Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Interview on Aristotle’s Revenge


UPDATE 7/17: Part 2 of the interview has now been posted.

Recently Michael Egnor interviewed me about my book Aristotle’s Revenge for the Discovery Institute.  The interview will be posted in three parts, spread across the Institute’s ID the Future and Mind Matters podcasts, and today the first part has been posted.  (I’m critical of Intelligent Design theory in the book, so the Institute is showing good sportsmanship in hosting the interview!)

Links to other interviews and the like can be found at my main webpage.

85 comments:

  1. I enjoyed your talk on the metaphysics of the will. I remember hearing a while back that you intended to write a book on the immortality of the soul. Is that the next big project?

    Also, I keep saying this, but I would absolutely love to hear some commentary from you on Nigel Cundy’s work. Either about his blog (Quantum Thomist) or his book What Is Physics? He is (in my opinion) probably the most philosophically knowledgeable physicist since Heisenberg. And there is certainly a lot of overlap between his work and yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. People are sleeping on Nigel Cundy.

      Delete
    2. I will pay money to see Dr. Feser and Cundy have a discussion. Ed, what's your PayPal?

      Delete
    3. I just found Cundy's blog the other day though I am not well versed in physics I found his content to be accessible. What other blog posts by him are "must reads' in your opinion?

      Also, this may be out of left field. But do you know any psychologists that are well versed in philosophy? I find both fields to be at odds with one another (due to personalities mostly not content) yet I am very interested in both.

      Delete
    4. I know that Dr. G.C. Dilsaver approaches professional psychology from a classical philosophical and Catholic point of view. His main work is Psychomoralitics. I have not read it, but I have listened to some interviews of his, and he seems like a sharp guy.

      Also, he is certainly not a Thomist, or even religious, but a lot of people think Jordan Peterson has made valuable contributions to the integration of philosophy and psychology at least on a popular level.

      I would be interested to hear other people’s suggestions.

      Delete
  2. OT: In case you missed it (judging by the view count, you almost certainly did), but our respected Mike Flynn gave a talk at this years Conference of the Society of Catholic Scientists.
    Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrS_r9EnL3I

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ed,

    I apologize for the triviality and perhaps you have been planning to get around to it, but Aristotle's Revenge is currently missing from your authored books sidebar. Just thought I'd drop a note.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Feser,

    By the way, I would not be too quick to say that a proper understanding of metaphysics may not be of practical to scientists. Just think of how the Quantum Revolution was held back by Mechanistic metaphysics. In fact, who knows how many years scientists have labored to reconcile Quantum Field Theory with mechanism? It could be that a knowledgeable general and consistent metaphysics will make scientists more receptive to scientific discoveries. Usually things get murky when people mix their science with their metaphysics too much, and that is where books like Aristotle’s Revenge can help scientists in making and accepting discoveries.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The first half of the segment gave a fair overview of the mechanistic view of nature, but no arguments against this mechanistic view, or arguments for the reality of teleology were presented in this segment. Presumably, such arguments will be stated in further segments when they are posted.

    Teleology shares evidential features with intelligent design, so it is perhaps ironic that Feser states at least a degree of opposition to ID. Design, or purpose, is detected not by complexity alone but by what IDers call irreducible complexity, the demonstrated lack of a naturalistic explanation for the structural organization of the system, as well as demonstration of the ability of a mind bearing being to construct the organized system. That is how we know the watch on the beach was designed, and can reasonably infer that the designer conceived of some purpose for the watch in its design and construction.

    No observed objects or systems in the observable universe, or the observable universe as a whole, have such characteristics, and therefore there is no necessity for a designer or of purpose in evidence.

    One can say design and purpose are compatible with the mechanistic view Feser fairly summarizes, but an unbounded number of unevidenced speculations are also compatible, and of equal value, that value of idle speculation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Teleology shares evidential features with intelligent design, so it is perhaps ironic that Feser states at least a degree of opposition to ID. Design, or purpose, is detected not by complexity alone but by what IDers call irreducible complexity, the demonstrated lack of a naturalistic explanation for the structural organization of the system, as well as demonstration of the ability of a mind bearing being to construct the organized system. That is how we know the watch on the beach was designed, and can reasonably infer that the designer conceived of some purpose for the watch in its design and construction."

      Congratulations on completely missing the point. Why are you even still here?
      The teleology defended by Feser is much broader and is concerned with regularities, which is obvious for everyone who actually engaged with the material and books provided, instead of wasting everyones time with spamming the combox.
      The only reason I answered you was for the invisible reader to know that your objections have no merit. I have no desire to talk to you.

      Delete
    2. Yes well that is why Thomists do not argue for intelligent design.

