tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post9184789723823352387..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Nagel and his critics, Part IIEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-891703099488046462012-11-06T14:30:27.904-08:002012-11-06T14:30:27.904-08:00Mr. Green,
The type of evolution that is semi-dir...Mr. Green,<br /><br />The type of evolution that is semi-directed that I think you might have in mind is something akin to Conway Morris' 'Life's Solution'. However, as I mentioned earlier talk of any type of "selection" allegedly conducted by blind naturalistic forces (whatever they may be) to me as well as to Fodor is fallacious. I have long abandoned talking of selection. I simple speak of change over time in biological organisms and the impact the environment may have on said organisms. But that's as far as it goes. Talk of 'natural selection' creates a subtle but monstrous anthropomorphic fallacy in the minds of ignorant darwinists that does nothing more than obfuscate scientific research into a simplistic and irrational meta-narrative.<br /><br />Also, I am surprised I missed it in my previous post... If as per the critic of Nagel, materialism is simply the denial of spooky stuff then I suppose it's been empirically refuted by quantum physics... Spooky actions at a distance as one famous scientist once put it.<br /><br />It's sad seeing the materialists/naturalists grasping for whatever straw they can find to keep their pathetic faith afloat. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14196984866235955992012-11-05T17:48:31.480-08:002012-11-05T17:48:31.480-08:00Crude: If that's what materialism now is, then...Crude: <i>If that's what materialism now is, then materialism died a long time ago and philosophers are now keeping the death a secret so they can continue to cash its social security checks.</i><br /><br />I'm saving that line for future quotability!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25724286055252073542012-11-05T17:47:17.594-08:002012-11-05T17:47:17.594-08:00TheOFloinn: The scientific argument is that natura...TheOFloinn: <i>The scientific argument is that natural selection may not explain every instance of evolution. […]<br />Philosophically, it is not necessary that theokinetics be required where natural selection fails. There may be other entirely natural mechanisms.</i><br /><br />That's the biological application of the general principle, that (roughly) some things are too specific to be random (e.g. random mutations are not themselves directed to producing certain organisms or certain traits, but the outcome was nevertheless directed). Miraculous intervention is a possibility, of course, but as you say, there could also be some other natural mechanism at work. However, we needn't even go that far — it might be possible that there is no other mechanism, and that the naturally-selected mutations were directed. <br /><br />Consider: a magician can shuffle a deck of cards into order in different ways. He could simply swap out one deck for another, intervening and "overriding" the laws of the order of the original deck (by replacing it with a whole other deck — not quite a miracle, but close enough for this analogy). Or he can use sleight of hand to manipulate the deck in some way apart from the shuffling, i.e. by applying another natural mechanism. But some people are so practised in manipulating cards that they can actually count them with their fingertips, they can cut a deck at any desired point, and so on. Such a person can go through all the moves of shuffling, without adding any hidden moves, but yet precisely control how the cards gets sorted.<br /><br />Thus, even though mutations are not in themselves directed towards producing certain traits, they could be directed externally by some being who had suitable power (say, perhaps, by choosing the very laws of physics or the precise initial conditions, etc. to ensure a specific outcome).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72119279930074915032012-11-01T21:52:45.738-07:002012-11-01T21:52:45.738-07:00Just got done reading dupre's ("who-actua...Just got done reading dupre's ("who-actually-knows-something") review of Nagel's book and it's as irrelevant as it can be. He does not respond adequately to Nagel, commit strawmen fallacies galore and as Crude mentioned redefines materialism in the most pedantic - nay idiotic - way that I have ever seen. He reject reductionism, which only vindicates Nagel and then tells us that in science no such thing (reductionism) is at work. Of course it's not at work Charlie Brown, if it was science would be impossible. Without formal and final causes science becomes unintelligible. <br /><br />One thing is telling though, the speed by which naturalists and materialists are running away (as if it's the plague) from what is in fact the logical conclusions of their metaphysics. Spell out the absurdity of the atheist and he will deny his own mother before he abandons his blind faith.<br /><br /><br />I should send Nagel and Christmas card (pun intended since he is no a Theist) just to thank him for all the laughs he's given me by writing this book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73125059248075178952012-11-01T21:38:38.806-07:002012-11-01T21:38:38.806-07:00@Crude
