in this thread. If you understand the history of the term “pragmatism,” you should know that the pragmatic theory of knowledge is defined, not in terms of objective truth, but in terms of “what works.” Thus, “2 + 2 = 4” is a “truth.” But for the pragmatist, it is true because it “works,” whereas, for the traditional philosopher, it works because it is true. If the criterion of truth is now to be defined in terms of how it works for us in life and ordinary experience, then all your claims about God, the soul, Adam and Eve, molecular biology, natural scientific “truth,” and so forth, must now be redefined to mean only that they “work” for us – not in terms of the objective truth claims you have been purporting to defend. The traditional meaning of truth is a conformity of the mind to reality, and all scientific and philosophical speculation is ordered to the discovery of what reality is in itself. If your claims are now reduced merely to pragmatic content, they tell us nothing at all about things in themselves, which is the traditional object driving all intellective speculation. You must know the sharp criticisms against William James for this very subjective conception of “pragmatic truth.” As Stumpf points out, "It was inevitable that such a method should raise the question whether saying about an idea that “it works” is the same as saying that “it is true.” (Socrates to Sartre, 5th ed., Samuel Enoch Stumpf, p. 390.)
Briefly, the problem with your complaints about God’s justice in granting miracles is that you again assume that only materialistic values, such as healing, are relevant. From God’s point of view, the salvation of souls trumps healing, and that we have the hubris to think we know better than He how to accomplish this task is amazing to me.
Moreover, instant “creation” of new healthy tissue is not confused with previous scientific advances which always presupposed the natural, gradual transformation of matter.
I am aware that Ernst Mayr proposed a biological species concept, but his words mean what they say, namely, that we need to get to the “underlying philosophical concepts.” You are unaware of the natural philosophical species concept simply because you are immersed primarily in modern biology, not in the historical discussion of species among non-positivist philosophers.
Your easy derision of metaphysical proofs for God’s existence, especially the proof from motion, merely reveals that you are unfamiliar with a proper presentation of the proofs themselves – and that you confuse the antequarian cosmological concepts of Aristotle with his legitimate metaphysical insights. Aristotle defines motion as “the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency?” Note this has nothing to do with ancient notions of time and space, but is expressed in terms of states of being itself – a properly metaphysical perspective.
Your comments about the light experiment deserve consideration. Even using the same experimental arrangement, what occurs to me first is that we are dealing with photons, meaning they are only “indirectly” observable since they are invisible to the naked eye. “Indirectly observable” means we must take observable data and from it make inferences – inferences in this case leading to the conclusion of contradictory properties within the wave-particle duality. You argue: “For if light consists of particles, which we clearly see by detecting individual photons at the image plane or in each arm, then it cannot be a wave; but we clearly see that wave interference occurs when we have clearly detected the fact that a photon passes through one or other arm of the interferometer, but not both simultaneously.” The apparent contradiction is commonly accepted today in physics, but I note it does not prevent some from attempting to resolve this paradox. What must be discerned here is not whether the observations occur in the same “arrangement,” but whether the inferences are drawn perfectly and from exactly the same perspective. If not, then no violation of non-contradiction ensues. I do not fear that eventual resolution will occur, since theoretical physics constantly makes progress precisely by overcoming such apparently “impossible” situations. On the other hand, if genuine contradiction did exist here and elsewhere, then the entire matrix of reality collapses in a manner you fail to grasp, since non-contradiction is not based merely on local experience, but on a universal metaphysical insight into the meaning of any “being” whatever. Denial of this principle entails denial of the very intelligibility of all meanings and judgments, as Aristotle well demonstrated – (perhaps, not to your satisfaction.)
Alec,
In post #69, you write: “I never said I was a positivist, nor can you reasonably infer that I am one.” Still, your modus operandi is to reduce all licit knowledge to natural science. A rose by any other color is still a rose.
In saying, “My claim is that which we can sense (see, hear, touch, feel, smell), either directly or indirectly, with or without the aid of instruments, is all that we can know exists,” you embrace the Vienna Circle’s famed Verification Principle. Even its own proponents quickly came to realize that it cannot pass its own test. How do you directly or indirectly sense verify the claim that only directly or indirectly sense verifiable knowledge is “all that we can know?” Can you put that claim into a test tube, check it on an interferometer, or a schedule of pointer readings? When they realized the folly of this effort, the logical positivists were undaunted. They simply proceeded to claim that this was the only way to know anything anyway, thus revealing their blind commitment to scientism and materialism.