      We do argue for teleology, however. It is fairly obvious that contingent things act in a consistent way according to some nature. For example, every lump of Carbon-14 has a half life of 5,730 years. Never will you find Carbon 14 with a half life of one year or one million years. The question is, how can this be? It either must be a brute fact (which violates the PSR and many Thomists would consider absurd), an extrinsic cause such as a designer (this seems to have problems as it leads to occasionalism), a necessary fact (which seems impossible given the finite nature in question), or due to an intrinsic nature. Thomists would argue that the answer is that things have intrinsic natures. Whether this implies God requires further argumentation.

      Delete
    3. "It is fairly obvious that contingent things act in a consistent way according to some nature."
      Indeed, material progresses with certain regularities. To attribute purpose to these regular progressions is a non-sequitur, most likely due to a psychological projection onto external material systems of perceived human intentions.

      Delete
    4. Stardust writes:

      Indeed, material progresses with certain regularities. To attribute purpose to these regular progressions is a non-sequitur, most likely due to a psychological projection onto external material systems of perceived human intentions.

      If this interview is all you know of Thomist metaphysics, I can see why you draw that conclusion. We don't affirm that teleology in itself gets you directly to God. That argument, as Aquinas summarized in his Fifth Way, is a different level of analysis which is rooted in final causes.

      So, there's no irony whatsoever in what Feser discusses here.

      Delete
    5. Please don't feed the trolls. SP is a vile troll, whom Feser has explicitly told to get lost. SP is also a liar. Don't feed him if you respect this blog.

      Delete
    6. "That argument, as Aquinas summarized in his Fifth Way,"
      The Fifth Way fails in its second sentence, and thereafter.
      -We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.-
      There is no general observation that things act "for an end", we merely observe that things progress with detectable regularities. Here Aquinas blatantly begs the question by placing in his initial premise his conclusion that -all natural things are directed to their end-

      "analysis which is rooted in final causes."
      Final cause is superficial mythology.

      "there's no irony whatsoever in what Feser discusses here."
      Purpose might be inferred by intelligent design. Yet Feser expressed some objection to ID. Well, maybe he agrees with ID in some ways that support his notion of purpose, yet disagrees with ID in other ways. It will be interesting to hear the next segments to possibly hear about this subject.

      Delete
    7. @Anonymous

      I was actually going to tell you that I give everybody a fair shake and leave it to them to show me what kind of persons they are. Well, his latest confirms your warning. No troll feeding from me.

      Delete
    8. SP I don't like how you tend to never seriously engage the actual positions of AT metaphysics but instead jump to knocking down caricatures or distorted prima facie understandings without asking for further clarification.

      You're either intellectually dishonest, a troll, or severely blinded by some perverse motivation to willfully resist AT metaphysics.

      If you're a troll please stop. You may be unnecessarily tormenting certain readers into believing that the entire AT system is silly. One's metaphysics can drastically change their entire life. Don't play with it.

      Delete
    9. Bill, a blog is a shared environment. You giving him the benefit of the doubt can affect everyone. It's okay if you're unfamiliar with SP's history. But once informed, or once it just becomes obvious what he is like, you really should consider not giving him that benefit, for everyone's sake.

      RomanJoe, who would SP be tormenting? They'd have to be uninformed about SP and philosophy in general. Anyone else could pretty quickly tell he is a troll and an idiot.

      Delete
    10. Anon,

      The untrained lay-person can be easily swayed by fallacious attacks. I've been there in the past and have had issues when I first started my philosophical investigations because of it. When some combox sophist conjures up a series of straw men there's always the chance that some invisible reader may take it seriously, may actually begin to go down unnecessary and unhealthy rabbit holes of doubt.

      Delete
    11. @Anon

      ...once it just becomes obvious what he is like, you really should consider not giving him that benefit, for everyone's sake.

      But is that what I said? His subsequent comments confirm your warning, so I will no longer reply to him.

      Delete
    12. Correction: "But ISN'T that what I said?"

      Delete
    13. Joe,

      SP I don't like how you tend to never seriously engage the actual positions of AT metaphysics but instead jump to knocking down caricatures or distorted prima facie understandings without asking for further clarification.

      You're either intellectually dishonest, a troll, or severely blinded by some perverse motivation to willfully resist AT metaphysics.


      I think the explanation is just that SP has little to no interest in reading and discussing metaphysics.

      He does seem to feel compelled to 'refute' any arguments for the existence of God that anyone might attempt to present (I remember coming across some atheists who had a kind of reflexive compulsion like this back at in the New Atheist period in the 00s).

      His lack of interest in philosophy beyond a minimal level though means doing this he just sounds like a total troll and has little/nothing to contribute.

      Sadly people unaware can end up wasting time finding it out.