For years now, every month there is a new ...@Crude<br /><br />For years now, every month there is a new flavor of naturalism, with each model being broader that its predecessor. The loonies will soon call Theism "the new materialism" and try to sell it to the rest of us as a secular metaphysic.<br /><br />It just doesn't add up. Never did in the days of the Greek atomists and doesn't to this day (even with all the idiotic posturing of the faithful of scientism). Materialism is as dead now as it was back in ancient Greece. It's time people realized that and stopped polluting society with their nonsense. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26516471327396439502012-11-01T21:34:00.171-07:002012-11-01T21:34:00.171-07:00@anomymous
It doesn't matter how many nasty r...@anomymous<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many nasty reviews of Nagel's book there are. They do not in the least undermine what he is saying. Reductionism and materialism are incoherent and intellectually bankrupt, all the flames and wrath of materialists won't change that fact Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3870900446823422032012-11-01T20:40:39.357-07:002012-11-01T20:40:39.357-07:00I'd love to see Ed do a critique of the NDPR r...I'd love to see Ed do a critique of the NDPR review. This section, to me, says it all:<br /><br /><i>A more sensible materialism goes no further than the rejection of spooky stuff: whatever kinds of stuff there may turn out to be and whatever they turn out to do, they are, as long as this turning out is empirically grounded, ipso facto not spooky. Such a materialism is quite untouched by Nagel's arguments.</i><br /><br />What a surprise: a materialism so broadly defined that, quite plausibly, it arguably includes Thomism, Idealism, panpsychism and anything else (prepare to argue about what is 'spooky' and what is 'empirically grounded'), is untouched by Nagel. If that's what materialism now is, then materialism died a long time ago and philosophers are now keeping the death a secret so they can continue to cash its social security checks.<br /><br />There's more wrong here, but something about these critical reviews of Nagel is absolutely wonderful to me. In their haste to knock down Nagel's criticisms, they not only basically endorse a fair share of his criticisms, but largely deflect it by saying "well, that's reductionist materialism, which all but the crazies think is bunk anyway".<br /><br />I can only imagine how the reductionist materialists, to say nothing of the eliminative materialists, are taking these criticisms of Nagel.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17028658361442538652012-11-01T18:24:51.948-07:002012-11-01T18:24:51.948-07:00Austin, the article was quite nice, if what he say...Austin, the article was quite nice, if what he says about the history of science and religion is true, then that indeed is a far cry from the relationship which is depicted today.<br /><br />He seems to object to Aristotle's use of deductive logic in scientific inquiry. I think that's fine. As for his critique of Aristotle's doctrine of motion, he misses the mark. "Motion" in the Aristotelian sense does not merely mean displacement or change in spatial location, but rather ALL change. Regular posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but "Unmoved Mover" would mean "Unchanged Changer" in today's sense.Black Lusternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60562910371210176092012-11-01T17:49:39.270-07:002012-11-01T17:49:39.270-07:00Another nasty review of Nagel from someone who act...<a href="http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/" rel="nofollow">Another nasty review of Nagel</a> from someone who actually knows something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28444903790967213222012-11-01T15:58:00.034-07:002012-11-01T15:58:00.034-07:00Mr. Green :I also agree that scientists should app...Mr. Green :<i>I also agree that scientists should approach their work from a theistic perspective (at least the ones who are theists!) — although in practice, this doesn't always make much difference (i.e. the scientific method works the same way whether you believe in God or not). However, there's no reason not to situate bare scientific facts in their true theological context.</i><br /><br />Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. It's in the <i>interpretation</i> of raw data where the metaphysical rubber meets the road. I often use the example of scientists finding obviously designed alien artifacts on Mars. If they assume design from the start, they get to the more interesting questions about the race of beings that designed them in the first place. If they assume that these artifacts can only be explained by mindless processes, they'll be wandering down dead-end rabbit trails forever.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10627735569925006742012-11-01T14:15:37.974-07:002012-11-01T14:15:37.974-07:00To add to Rank's excellent criticism of the in...To add to Rank's excellent criticism of the intellectual banality of darwinian naturalism, one must also note the intrinsic circularity in the notion of natural selection itself (irrespective of naturalized epistemology/pragmatism/etc).<br /><br />The notion that somehow this "feral spirit" (thank Eduardo) of darwinism "selects" is first and foremost an intensional fallacy. Second the idea that property confers survival is vague and empty. There is strictly no scientific way to explain "selection-for" as Fodor explains in his book What darwin Got Wrong. Not only many traits of an organism may not necessarily confer survival as being their primary reason for being "selected" but may even hinder it. So strictly speaking any co-extensive trait may simply be a ride-along on another trait, which is a ride-along on yet another trait.