Teleology important for science

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
This is actually a question instead of a statement. Why is, or is, teleology important for science? I feel like science can move along just fine without believing in God. Can someone give an example where this is not the case? The distinction between matter and form doesn’t seem to be of value for science either. We all know what a car or a tree is. That it is made up of two principles doesn’t really help understanding its biology. If articifial inntellegence was created it would be a new form because of its makeup. So is teleology and matter/form merely philosophical questions?
 
thinkandmull said:
This is actually a question instead of a statement. Why is, or is, teleology important for science? I feel like science can move along just fine without believing in God. Can someone give an example where this is not the case? The distinction between matter and form doesn’t seem to be of value for science either. We all know what a car or a tree is. That it is made up of two principles doesn’t really help understanding its biology. If articifial inntellegence was created it would be a new form because of its makeup. So is teleology and matter/form merely philosophical questions?
Click to expand...
What is science? That’s really important.
 
e_c said:
What is science? That’s really important.
Click to expand...
That is a very strange question. Science is the epistemological method to investigate the external, objective reality, to find out if a proposition about the reality is correct or not. It does not answer questions about the subjective assessment of the reality - for example: “is the Ninth Symphony beautiful. or not?”. It does not deal with questions about the imaginary “worlds”, like: “Are there really leprechauns who hide buckets of gold at the end of the rainbow?”. In other words, science is not a generic panacea, to answer all the questions. But as a method of investigating the external reality, it has no competitors. The oft-quoted “intuition” or “revelation” or “testimonials” do not even come close in usefulness and reliability.

Of course epistemological methods are neither “true” nor “false”… they either work, or they do not. The “proof of the pudding” is that it is edible. 🙂

As for “teleology” or “matter/form”, these concepts do not add even ONE bit of information about reality. Some philosophers like to create new, esoteric concepts, because obscure ideas preserve their “tenure” in the ivory towers of the “hallowed” realm of “philosophy”, and thus they earn good bucks to maintain their livelihood - up until the street urchin comes along and has the audacity to proclaim: “the emperor has no clothes”! 😃
 
thinkandmull said:
This is actually a question instead of a statement. Why is, or is, teleology important for science?
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with science, although the way we communicate often fudges the boundaries between what is designed and what is used for a specific purpose.

For example, most people would say that the eye is a great example of design. It has been beautifully assembled for the purpose of us being able to see (despite quite a few ‘design faults’). Whereas it is more correct to say that parts of our anatomy evolved in a way which sometimes gave the owner a slight advantage his buddies by enabling a better interpretation of a narrow range of electromagnetic radiation.

Now that may seem like spitting a lot of hairs. Doesn’t it amount to the same thing? Well, you either get it or you don’t.

I guess you can sum it up by saying that teleology involves design and nature doesn’t design things. It simply removes inefficient aspects of existence by natural processes so that the ones that remain are better suited. Are ‘fitter’ as someone once said. And that *looks like *design.
 
The irony of any scientific opposition to universal teleology as a useless philosophical supposition is that virtually all science is the result of intelligently designed experiments with an intended goal in mind. So while stripping itself of universal teleology, science has simultaneously armed itself to the teeth with teleological tools that advance scientific learning.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The irony of any scientific opposition to universal teleology as a useless philosophical supposition is that virtually all science is the result of intelligently designed experiments with an intended goal in mind. So while stripping itself of universal teleology, science has simultaneously armed itself to the teeth with teleological tools that advance scientific learning.
Click to expand...
I think that you are using the word incorrectly. A designed experiment is not an example of teleology. It is generally accepted, and certainly implicit in the OP, that it refers to apparent design in nature.
 
What do you mean for teleology being important for science?

Do you mean does the method itself have a goal or end? Do you mean that the subjects of science have goals or ends?

Clearly a method has a goal or direction. I think this is self-evident.