Again, in post #69, you confirm that you are “…closest to a pragmatic verificationist.” Not only does this give you all the baggage of the unverifiable Verification Principle, but it raises a fascinating question about all your philosophical and scientific claims in this thread. If you understand the history of the term “pragmatism,” you should know that the pragmatic theory of knowledge is defined, not in terms of objective truth, but in terms of “what works.” Thus, “2 + 2 = 4” is a “truth.” But for the pragmatist, it is true because it “works,” whereas, for the traditional philosopher, it works because it is true. If the criterion of truth is now to be defined in terms of how it works for us in life and ordinary experience, then all your claims about God, the soul, Adam and Eve, molecular biology, natural scientific “truth,” and so forth, must now be redefined to mean only that they “work” for us – not in terms of the objective truth claims you have been purporting to defend. The traditional meaning of truth is a conformity of the mind to reality, and all scientific and philosophical speculation is ordered to the discovery of what reality is in itself. If your claims are now reduced merely to pragmatic content, they tell us nothing at all about things in themselves, which is the traditional object driving all intellective speculation. You must know the sharp criticisms against William James for this very subjective conception of “pragmatic truth.” As Stumpf points out, "It was inevitable that such a method should raise the question whether saying about an idea that “it works” is the same as saying that “it is true.” (Socrates to Sartre, 5th ed., Samuel Enoch Stumpf, p. 390.)
Briefly, the problem with your complaints about God’s justice in granting miracles is that you again assume that only materialistic values, such as healing, are relevant. From God’s point of view, the salvation of souls trumps healing, and that we have the hubris to think we know better than He how to accomplish this task is amazing to me.
Moreover, instant “creation” of new healthy tissue is not confused with previous scientific advances which always presupposed the natural, gradual transformation of matter.
I am aware that Ernst Mayr proposed a biological species concept, but his words mean what they say, namely, that we need to get to the “underlying philosophical concepts.” You are unaware of the natural philosophical species concept simply because you are immersed primarily in modern biology, not in the historical discussion of species among non-positivist philosophers.
Your easy derision of metaphysical proofs for God’s existence, especially the proof from motion, merely reveals that you are unfamiliar with a proper presentation of the proofs themselves – and that you confuse the antequarian cosmological concepts of Aristotle with his legitimate metaphysical insights. Aristotle defines motion as “the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency?” Note this has nothing to do with ancient notions of time and space, but is expressed in terms of states of being itself – a properly metaphysical perspective.
Your comments about the light experiment deserve consideration. Even using the same experimental arrangement, what occurs to me first is that we are dealing with photons, meaning they are only “indirectly” observable since they are invisible to the naked eye. “Indirectly observable” means we must take observable data and from it make inferences – inferences in this case leading to the conclusion of contradictory properties within the wave-particle duality. You argue: “For if light consists of particles, which we clearly see by detecting individual photons at the image plane or in each arm, then it cannot be a wave; but we clearly see that wave interference occurs when we have clearly detected the fact that a photon passes through one or other arm of the interferometer, but not both simultaneously.” The apparent contradiction is commonly accepted today in physics, but I note it does not prevent some from attempting to resolve this paradox. What must be discerned here is not whether the observations occur in the same “arrangement,” but whether the inferences are drawn perfectly and from exactly the same perspective. If not, then no violation of non-contradiction ensues. I do not fear that eventual resolution will occur, since theoretical physics constantly makes progress precisely by overcoming such apparently “impossible” situations. On the other hand, if genuine contradiction did exist here and elsewhere, then the entire matrix of reality collapses in a manner you fail to grasp, since non-contradiction is not based merely on local experience, but on a universal metaphysical insight into the meaning of any “being” whatever. Denial of this principle entails denial of the very intelligibility of all meanings and judgments, as Aristotle well demonstrated – (perhaps, not to your satisfaction.)
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, the need for oxygen isn’t it, because there was a time when the earth’s atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. The oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere was produced by photosynthesising bacteria (known as cyanobacteria), or by methanogens something over 2 billion years ago. The need for oxygen found in most animals is not therefore fundamental to life.
Actually, if you’d asked me the question about lowest common denominator rather than about oxygen use I might have been able to be more helpful. In my view, it is the fact that all life uses the same DNA molecule (consisting of nucleotides arranged on a double helix with a sugar phosphate backbone, ten per right hand turn, and containing sequences of the same four nucleotides), and the same twenty amino acids (even though others could potentially be used) in only their left handed, and not their right handed configuration (even though the exist in a right handed form). There are some very basic things which differ between major domains of life (the archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes) but are common within the domains such as the tRNA to protein translation machinery called ribosomes. But the DNA itself and the amino acids are common across all domains.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
- Status