What are the roots for or what do the roots do? These are different questions. The former presupposed a teleology The latter, I think, does not. But I think you can deal with science without presupposing a teleology and get the results we do.
You might as well say that rain is designed to water the plants. Or your head has been designed to hold your brain. Or that a river bed has been designed to allow water to flow along it.
Nature isn’t interested in old age. As long as you have lived long enough to pass on your genetic material, she’s happy.
Or following Aristotle - the brain was “designed” to cool the blood, and the “heart” is the center of thinking.
Why do the biologists think that they are smarter than Aristotle?I would be horrified at the prospect of “eternal life” - especially as the one imagined (but never admitted) by some believers. A frozen, unchanging existence - after all God dwells in a timeless (and as such an unchanging) stasis. Of course the eternal suffering in hell is not more appealing.
They aren’t. They are just more knowledgeable.Or following Aristotle - the brain was “designed” to cool the blood, and the “heart” is the center of thinking.
And why would that be important, necessarily?
Well you can do science while ignoring teleology and still get the “results we do,” but that might be like trying to get around without a map or dismissing the need to begin developing one because it is still possible to get around without one.
I have a big fat anthology of the philosophy of science in my library. A good deal of it is about the demarcation problem… Once again, you assume that things are simple when they aren’t.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”!
Well, no, people may not want to live their current temporal and limited existence forever, but that does not entail that given other existential conditions we wouldn’t want to.
Perhaps it is science that is naked even while declaring it has adorned itself in lavishly “edible” accoutrements. In other words, it might be wearing its pudding on its face, unaware.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”!
There is a very important distinction between teleology and design. Teleology corresponds to the final cause of things, while design corresponds to the efficient cause. Teleology refers to the end, whether deigned or not, of the being in question. The end of a rock is to be a rock; the end of a lion, to be a lion; of a human, to be a human. The question then, in metaphysics, is: what does it mean to be a rock, a lion, or a human? Aquinas calls this a question of ascertaining the end according to the mode to the intellect (intellectu in pro proprium finem). It is a question of profound importance and significance to both philosophy and science. Einstein and Heisenberg, at the very least, talk about the teleology of science and nature. Heisenberg even wrote a book about it (Physics & Philosophy. Paul Davies has a fascinating article on the book, detailing the significance of teleology in science).
Actually, smart biologists hold Aristotle in high regard. Biologists like Darwin. You might wish to look at articles like link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004404206298 (Gotthelf, A. Journal of the History of Biology (1999) 32: 3. doi:10.1023/A:1004404206298). How about the part, explaining that Darwin’s praise for Aristotle “was most likely the result specifically of Darwin’s late discovery that the man he already knew as “one of the greatest … observers that ever lived” (1879) was also the ancient equivalent both of the great modern systematist and of the great modern advocate of comparative functional explanation. It may also have reflected some real insight on Darwin’s part into the teleological aspect of Aristotle’s thought”?Or following Aristotle - the brain was “designed” to cool the blood, and the “heart” is the center of thinking.
Specifically, against this:So, Rhubarb, the “expert witness” is showing why the answers to “What is X for?” and “What does X do?” are different. Just look.
Teleology is not so completely the same as design. It concerns the final causes.
If you are going to answer your own questions, you are not going to leave anything for me to do.
None of my examples showed any final causes at all. They were used to point out the fallacy of thinking, for example, that roots are ‘designed’ to transport water to a tree.
Did you actually read the part where I said that “teleology” and “design” are not that synonymous?
And…? Then you are wrong and therefore we get a contradiction?
I have that book and read it. I don’t remember him saying that God is necessary to understand science. I remember in Catholic school they would tell us that we need the idea of purpose in order to understand how an organism works as a whole. Now that I am older I am not sure this is necessary. Anyway, do you know where I can get Paul Davies’s article?
Two of the definitions I gave earlier involve design. It’s given as an integral part of teleology. My posts to you have been in response to your suggestion that the roots of a tree somehow reflect teleology because they have been designed to transport water to a tree. They are not. Not least because, as I said, if you involve design is any aspect of nature whatsoever, there is no point where you can stop. Once you give it a foot in the door, then there is no way to prevent it infiltrating literally everything. If the roots are designed, then so are the leaves and branches etc.Did you actually read the part where I said that “teleology” and “design” are not that synonymous?
And…? Then you are wrong and therefore we get a contradiction?
You know, if you want to use reductio ad absurdum, you have to end up with a contradiction, or at least something others find disagreeable…
I’m not sure how you’ve derived this from what I wrote. I didn’t even mention God in my post. My point is simply that teleology properly understood deals with the nature of things and the nature of objective reality, which is certainly what the book is about.