<br /><br />Finally we come to the circularity objection I raise... That being the fact that when probed what confers survival one find that the only answer provided is simply a restatement of the question in disguise of an answer. Simply put, who is the fittest? The organism which survives (taking into account its traits). So, then we ask, which organism survives? The organism which is fittest. And round and round the darwinian fool goes in a circle. I will save my commentary of the just-so stories that have been much of the driving force of darwinism for another time but that is yet another issue that cannot be adequately addressed and is thus simply swept under the rug.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47677232468740640832012-11-01T11:12:36.884-07:002012-11-01T11:12:36.884-07:00The scientific argument is that natural selection ...The scientific argument is that natural selection may not explain every instance of evolution. Sorta like gravity may not explain every instance of motion. (Electro-magnetism is also useful.) Philosophically, it is not necessary that theokinetics be required where natural selection fails. There may be other entirely natural mechanisms. In fact, Thomas supposes that natural telos requires a divine intelligence no less so than apparent exceptions. He would have regarded Darwin's theory, to the extent that it is a scientific theory, to be another modest evidence of God's design. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73453187563643061992012-11-01T10:13:20.480-07:002012-11-01T10:13:20.480-07:00I thought it was his scientific theories were comp...I thought it was his scientific theories were completely wrong. Was there a argument talking about natural philsophy or they simply assumed it was wrong because they have another natural philosophy of their own... Or they don't even know what they are talking about?Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62193683259010216752012-11-01T08:43:29.398-07:002012-11-01T08:43:29.398-07:00Hi Professor Feser,
Didn't know where to brin...Hi Professor Feser,<br /><br />Didn't know where to bring this up, but I'd thought you'd be interested to see a post on Biologos which absolutely bashes Aristotle as the reason for science not being efficacious until modern times.<br /><br />"His admirers did not just claim that he was right, they said he had to be right. In effect, Aristotle’s most dedicated followers were agreed that God Himself was bound by what Aristotle thought because, despite His omnipotence, even the Deity could not defy logic. But, in reality, most of Aristotle's natural philosophy was wrong. Science could go nowhere until the dead hand of the Greek sage was lifted from it."<br /><br />Thought you might like to respond with a post of your own.<br /><br />http://biologos.org/blog/medieval-christianity-and-the-rise-of-modern-science-part-1Austinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84980909808924822602012-11-01T06:51:06.982-07:002012-11-01T06:51:06.982-07:00Off topic, but over on Maverick Philosopher, Bill ...Off topic, but over on Maverick Philosopher, Bill Vallicella criticizes an aspect of the Thomist position on the status of universals. Vallicella is asking for Thomists to comment. Would be great to see what Ed Feser has to say. http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/10/aquinas-meets-frege-analysis-of-an-argument-from-de-ente-et-essentia.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22600046685955327772012-10-31T17:20:44.165-07:002012-10-31T17:20:44.165-07:00Daniel Smith: So much of ID science is wasted tryi...Daniel Smith: <i>So much of ID science is wasted trying to show that this or that 'might be' designed (ID is like 99% origins focused). I say stop looking at origins (the Fifth Way settles that) and start doing science from a theistic perspective!</i><br /><br />Well, it's not simply a question of "the Fifth Way settles that": how to deduce a design empirically is a valid and interesting subject in its own right, regardless of whether we already know the answer. That's precisely why I think Thomists should pursue it from the metaphysical perspective (as, indeed, they should with all science). But I agree with you that individual scientists do not always take this in a productive direction. <br /><br />I also agree that scientists should approach their work from a theistic perspective (at least the ones who are theists!) — athough in practice, this doesn't always make much difference (i.e. the scientific method works the same way whether you believe in God or not). However, there's no reason not to situate bare scientific facts in their true theological context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64041713771132696912012-10-30T16:06:11.015-07:002012-10-30T16:06:11.015-07:00Mr. Green: it's the philosophical interpretati...Mr. Green: <i>it's the philosophical interpretation that's the problem.</i><br /><br />Yes, but even the science is troubling. It seeks to take the most complex things God has made and, for the sake of science, interpret them in a way that requires "some form of intelligence - not necessarily God" to explain them. It's like arguing in reverse.