      Delete
    14. Often those who show little interest in metaphysics, resisting it with a depraved post-enlightenment adherence to the scientific image, are captivated by the idea that metaphysics is just an extravagant system of conceptual generalizations. Typically this goes hand in hand with material reductionism, determinism, etc. The taxonomy of being, so they believe isn't delineated by form, essences, teleology--this is all a grand illusion. The scientific image is what's true.

      I struggled with this for awhile when I was younger, until I realized that it was merely another metaphysics, one that denied the richness of being. The materialist-cum-reductionist believes classical metaphysics is mere conceptual imposition on a simpler and bleaker reality of mechanical movement. The classical metaphysician believes the materialist-cum-reductionist is, unknowingly, a defender his own metaphysics, it's just one that is an abstraction of the classical system--with merely the material and efficient causes of the old system abstracted from the rest. This is the crux of the disputes between the two parties. It's why they tend to talk over each other, and it's why comment threads can go on for days without resolution. We operate in two different realities, one--I would argue--living in an abstraction of the other, yet promulgating that it is reality in its fullest and that any metaphysical quandaries beyond its methodology is conceptual jumbo, self-delusion, etc.

      Delete
    15. RomanJoeJuly 18, 2019 at 11:24 PM

      "SP I don't like how you tend to never seriously engage the actual positions of AT metaphysics but instead jump to knocking down caricatures or distorted prima facie understandings without asking for further clarification."
      Could you be more specific as to subject matter and arguments?

      I have listened to both segments posted in the OP and have several times on this thread accurately stated the words of Feser, and responded directly to those actual words.

      How is that anything other than on-topic commentary on the specific philosophical arguments of the site owner?

      For example, reference StardustyPsyche July 21, 2019 at 7:40 PM
      below.

      Delete
    16. Coconuts July 21, 2019 at 6:25 AM
      "SP ...
      His lack of interest in philosophy beyond a minimal level "
      What do you think of the conflict between Feser stating "I think the Fifth way is sound" and Feser stating that "intrinsic teleology does not directly implicate a mind"?

      Isn't the second statement an acknowledgement that differential or incremental or moment to moment or functional progressions of material in no way imply or necessitate a mind?

      Doesn't the Fifth Way begin with the observation of "natural bodies" that are "evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way" ?

      So, Aquinas begins with the observation of the regularities of functional progressions of material, and Feser says such observations of patterns of efficient causes do not imply a mind, therefore the Fifth way commits the logical fallacy of the non-sequitur in concluding that the observation of the functional progressions of natural bodies necessitates a mind.

      The argument being logically invalid is therefore unsound.

      Do you have any further rational analysis on these specific philosophical arguments to add?

      Delete
  6. I'm a little bit confused. When does the fifth way come into play?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Jaime

    You get to the Fifth Way by asking why the regularities always produce certain effects and not others (fire never freezes water). That leads you to final causes (the final cause of the acorn is the oak tree). Enter the Fifth Way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bill
    " (the final cause of the acorn is the oak tree)"
    How do you know the final cause of the acorn is not to be squirrel food? Or bacteria food? Don't the great majority of acorns end up other than oak trees?

    How do you know that for an acorn to become an oak tree is -best-?

    How do you know that -whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an- apparent -end- only due to moment to moment mechanistic differential transfer functions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. StardustPsyche

      You are correct. A-T Metaphysics is out of its depth, i.e. this concept of regularities is non-sense, the concept of regularities admits that A-T Metaphysics is under-determined... end of argument.

      I mean, A-T Metaphysics is intelligible... its non-sense isn't gibberish... no, rather its non-sense is that it makes the wrong kind of sense.

      However, your error is that your perspective of the Lagrangian is consistent with the anthropic principle, i.e. hindsight.

      However, one can apply the reverse anthropic principle to answer your question...

      Delete
    2. Troll Vs Troll; Nonsense Vs Nonsense.

      Delete
    3. Stardust Psyche,

      You do know that mechanism is outdated science, correct? It has been replaced by Quantum Field Theory. So I would recommend not referencing mechanistic physics in the future. Check out some of Dr. Nigel Cundy’s blogs on mechanism.

      And finally, you are equivocating on the definition of “purpose”. When Thomists talk about intrinsic teleology or loosely about “purpose”, they generally are just mentioning what a thing tends to do. So an acorn tends to become an oak tree. That an acorn can become squirrel food is only because it tends to have a nutritious molecular structure (as opposed to tending to emit severe levels of gamma radiation). I hope that helps clarify what Thomists mean by purpose.

      Delete
    4. Scott

      Sorry, but even the governing equations of QFT have Lagrangians...

      How, would a Thomist answer this question:

      Why does the winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first?

      You have stated that for a Thomist the answer is:

      A winner of a sprint race tends to cross the finishing line first.

