Darwin Day 2011 Philosophy of Evolutionary Theory

Elliott Sober
Professor of Philosophy
University of Wisconsin

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• uw
• madison
• genetics
• crow institute

[darkfur35]

evolution is a big farce.

[Mike10four]

@JBeezie428 Thanks for those kind words! I understand your issue with the “human-less universe” relative to Rights. It will take more than 500 characters to respond. I’ll send you a youtube message.

[JBeezie428]

@Mike10four well I did finish the videos. They are both very well written/composed. I must say, the room digital Jefferson is in looks strangely like the room from the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I agree with almost everything you say. I guess my issue goes back to the whole "law" semantic issue. Because I agree with what you are saying, but it is tough to consider a human-less universe, one which has any sort of rights at all. Does this clear up my position at all?

[Mike10four]

@JBeezie428 No “rudeness” on my part! Please watch my video and let’s continue the talk. Later I’ll send you my spin on philosophy via a youtube message. Need to go and walk the dog, Regards Mike

[JBeezie428]

@Mike10four I did not watch enough of the video, and was basing my question on your response to this video. However, I assume there was at least a hint of sarcasm and/or rudeness on your part with the wikipedia comment. I am quite familiar with the concept of physical laws. I'm no physicist, but I do have a degree in the philosophy of science. I was simply interested in why this "hard proof" was an important fact to be known, and not just a sophomoric add-on. That's all. Thanks though.

[Mike10four]

@JBeezie428 I described the context between the “Laws of Nature” and “Natural Law” in part 1. For example, Newton’s Laws of Motion is part of the “Laws of Nature” and not “Natural Law.” To get on the same page, please Wikipedia “Physical Law.”

[JBeezie428]

@Mike10four ok now I get it. However, the philosopher in me has to take one more issue. There are no "laws" in the classical sense found in nature. The laws we deem "natural laws" are "descriptive" laws not "prescriptive" laws. This means they don't say how things are, they only describe how we observe them.I do like how you justified Jefferson's claims with some harder evidence, but still, no one can say for sure if there is any sort of "natural prescriptive law" out there to be found.

[Mike10four]

@JBeezie428 Jefferson’s stated without proof that our unalienable Rights are part of the Laws of Nature. I could not find any proof of his claim in the literature. So I went ahead with a proof. We know the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power at any scholarly level. Understanding these Rights are not manmade may help make this world a better place to live.

[JBeezie428]

@Mike10four agreed. however, how far does that get us? Saying "all things have a right to life". Ok...so what? I mean that seriously. so what? Does this have any affect on our moral behavior? Should we change our behavior because of this? Or are you simply stating that the ideal that Jefferson and his cronies posited has greater importance than to just humans? I guess I'm confused as to why the point you are making is important for us to know.

[Mike10four]

@JBeezie428 There is no “degree” to Rights. Either it’s a Right or not. All Life has the same Right to Life! These Rights are universal to all life, from bacteria to humans that is, Life, Freedom in the pursuit of Survival is common to all life. For humans, Survival is a prerequisite to Happiness. Hence, our unalienable Rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”