<br /><br /><i>I think it would be worthwhile to work out a Thomist interpretation. That stacked decks can be detected and the "language" of biological processes can be read are not the same argument as the Fifth Way, but they start off from a common root.</i><br /><br />I actually think the Fifth Way is enough on its own. In fact it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the ID crowd when I start arguing that even rocks show design! It's so counterintuitive for them from an ID perspective - yet from a Christian perspective they know it's true.<br /><br />What I often argue for (on the ID website I frequent) is 'theistic science'. So much of ID science is wasted trying to show that this or that 'might be' designed (ID is like 99% origins focused). I say stop looking at origins (the Fifth Way settles that) and start doing science from a theistic perspective! What I envision is scientists working at Christian colleges and seminaries who interpret evidence from a theistic perspective. A 'competing interpretation' of sorts that would seek to produce results superior to those of scientists who are bogged down with atheistic/materialist interpretations of evidence.<br /><br />Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42961492535030388772012-10-29T17:27:03.079-07:002012-10-29T17:27:03.079-07:00Daniel Smith: The Fifth Way proves that there is n...Daniel Smith: <i>The Fifth Way proves that there is no such thing in Nature as a mindless process. So, it would seem, there is some common ground to be found between the two - though I've had no luck convincing Thomists or ID proponents of that!</i><br /><br />Yes, there certainly is a connection. The Profeser has previously pointed out that the actual scientific aspects of ID (to whatever extent they work out) are of course unobjectionable per se — it's the philosophical interpretation that's the problem. I think it would be worthwhile to work out a Thomist interpretation. That stacked decks can be detected and the "language" of biological processes can be read are not the same argument as the Fifth Way, but they start off from a common root.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7172236708728394022012-10-29T17:24:00.615-07:002012-10-29T17:24:00.615-07:00Reighley: We aren't just counting though. The ...Reighley: <i>We aren't just counting though. The statement is suggesting that the statistic we got from a small sample can be generalized as a feature of the world</i><br /><br />Well, right; we take data and a hypothesis and try to put them together to come up with a cause (be it formal, material, efficient, or final). An explanation is a description of a cause, so "Why is the hammer in the fridge? Because someone put it there!" is a perfectly good explanation of the efficient cause (although context or common sense suggests that's probably not the cause we were looking for in this case). If in the article they had said that age was a causal factor that would at least be a partial explanation. (How correct or useful an explanation it is depends on many other factors, of course. It certainly isn't a "perfectly adequate" explanation, and they seemed confused when they say we can know the causes but not enough detail — we may know the general causes for this type of event, but if we don't know all the details in this particular case, then that just means we do not know the particular <i>causes</i> in detail.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-208236346662823962012-10-29T09:20:53.624-07:002012-10-29T09:20:53.624-07:00This has nothing to do with this post, but if Josh...This has nothing to do with this post, but if Josh is reading this, I think that your critique of my arguments against analogy were correct. I was misunderstanding a few things. However, I think that I have come up with a better formulation of my argument that incorporates your criticisms.<br /><br />Have a look, and let me know what you think.<br /><br />You can read it here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/09/the-divine-intellect.html?commentPage=3<br /><br />At October 24, 2012 7:25 PM and October 24, 2012 7:27 PM.<br /><br />Thanks.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63361772721848714182012-10-29T08:44:57.383-07:002012-10-29T08:44:57.383-07:00"A successful theory, we teach in basic probl..."A successful theory, we teach in basic problem-solving, must not only explain what happened but also what does not happen."<br /><br /><i>This is much to stringent a requirement. It eliminates any explanation which does not end with a certainty, which is to say most of them.</i> <br /><br />Odd. Then why have so many problem-solving teams been so successful at improving their processes? <br /><br />Example: a plant making a fluoropolymer in four horizontal cylinder reactors experienced a 2% failure rate on the reaction curve. One of the symptoms was that half the failures occurred on Reactor C. So there must be a cause that explained why there were so many more failures on C but NOT on A, B, and D. This turned out to be the manner in which the catalyst was piped into the reactor. On C, the piping ran across the reactor and, the reaction being exothermic, the catalyst was being warmed up (and therefore activated) prior to charging. This spoiled the reaction for various chemical reasons. <br /><br />In addition, there was a seasonal fluctuation in failure rates, for which a successful theory must explain why there were so many more failures in the winter than in the rest of the year. That suggested cold weather outside, which led to the discovery that some of the piping was exposed on the roof. There was also a third cause that was specific to one particular grade of polymer.