      See? Thomism is under-determined...

      Delete
    5. Scott,
      Thanks for the reference, I found the name, I didn't find a specific blog page like that yet.

      "Thomists talk about intrinsic teleology or loosely about “purpose”, they generally are just mentioning what a thing tends to do."
      That would be an equivocation, between things simply tending to do X, and -not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end-.

      To assert as a premise -designedly- and then conclude a designer is begging the question, which is what the Fifth Way does, beg the question, putting its conclusion in its premises.

      You are the one equivocating on "purpose", in the one case attributing purpose to the intent of an intelligent designer, and in the other case calling mere tendencies of physical progression to be purposes.

      My use of the word purpose is free of equivocation. Purpose always means the intention of an intelligent being.

      Thus, -things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies,- simply have no purpose and progress by no purpose.

      Delete
    6. StardustyPsyche

      You have tabled:
      Natural bodies lack intelligence.

      Prove it...

      Delete
    7. You can find the cited words here, for example:
      http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/03/fifth-way-in-syllogistic-form.html

      Then you can ask the author to prove it.

      Delete
    8. StardustyPsyche

      Then prove your proposition:

      Purpose always means the intention of an intelligent being.

      Prove it...

      Delete
    9. That's my definition of the word. The subject was equivocation, which means to change one's definition for a word in mid argument.

      Look, Philip, you obviously are not familiar with the words of the 5th way nor are you reading for understanding. All you are doing is skimming and blasting out silly little quips from your out of context extractions.

      I have now lost interest in you.

      Delete
    10. StardustyPsyche

      You stated this:
      Purpose is the intent of an intelligent designer.

      AND THEN you confirmed your point:
      Purpose always means the intention of an intelligent being.

      All you have done is clarified the position of the Thomist... as well as agreeing with them!!!!!!!

      Cachinnate....no wonder you have lost interest... you have lost the argument...

      Delete
  9. Please do not feed the troll.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just listened to the second part of the interview, where Dr. Feser says that Aristotelianism is not incompatible with evolution. What I am curious about is what mechanism Aristotelians say drives evolution. Neo-Darwinism says that natural selection acting upon random mutation drives evolution. More recently, neutral theory would say that random mutation itself is actually what drives evolution. Is randomness compatible with Aristotelianism? If not, what then would they say drives evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Aristotelians would argue that evolution is driven by innate teleological properties that emerge in and with more complicated material structures or states. Of course, innate matter itself is not a subject of evolution or evolutionary processes but retains its own teleological properties that makes the more complicated organization of matter a possibility (and hence evolution). Teleology itself is tied to the nature and reality of causality: every effect has a cause. Even so every agent acts for an end. The easiest way to appreciate this, I think, is to consider how much of our technology is based on "tricking nature:" we know what things naturally want to do or try to do and we manipulate this to achieve our own goals or purposes.

      Delete
    2. So would an Aristotelian need to deny that there are random mutations?

      Delete
    3. Randomness is derived from natural goal or intention. A misfire is only intelligible by reference to proper working.

      Delete
    4. In evolution randomness means that the mutations have not occurred with the goal or intention of altering the genome.

      Delete
  11. If anyone unfamiliar wants to know why we don´t want to engage with Stardusty, here is the link to a thread in the old Classical Theism Forum:

    http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=927

    This should suffice to show that engaging him doesn´t make any sense. So please ignore him, so we don´t need to waste any more threads discussing about the absolute basic metaphysics with someone uninterested to learn.

    As for Philip, he parades this strange example

    *Why does the winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first?*

    now around for quite some time, as can be seen when looked upon the posts in the last few months. I still don´t see where the objection in his supposed objection to A-T is supposed to be.
    But Philip, I´m still on the fence as to what your motives are. If you want to present your case, please follow the link below to a thread on the Forum. You mainly have been throwing around big words without construing a proper argument supporting your assertion of the underdeterminancy of the A-T metaphysics, so please present your case there. I have little hope, since you have been here for a long time, but contributed little to none to a fruitful discussion. So I don´t quite expect for something useful to arise from this. But either way, if you don´t follow, we at least know that you only want to troll.

    http://classicaltheismforum.com/forum/off-topic/1854-philip-rand%C2%B4s-objections-to-a-t-metaphysics

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1/ The Principle of Non-Contradiction is apodictally true.
      2/ If this is true then it must also be true that it is unprovable.
      3/ If the Principle of Non-contradiction is false then it can be proved to be true.
      4/ If the Principle of Non-contradiction can be proved to be true it contradicts itself.

      Delete
    2. @Philip

      I'm not certain what point you're trying to make. The PNC is rationally undeniable. Nobody claims it is "proved" in the sense of logical demonstration. You'd have to use it to prove it (like using reason to prove reason). The alternative is gibberish, so we consider the PNC to be a foundational principle of human thought.

