Why all the fuss about Darwin and evolution? Part VI

[ndrthrdr1]

I wear NCSE "Teach Evolution" T-shirts to spark conversation and spread the word.

[Paleolutheran]

I'm somewhat confused. How is a statement regarding the deficiency of a process which inherently ignores formal and final causation a "religious" statement? That sounds like a philosophy of science question and possibility. Maybe we should realize that different areas of thought aren't as "separate" as Dr. Scott suggests. After all, she's speaking using rules of English and rhetoric, but I don't hear either department decrying this horrific blending of disciplines.

[evilotakuneko]

And what deficiencies might you be referring to?

[Paleolutheran]

The deficiency related to only being able to probe essential and material causes. It doesn't and can't take formal and final causes into account. That's a deficiency in the classical sense (philosophically). My point ultimately was that science as a modernist endeavor separates and distinguishes (and I don't have a problem with this, I'm not advocating postmodern "science"), which can limit ability to properly use science. It's like using a screwdriver and thinking it works for all jobs.

[8DX]

Crap. There's no such "deficiency" in the scientific process. Science doesn't ignore formal or final causes. If I understand what you meant. Branches of science deal with different causes (from maths,physics to chemistry,biology)

"Science as a modernist endeavor"? You've been reading too many books with too little science in them.

Statements about the so-called "deficiencies" of evolution are usually religious because the deficiency noted are in fact a failure to conform to religious doctrine.

[Paleolutheran]

I think you have absolutely no clue about what I'm talking about. What cause does "maths" work with again?

[8DX]

Obviously math provides not only computational means to prove theories in physics, biology, chemistry, but also mathematical logic used to extrapolate causes from observed and measured reality.

[Paleolutheran]

Yes...but "observed and caused" in the natural world ultimately leads to only "essential" and "material" causation. Formal and final causation is not an option ultimately for science to operate in, despite the many scientists pretending to be philosophers or theologians.

I'm referring once again to Aristotelian modes of causation, thus, it's a philosophical limitation on the scientific method (and I consider that limitation to be a weakness).

[8DX]

Haven't final and formal causes been rejected by the majority of later (or "modern") philosophers? And even if you want to work with these, without science you are really stuck. Although for instance it is a philosophical not a scientific question to ask what fish gills came about FOR, without a true evolutionary and scientific perspective one would have no way to glean the true answer (that gill slits evolved to protect cells exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide with the external environment)

[Paleolutheran]

What you're saying is that the majority of philosophers have rejected metaphysics as a means to determine formal and final causation. Perhaps, but this is more based on metaphysical assumptions which they don't think can be really argued.

For example, I have no problem with the scientific method or human reason, but I also understand both their limitations as well as the assumptions going into both.

[Paleolutheran]

You believe you can trust your senses accurately enough to study nature. You fall on the side of the problem that Descartes fell. The "post-modernists" fell on the other, that you can't trust your senses to give you objective data from the external world (and in extreme cases, there may not "be" an external world).

But questions about "sense" in your mind would seem to apply more to anatomy and psychology, not philosophy. Even there, a blending of disciplines is ESSENTIAL for their operation

[no1saphead]

teach bad science in the name of fairness..GOOD COMMENT !