(2019-07-15, 05:03 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Good point - they are. But my main point has been that philosophical argumentation appears to be able to go on indefinitely; I prefer to anchor myself in these disputes on the more solid ground of empirical evidence.
Interesting. I suspect it will be a [relatively] long time before the empirical evidence is recognized by academia, likely after the philosophical arguments have convinced more people materialism is false. (Though I think related fields will also need to advance, for example quantum biology.)
Apparently some philosophers don't even consider empirical evidence to be relevant to philosophical questions, at least in their particular areas of expertise, in this case psychology and economics. The abstract below is from the
recent paper Is Empirical Research Relevant to Philosophical Conclusions? by Erik Angner. The concept of evidence is essential to and central to science and much of society in areas such as jurisprudence. Fortunately for the viability and future of philosophy as a field of study this contention appears to be very much a minority position.
Quote:"Much recent philosophical literature on happiness and satisfaction is based on the belief that empirical research is relevant to philosophical conclusions. In his 2010 book What is This Thing Called Happiness?, Fred Feldman begs to differ. He suggests (a) that there is no evidence that empirical research is relevant to long-standing philosophical questions; consequently, (b) that philosophers have little reason to pay attention to the work of psychologists or economists; and (c) that philosophers need not fear embarrassing themselves by being ignorant of important scientific findings that bear directly on their work. Relying on an example invoked by Feldman himself, this paper makes the case that all three theses are false. The argument suggests a picture according to which science and philosophy stand in a symbiotic relationship, with scientists and philosophers engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas for the advancement of the general knowledge."
(2019-07-16, 05:12 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently some philosophers don't even consider empirical evidence to be relevant to philosophical questions, at least in their particular areas of expertise, in this case psychology and economics. The abstract below is from the recent paper Is Empirical Research Relevant to Philosophical Conclusions? by Erik Angner. The concept of evidence is essential to and central to science and much of society in areas such as jurisprudence. Fortunately for the viability and future of philosophy as a field of study this contention appears to be very much a minority position.
Do you have the specifics of Feldman's argument, because it seems to me that perhaps Feldman was speaking specifically about defining "happiness" as opposed to the entirety of philosophy not needing to refer to anything from science.
I do think at times philosophy can show a certain avenue of reasoning is flawed, for example - to be germane to the thread -
Intelligent Design, at least in its investigation of mutation, can be shown to be pretty much worthless in determining whether there is a Creator of reality.
(2019-07-16, 07:43 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have the specifics of Feldman's argument, because it seems to me that perhaps Feldman was speaking specifically about defining "happiness" as opposed to the entirety of philosophy not needing to refer to anything from science.
I can't find a link to the body of Angner's paper, just the abstract. It's not clear whether Feldman was applying his words to all of philosophy or just to the specific sub-category of the philosophy of the nature of "happiness" and the validity and relevance of the empirical research pertaining to it. Unfortunately both he and his reviewer Angner were ambiguous about this and generalized their wording in such a way as to imply the entirety of philosophy even though their discussion concerned just happiness.
Quote:I do think at times philosophy can show a certain avenue of reasoning is flawed, for example - to be germane to the thread - Intelligent Design, at least in its investigation of mutation, can be shown to be pretty much worthless in determining whether there is a Creator of reality.
[url=http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html][/url]
I certainly agree with that concerning one of the great general values of philosophy.
Re. Intelligent Design: as it has been defined for some years by authorities such as Discovery Institute, ID the scientific enterprise does not make any claims regarding the nature of whatever intelligent agent or agents are responsible. ID is the research and body of scientific knowledge showing that all the evidence of biology and paleontology leads inexorably to the conclusions that life was designed and that the evolutionary process inextricably involved design (as an essential addition to microevolution via RM & NS). This scientific enterprise just follows the evidence where it leads without the blinders of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. No assumptions or claims about the nature of this intelligence.
ID certainly makes no claims that all of reality, the universe and man are the creation of a Deity such as the Christian God.
Thus a philosophical argument is not needed to show that ID the scientific enterprise can't show this. Of course, it is a fact that many leading adherents and proponents of ID are Christians, but they generally try to keep their religious beliefs separate from their scientific pursuits.
(2019-07-16, 10:48 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, it is a fact that many leading adherents and proponents of ID are Christians, but they generally try to keep their religious beliefs separate from their scientific pursuits.
But do they recognize that there is nothing in the field of ID, at least as it relates to biology (but arguably physics fine-tuning as well) that should make one think the God of any religion is true?
It seems to me [their] efforts are meant to buttress their religious beliefs, but as you mention with Egnor and cloning this seems to be a turn in the wrong direction inviting unnecessary potential for defeat. What if future science shows the refutation of any claim to design, will they all - if still alive - abandon their faith?
(2019-07-17, 02:36 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]But do they recognize that there is nothing in the field of ID, at least as it relates to biology (but arguably physics fine-tuning as well) that should make one think the God of any religion is true?
It seems to me [their] efforts are meant to buttress their religious beliefs, but as you mention with Egnor and cloning this seems to be a turn in the wrong direction inviting unnecessary potential for defeat. What if future science shows the refutation of any claim to design, will they all - if still alive - abandon their faith?