      Delete
    3. *apodictically*

      Meaning Necessarily or demonstrably true; incontrovertible.

      Delete
    4. Bill

      You have tabled:

      Nobody claims it is "proved" in the sense of logical demonstration. You'd have to use it to prove it (like using reason to prove reason).

      This is an admission that the PNC is semantically open or partly incoherent.

      Delete
    5. Aristotle jedi

      You state that the PNC is demonstrably true.

      Bill states that the PNC is not demonstrably logical.

      This is an example of the semantically open and partly incoherent consequences of the PNC.

      Delete
    6. @Philip

      Aristotle Jedi stated no such thing. He merely provided the definition of the word YOU used.

      You've been given the opportunity to explain yourself, so would you care to do so? What's your point?

      Delete
    7. At this stage, anyone who engages SP has no respect for Feser and this blog.

      It is also pretty clear by now that Philip Rand is a nut job and should be given similar treatment.

      Santi, SP, Counter-Rebel, Danielos, and Philip Rand are all obvious and, in all cases except perhaps Rand, notorious trolls. Don't feed them.

      Delete
    8. Bill

      My point Bill is that the PNC is a self-referential proposition.

      You stated as much when you wrote:
      Nobody claims it is "proved" in the sense of logical demonstration. You'd have to use it to prove it (like using reason to prove reason).

      Delete
    9. @Philip

      And so what? You employ it every time you speak and write, unless you speak and write gibberish. You exhibited it every time you posted here.

      You're not telling us anything we don't know or anything that hasn't been known for a very long time. So, you are either wasting everybody's time or you have another point you're getting at. If so, what is the other point?? If this is all you've got to say, we're done.

      Delete
    10. Bob

      What you state is very interesting and is a consequence of believing a self-referential doctrine.

      Since the language behaviour of a group, i.e. (Thomists) may be unsystematic or incoherent, it is not necessarily the case that questions of meaning are resoluble.

      If some Thomists assent to, and other Thomists disent from, certain statements it may not be possible to say, for that group, i.e. Thomists, either that W and X are synonymous or that they are not.

      Furthermore, it is clear from your own statements even an individual may be "inconsistent".

      To use another Thomist concept, it is only so far as a regular pattern of use can be determined that it is possible to make suitable judgements about the meaning of A-T Metaphysics.

      The fact that Feser's book Aristotle's Revenge is so long is evidence that A-T Metaphysics is non-sense, i.e. it makes the wrong kind of sense.

      Delete
    11. @Philip

      First, my name isn't "Bob."

      Second, what YOU state is a consequence of believing a self-referential doctrine since you employ it every time you post. Everything you type is absolute gibberish unless you rely on the very thing you appear to be attacking.

      To use another Thomist concept, it is only so far as a regular pattern of use can be determined that it is possible to make suitable judgements about the meaning of A-T Metaphysics.

      Excuse me? It is only so far as a regular pattern of use can be determined that it is possible to make suitable judgments about the meaning of what YOU type. As a matter of fact, without any discernible pattern, no sense can be made of anything anybody says. You have said NOTHING worthwhile.

      Delete
    12. Bill

      You state:

      Everything you type is absolute gibberish unless you rely on the very thing you appear to be attacking.

      You are inconsistent and incorrect.

      My target is the PNC not SYNTACTIC RULES. It is syntactic rules that make my statements intelligible NOT the PNC.

      So, are you saying that Syntactic Rules determine the PNC?

      Delete
    13. Dominik Kowalski July 19, 2019 at 8:21 AM
      http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=927

      Thanks for the link, Dominik, I had forgotten all about that. It was kind of amusing to recall that JT set up a thread just to engage me, and then banned me from that thread, go figure.

      Do you have any rational arguments with respect to my post of July 19, 2019 at 3:49 PM below, or the points raised in the second segment linked in the OP?

      Do you agree with Fodor that natural selection cannot account for why the polar bear is white?

      Do you agree with Feser that intrinsic teleology does not directly implicate a mind?

      Do you agree with Feser that biological function is not reducible to patterns of efficient causation?

      Delete
    14. @Philip

      "Syntatic rules" are unintelligible without the PNC. Is the inversion of "syntatic rules" true? Why not? All forms of communication are unintelligible without the PNC. That's why its denial is self-defeating. You have to employ it in the denial because you assert it as a true statement and not that its inversion is also true.

      You say, "It is syntactic rules that make my statements intelligible NOT the PNC." What would you do if I reply, "Do you really think the Detroit Lions and the Cleveland Browns will be in the Super Bowl this year?" You would insist that your sentence bears no relevance to my reply, that it has a specific meaning, and that you are not affirming the inversion of what you said. You are thus depending upon identity, contradiction, and excluded middle to make intelligible what you said. If not, you're just typing gibberish.