As for the subjects of science. I think it’s weird for a scientist to assume the existence of a teleology for the subjects they study. I mean, maybe someone can make a case for biologists. I don’t think so, but for the sake of argument let’s grant that there is a teleology for life. What about a meteorologist? They use the same epistemic method. But I find it hard to believe that a storm front has an end or goal. Or a physicist saying that electromagnetism has a teleology. What is electromagnetism’s end? How could it possibly have goal direction?

Again, my problem with teleology aside. When it comes to science I see two real problems: 1. It assumes that teleology exists and needs to rely on non-scientific principles to defend it. 2. The subjects of science are just as intelligible and rational without having to rely on teleology.
 
Ruqx said:
It does not deal with questions about the imaginary “worlds”, like: “Are there really leprechauns who hide buckets of gold at the end of the rainbow?”.
Click to expand...
Well, someone would have had to figure out that there is no “end” to a rainbow…so that’s science!
 
Bradski said:
To increase the knowledge of the natural world.
Click to expand...
For what end would an increase in the knowledge of the natural world be important? The assumption is that there is some final end good that having such knowledge would help bring about. Otherwise, the increase in knowledge would, itself, be gratuitous.

The presumption is that there is some real significance found within one resulting state which other resulting states do not have or exhibit. Otherwise, the point of increasing knowledge or some other activity will simply end up being gratuitous.
 
tonyrey said:
Is science a gratuitous exercise or does it have a goal?
Click to expand...
If you mean the method itself, I’d say sure. Wouldn’t that be trivially true? Much like the method of making a cake has a goal.

I guess the goal would depend upon the person applying the method though. A baker could bake because they want delicious cake. Or they could bake because they want to sell their delicious cake. Or because they simply find baking to be soothing and they could care less if they have a cake. I suppose it could conceivably be the same for science?
 
thinkandmull said:
This is actually a question instead of a statement. Why is, or is, teleology important for science? I feel like science can move along just fine without believing in God. Can someone give an example where this is not the case? The distinction between matter and form doesn’t seem to be of value for science either. We all know what a car or a tree is. That it is made up of two principles doesn’t really help understanding its biology. If articifial inntellegence was created it would be a new form because of its makeup. So is teleology and matter/form merely philosophical questions?
Click to expand...
Let’s take that tree. What are the roots for? For getting water and minerals. See - teleology. Or look at the DNA - you have nucleotides (matter) that are connected in specific order (form) so that a protein could be produced (teleology).

So, finding examples where all those things are unavoidable is easy. But, of course, it does not mean that one cannot do science without explicitly thinking about matter, form or teleology. Tacit knowledge is often sufficient.

For an analogy, let’s look at the relationship between arithmetic and abstract algebra. You can add and multiply numbers without explicitly thinking about associativity or distributivity. In that sense abstract algebra is not necessary there. Yet it is only so if one has tacit knowledge of it. And then there are other situations, when explicitly thinking about abstract algebra really is necessary.
 
Peter_Plato said:
For what end would an increase in the knowledge of the natural world be important?
Click to expand...
That can’t be a serious question, surely. Have you never read a book or watched a documentary? We have an entirely natural curiosity. You wouldn’t be here without someone always asking: I wonder why?

Sometimes the answer helps in making the world a better place (sometimes not). Sometimes it is just an answer. It simply adds to our understanding of the world.

And it might be prudent to define exactly what teleology is:
  1. a : the study of evidences of design in natureb : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in naturec : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
  2. 2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
  3. 3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
That can’t be a serious question, surely. Have you never read a book or watched a documentary? We have an entirely natural curiosity. You wouldn’t be here without someone always asking: I wonder why?

Sometimes the answer helps in making the world a better place (sometimes not). Sometimes it is just an answer. It simply adds to our understanding of the world.

And it might be prudent to define exactly what teleology is (from Miriam Webster):
  1. The study of evidences of design in nature, a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature, a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
  2. The fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
  3. The use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Well, a big one is “surviving until adulthood.”
Click to expand...
Or in my case until old age.

But this is an ephemeral goal, since death wins in the end. Science cannot overcome death.

Only God can by giving us immortal life, which science cannot even address.
 
Did not Einstein assume that there was teleology when he went on his journey to understand the world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top