I think back to one of the books by Stephen Meyer - I think it was Darwin's Doubt - in which he spends all but the final chapter laying out the evidence for design and only in the last chapter does he talk about his religious views and how it is his personal conclusion that the design is the work of the Christian God. Again, this is his personal conclusion; he does not offer the evidence as proof of this conclusion. I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions.
While there does appear to be a creative imperative, it is wholly unfair to dismiss that creativity as "creationism" (especially in the biblical literalist sense that neo-darwinists insist that ID is really all about).
I didn't read through the thread again before posting this but I feel that I must be repeating myself in making these points.
(2019-07-17, 10:53 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I think back to one of the books by Stephen Meyer - I think it was Darwin's Doubt - in which he spends all but the final chapter laying out the evidence for design and only in the last chapter does he talk about his religious views and how it is his personal conclusion that the design is the work of the Christian God. Again, this is his personal conclusion; he does not offer the evidence as proof of this conclusion. I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions.
While there does appear to be a creative imperative, it is wholly unfair to dismiss that creativity as "creationism" (especially in the biblical literalist sense that neo-darwinists insist that ID is really all about).
I didn't read through the thread again before posting this but I feel that I must be repeating myself in making these points.
Oh I don't think it's creationism, but rather the distance from the qualities of a Creator are what make the goal of many IDers fruitless.
If God was piddling around with DNA, weighting the dice of probability to favor certain mutations, wouldn't this have been mentioned somewhere in some scripture? More importantly, ID could rule out all naturalistic explanation and we still wouldn't have an answer as to what the processes involved with evolution are.
This isn't to say ID is a pointless endeavor - it could show the influence of some intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or spirit. It could show us some teleological principles at work in the universe. It could even show Psi at work in biological entities.
What it cannot do is show us a good reason to make the logical leap from unexplained aspects of evolution to the Creator of the Real. Anyone making that argument is fooling themselves. This is not an atheistic or anti-theist argument, it was reading the works of the Catholic theologian Feser that convinced me how off track IDer goals are.
(2019-07-17, 12:26 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Oh I don't think it's creationism, but rather the distance from the qualities of a Creator are what make the goal of many IDers fruitless.
If God was piddling around with DNA, weighting the dice of probability to favor certain mutations, wouldn't this have been mentioned somewhere in some scripture? More importantly, ID could rule out all naturalistic explanation and we still wouldn't have an answer as to what the processes involved with evolution are.
This isn't to say ID is a pointless endeavor - it could show the influence of some intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or spirit. It could show us some teleological principles at work in the universe. It could even show Psi at work in biological entities.
What it cannot do is show us a good reason to make the logical leap from unexplained aspects of evolution to the Creator of the Real. Anyone making that argument is fooling themselves. This is not an atheistic or anti-theist argument, it was reading the works of the Catholic theologian Feser that convinced me how off track IDer goals are.
What IDers? You imply that the goal of ID is to show that the Christian God has manipulated the strings of life creation and subsequent evolution from the start. To my knowledge, all the leading scientists researching ID have the same approach as molecular biologist Michael Behe (and Stephen Meyer as shown by Kamarling). To uncover and show the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design in the origin and evolution of life, not considering the nature of the agent(s) responsible. This is not considered in the science and the research; the implications (which are not particularly Christian) are not part of the scientific enterprise. And the research conclusions to date are absolutely compelling for any unbiased observer, so the goal of scientific ID (as divorced from new-earth Creationism) has already been achieved. Of course, the culture war over this issue is unresolved and rages on.
(2019-07-17, 04:07 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]What IDers? You imply that the goal of ID is to show that the Christian God has manipulated the strings of life creation and subsequent evolution from the start. To my knowledge, all the leading scientists researching ID have the same approach as molecular biologist Michael Behe (and Stephen Meyer as shown by Kamarling). To uncover and show the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design in the origin and evolution of life, not considering the nature of the agent(s) responsible. This is not considered in the science and the research; the implications (which are not particularly Christian) are not part of the scientific enterprise. And the research conclusions to date are absolutely compelling for any unbiased observer, so the goal of scientific ID (as divorced from new-earth Creationism) has already been achieved. Of course, the culture war over this issue is unresolved and rages on.
It seems pretty clear that the goal of many IDers is to support the existence of the Biblical God, just as many materialists true goal is oppose the same God's existence. My point is that this entire conflict is deeply flawed intellectually, as per
Feser's "Where's God" essay.
But I'd be curious what evidence can distinguish top down intelligent design from teleological principles or Psi effects.
(2019-07-17, 12:26 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]What it cannot do is show us a good reason to make the logical leap from unexplained aspects of evolution to the Creator of the Real. Anyone making that argument is fooling themselves. This is not an atheistic or anti-theist argument, it was reading the works of the Catholic theologian Feser that convinced me how off track IDer goals are.
Yes, I agree but I don't think that Meyer and colleagues have made that leap other than, perhaps, in their personal philosophy. From listening to their arguments in panel debates, they seem to be at pains to present the evidence for some kind of intelligence - even maybe some teleological purpose - but not to promote a religious interpretation. That is left to those listening to the arguments to decide. I find myself convinced that creative intelligence is involved - probably fundamental - but I am far from convinced of the existence of a celestial designer.
Where I agree with you is in the observation that support (financial and material) for ID does come from organisations committed to that religious interpretation. It then becomes difficult to separate the scientific evidence from the ideological motivation but I believe that Meyer, Behe and others do try to maintain that separation.