      Your rules are thus dependent on the PNC, not the other way around.

      Delete
    15. Bill

      "Do you really think the Detroit Lions and the Cleveland Browns will be in the Super Bowl this year?"

      Your above example proves my point, i.e. the above is NOT truth apt.

      The apparent function of your example is to make an assertion, but which may instead be expressing an attitude rather than being in the business of aiming at truth or falsehood.

      The PNC functions in the same way as your example above and as my original syllogism revealed, i.e. the PNC is not truth apt.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. SP,

      You are being disingeneous, again. The thread was part of a deal to get you to stop clogging up this blog with your nonsense. You didn't take the deal. You came to the forum only after Feser booted you from here. I was therefore under no obligation to let you hang around the forum indefinitely. Besides, part of the deal was you stay in your thread (or at least post sensible stuff - per impossible - elsewhere). You didn't keep that part of the deal either.

      Delete
    18. @Philip

      Well, I gave you a fair shake, but like others have said, you're clearly a troll. You are either deliberately feigning confusion over the point I made, or you're a liar.

      You can have no "rule," syntactic or otherwise, if its inversion is true in the same sense. Hence, any rule is subject to the PNC.

      Bye. You're wasting my time.

      Delete
    19. Bill

      You cannot observe your defeat... interesting...

      This statement of yours supports the fact that the PNC is NOT truth apt:

      You can have no "rule," syntactic or otherwise, if its inversion is true in the same sense.

      Your statement is a command and commands are not truth apt.

      So, a Thomists tabled position concerning the PNC is that it is a truth by stipulation.

      Which is simply another way of saying that the PNC is simply an attitude NOT an assertion. Which is what my syllogism demonstrated... very interesting...

      Thanks chaps for the data....

      Delete
    20. Bill

      You are tabling an appeal to logic to support the PNC:

      Proposition:You can have no "rule," syntactic or otherwise, if its inversion is true in the same sense. Hence, any rule is subject to the PNC

      However, you have also tabled at the same time this proposition concerning the PNC:

      Proposition: .The PNC is not demonstrably logical.

      In symbolic logic you are stating: (p & (p -> q)) & ¬q

      Delete
    21. @Philip Rand:

      "You cannot observe your defeat... interesting..."

      Truly, we are not worthy of your genius. You are casting your pearls before pigs, so you better seek some other internet joint, some other audience, where your countless dialectical victories will be more readily recognized. So go away. Pretty please with a cherry on top?

      Delete
    22. Jeremy Taylor July 20, 2019 at 5:19 PM SP,
      Hi JT, thanks for stopping by. Do you have any comments on the specific philosophical arguments raised in the OP?

      For example, Feser states he thinks the Fifth Way is sound. I say that Aquinas states as a premise "designedly" and then concludes an intelligent designer, thereby begging the question, making the argument logically invalid, and thus unsound.
      http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/03/fifth-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
      (translation by Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo, Ph.D.)
      What do you think?

      Feser seems to agree with Fodor that natural selection cannot account for why the polar bear is white. I say elementary evolutionary fact and theory account for the white color of the polar bear. Who do you think is correct and why?

      Feser states that intrinsic teleology does not directly implicate a mind, I agree the regular progressions of material in no way imply a divine mind, or god, or overarching purpose. Do you agree?

      Feser asserts that biological function is not reducible to patterns of efficient cause. I say that science clearly shows biological function reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics, which in archaic A-T parlance progresses by patterns of efficient cause.

      Any opinions on these specific philosophical arguments of the OP?

      Delete
  12. Please follow the following link Phil and post there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Doesn't extrinsic teleology typically presuppose (or 'build off of') intrinsic teleology? E.g. wood is often used for X because wood is both typically malleable yet durable, and wood is so because [its own reasons/purposes while a tree]?

    Also, why don't Aristotelians consider pushing an accelerationism on Darwinists by pointing out that talk of natural selection and survival of the fittest is patently absurd given that atomic particles and energy fields are the only real existents in the universe, and it's absurd to suggest such things would have any tendency to try to "survive" or retain biological "fitness?" Biological being is superfluous to primary physical being, which are the only things that actually exist, so even remotely suggesting anything like instinct or biological compulsion of any kind is to endow nature with illusional faerys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Timocrates, I suspect that the naturalist will reply that ultimately all biological aspects of the universe, secondary as they are, are also temporary: in the long range, all biology will pass away in the eventual heat death of the universe, and we will be left with primary being (atoms, with a minimum state of energy). Thus the "survival" aspect is indeed an entirely accidental and short-lived condition, to be replaced in the long run. The "tendency" of atoms in plants to assist the plant to survive is an accidental "tendency" that is a mere statistical blip in the more rooted tendency to exhibit chemical and physical attributes.