<br /><br />When Reactor C was re-piped and a shed was built on the roof to enclose the exposed piping at a constant temperature, the failure rates plummeted to almost zero. Notice that the exposed piping explained "why failures in winter and not in summer?" and the catalyst piping explained "why failures on C and not on A,B, and D?"<br />+ + +<br /><i>If I have a theory of coins that says "heads and tails are symmetric so about half of all coin flips come out heads" and you ask why out of your last 10000 coin flips 4982 of them came up heads, I feel I have a pretty good explanation for you.</i> <br /><br />No, you don't. (Unless you are going to say "design of the coin" is the cause, which I will allow.) But you only have the outcome of assuming a particular mathematical distribution of results, the which is only an approximation of reality. (No coin is perfectly symmetric; nor is it always tossed with the same spin rate to the same height at the same orientation in the same air density, etc.) <i>If the statistical model is true,</i> a certain probability can be postulated. I knew a guy at a client plant one time who could make the coin come up heads <i>every time.</i> <br /><br />A distribution means only that there are a great many small causes operating simultaneously, no one of which is dominant. The net result of these common causes is a distribution of results (approx. normal if the causes are additive; lognormal if they are multiplicative; extreme value if they are polynomial; etc.) But this is simply a way of saying that there is <i>no particular cause</i> why the coin landed as it did; or rather, that there are many possible reasons and it is neither practical, economical, nor in many cases physically possible to identify which. <br /><br />The situation is different for assignable causes. <br /><br />Hope this helps. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66579209761450354582012-10-29T08:35:51.911-07:002012-10-29T08:35:51.911-07:00where was your post about the six or more forms of...where was your post about the six or more forms of modern Thomism? I forgot to make a link to it.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60208657036977992472012-10-29T08:20:06.756-07:002012-10-29T08:20:06.756-07:00reighley,
If I have a theory of coins that says &...reighley,<br /><br /><i>If I have a theory of coins that says "heads and tails are symmetric so about half of all coin flips come out heads" and you ask why out of your last 10000 coin flips 4982 of them came up heads, I feel I have a pretty good explanation for you.</i><br /><br />Suppose after flipping a coin that comes up heads I ask you why that result occurred. You may explain your theory of coins to me, smile and believe the matter to be settled. But I may or may not be satisfied with your explanation.<br /><br />If I am satisfied with your explanation, it may be for the reason that I now realize that my coin flip landing heads is not an unusual, rare or out of the ordinary outcome.<br /><br />But if I am not satisfied with your explanation, it probably will be for the reason that I had asked why that particular coin flip came up heads rather than whether it was likely or not for it to do so, and so feel that my actual question was skirted around rather than legitimately answered.<br /><br />This last example may seem trivial. For if a coin can come up heads or tails when flipped, and either result is equally likely, why care why a particular flip came up heads rather than tails? So, yes, the last example is trivial. But it is trivial so that the principle involved may be more easily seen. And the principle involved is that an explanation sometimes serves less to adequately account for the cause(s) of a particular event, and more to--for want of a better way to put it--quell curiosity about or forestall further inquiry into the matter.<br /><br />The other side of the coin, so to speak, is that sometimes a request for an explanation is less inspired less by a genuine desire to know the cause(s) of its occurrence, and more prompted by a curiosity over the fact that something occurred. If this is the case, then the explanation which shows that the occurrence itself isn't really deserving of my curiosity (i.e., isn't startling, remarkable or extraordinary in the way I might have initially thought it to be) may be received by me as a perfectly adequate 'explanation'--even though it fails to address the underlying cause(s) of the occurrence.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1777753455254096352012-10-29T04:44:19.584-07:002012-10-29T04:44:19.584-07:00Lol. Pataphysical? Hahahhaha is this all because w...Lol. Pataphysical? Hahahhaha is this all because we are talking about the fundamentals of an explanantion?Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22456594734126812952012-10-29T01:03:51.582-07:002012-10-29T01:03:51.582-07:00This is much to stringent a requirement. It elimin...<i>This is much to stringent a requirement. It eliminates any explanation which does not end with a certainty, which is to say most of them.</i><br /><br />I don't see how the mentioned standard requires certainty.<br /><br />Also, what's your explanation if out of your last 10k coin flips, 7k came up heads?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com