      He will, of course, have no explanation for why there would be a universe with atoms that have physical and chemical tendencies.

      Delete
    2. Timocrates, Tony,
      You both raise some interesting questions with respect to naturalism, reductionism, the reality/unreality of biological systems/ and the explanation for the origins of existence. That's a lot, so I can only be brief.

      Large scale objects are recognizable organizations of smaller scale material. For example, a crystal, the molecules align in particular angles so the overall crystal has a recognizable shape.

      The continuity of self is a correlation between sets of material, past compared to present. We are, each of us is, continually changing n composition and arrangement. The individual object continues as that object as a collection that is similar to and contains a set of arrangements that correlate to a past set.

      Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene". Taken literally that would be an absurd anthropomorphization of a section of a chain molecule. Yes, that molecule and all it does reduces to quantum fields or whatever the ultimate material is, but we humans have no means to perform useful analysis of macro objects by employing transfer functions from the quantum scale to the macro scale.

      The only tools we have to gain any sort of understandings are to employ models at successive levels, models that are necessarily only approximate analogs of the true underlying reality. As unsatisfying as that might be that is just the best we have available.

      On the bright side our models turn out to be good enough to produce all the fantastic technologies we all enjoy, so that is vast evidence that the models are realistic because they converge on the underlying reality over large numbers of various circumstances.

      One net result is genes that in a very metaphorical sense seem superficially to be acting selfishly.

      As for why there is something rather than nothing, and why this particular sort of something rather than some other imaginable sort of something, those are unsolved mysteries, riddles that have puzzled minds for thousands of years and remain unsolved to this day by all.

      The speculation of god solves nothing, explains nothing, only calls for answers for these questions:
      Why does god exist as opposed to absolutely nothing?
      How is god ordered in such manner that he can know literally everything?
      How do god's powers of knowing all everywhere actually work?
      What is the mechanism for his creative powers?
      What is the mechanism for how he interacts with material?
      How can a god outside of time and space act over and through both space and time?
      Why does this particular sort of god exist as opposed to the unbounded alternative sorts of gods that have been and could be imagined to exist?

      All proposed solutions to the origin of existence lead to logical contradictions, unintelligible assertions, or critical unanswered questions.

      The only solution that has strong evidence is eternal material, and the evidence for eternal material is vast indeed:
      We never observe stuff just popping into existence out of nothing.
      We never observe stuff just disappearing from existence into nothing.
      We observe stuff in existence all around us.
      Therefore material has always existed, and will always exist, our inability to make sense of an actual infinite temporal regression of material notwithstanding.

      Delete
    3. You can be far more brief: go away. You were banned by Prof. Feser.

      Delete
    4. @Tony
      Oh I agree. My point only is that for biology to even exist as its own proper scientific discipline, it requires a unique teleological foundation. Otherwise it's only a redundant and superfluous form of modern physis or chemistry: evolution requires believing there is this thing called "life" and things called "organisms" that have features or functions inexplicable in inanimate, mechanical terms. That or the evolutionist must confess he is merely in the art of window dressing physics using peculiar jargon that is redundant as it is already and must be cashed out in the language of particle physics and fields. Or so it seems to me at least... Like Democritus realizing that his own atomism results logically in denying the reality of his own mind.

      Delete
    5. Timocrates
      "My point only is that for biology to even exist as its own proper scientific discipline, it requires a unique teleological foundation. Otherwise it's only a redundant and superfluous form of modern physics or chemistry: "
      False dichotomy.
      A "proper" scientific discipline provides relative explanations that have relative meanings. Meaning, or explanation, is the relationship between collections we approximate as things. An ultimate explanation for all things is not needed for a meaningful relationship to be described between collections we approximate as things.

      A "proper" scientific discipline makes no attempt and makes no claim to be able to explain our macro level observations directly in terms of an as yet undefined ultimate underlying reality.

      Yes, biology reduces to chemistry which in turn reduces to physics.

      "evolution requires believing there is this thing called "life" and things called "organisms" that have features or functions inexplicable in inanimate, mechanical terms. "
      No "belief" is required. "life" is an aggregate system of chemistry, which is in turn an aggregate system of physics.

      Describing a physical system as an "organism" is like describing a vessel of gas with PV=nRT. It is an aggregate descriptor that converges on the net progressions of a vast number of entities acting at the level of underlying reality.

      No "belief" is required because no claim is made to the precise accuracy of the large scale model, nor is there any claim that the large scale model has ultimate universal existential explanatory value, only relative explanatory meaning. That is what a "proper" scientific discipline is and does.

      Delete
    6. Still stubborn as ever, even more than when you were on the CT forum, before your dumb ass got booted from there.

      SP, you know, if you were hanging on a cliff holding with your two hands, I'd step on both of them. And then kick your face.

      Delete
  14. Per the second segment...
    Feser asserts that natural selection needs teleology. Feser seems to rather agree with Fodor that natural selection cannot account for why the polar bear is white.

    It is small wonder Fodor was attacked, with such a pedestrian truncated assertion, apparently one that appeals to Feser. The polar bear is white because blending into the surrounding is a survival advantage which is thus a reproductive advantage. Bears in the arctic that are brown or black or some other color are less likely to be successful so over a long period of many instances they are selected out, and white bears are selected preferentially. For this process to occur there must be some mechanism for variation, such as mutations. Evolution 101, failed by Fodor in Feser's account of Fodor.

    Feser correctly states, albeit in obsolete A-T terms, that intrinsic teleology does not directly implicate a mind. In other words, in more modern terms, material progresses with particular regularities, and this in no way implies god, divine guidance, or what Feser might call extrinsic teleology.

    Then Feser goes completely off track, again in obsolete A-T terms, asserting that biological function is not reducible to patterns of efficient cause. In other words, somehow, biological function is not reducible to mechanics, dynamics, chemistry, and their antecedent physics.

    In this regard Feser makes an ad hoc, indefensible, unevidenced claim that is directly contradictory to astronomical volumes of evidence in the sciences of mechanics, dynamics, chemistry, and physics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. StarDustyPsyche

      This admission by you is interesting:
      In other words, somehow, biological function is not reducible to mechanics, dynamics, chemistry, and their antecedent physics.

      Because, in making it you are admitting that Evolution Theory has no Laws... so, in effect you are in agreement with Feser...

      Yet again.... you have lost the argument!!!

      Delete
    2. StarDustyPsyche`

      I doubt you will be able to observe what your statement amounted to... on account it is a negation and atheists have a cognitive problem with the understanding of negations...i.e. they get confused.

      So, to be clear... this is your position regarding Evolution Theory:

      Biological function, (i.e. Evolution Theory) is reducible to mechanics, dynamics, chemistry, and their antecedent physics.

      See? No governing laws of Evolution at all...

      Delete
  15. Great podcasts. Much enjoyed.

    I would also like to point out that St. Augustine in On the Trinity also makes a teleological argument in the context of giving an explanation on how God providentially guides and governs the universe, making an analogy to how we manage an enterprise: everything in nature has tendencies determined by its nature that gives a thing its limits and possibilities. God, St. Augustine argues, rules the universe similarly to how a man might set about setting up a farm for his family: he employs some people by offering them money for their work, which moves them to fulfill their employer's purposes. These workers, in turn, might use beasts to ploy the field, though the beasts move for very different reasons or motivations than their handlers do (avoiding pain and seeking or anticipating pleasure/reward [say food and water]) and so fulfill the workman's purposes. Finally, instruments and raw materials are used to build the house and dig, which yield to the task at hand, and the will and purposes of the workmen, for very different reasons than even the beasts of burden did, and so forth. You can, of course, go right down to the raw materials used and even their sub-atomic nature/properties for why some were selected for some uses or purposes and others for others.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Attacking a position via targeting the principle of non-contradiction is like shooting the own foot, immediately taking upon the other and then, with seven bullets to go, just emptying the magazine in the own head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Restorting to the PNC is like going for your six guns... only to find that there are only two there...

      Delete
  17. Thanks to the two resident trolls, SP and PR, this thread has completely gone off the rails. It is amazing, quite frankly, that StardustyPsyche hasn't been perma-banned by Dr. Feser. The same applies to Phillip Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tritium August 2, 2019 at 3:09 AM
    "Thanks to the two resident trolls, SP and PR, this thread has completely gone off the rails."
    In what sense is listening to the audio links provided in the OP, making note so that the words of the OP are quoted accurately, then making specific rational arguments on the specific philosophical points of the OP "off the rails"?
    Please see
    July 21, 2019 at 7:40 PM
    July 19, 2019 at 3:49 PM

    Virtue signaling to your friends by attacking those who disagree does not constitute a philosophical argument.

    The Fifth way, contrary to the statement in the OP audio link, is unsound, including because it uses at least 2 logical fallacies:
    Begging the question. Aquinas states "designedly" as a premise and then concludes an intelligent designer.

    Non-sequitur. Aquinas states "natural bodies" that are "evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way", then concludes an intelligent designer. Ironically, Feser undermines The Fifth way by stating that patterns of efficient causation do not directly implicate a mind, which is true, and makes that argument of the Fifth Way a non-sequitur.

    Any thoughts on the specific philosophical arguments?

    ReplyDelete