[Taxacom] teleology example

Mon Mar 11 15:54:17 CDT 2013

Here's a definition for you...

te·di·ous  (t[http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif][http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif]d[http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif]-[http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif]s)
adj.
1. Tiresome by reason of length, slowness, or dullness; boring. See Synonyms at boring<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boring>.
2. Obsolete Moving or progressing very slowly.

On 3/11/13 10:45 AM, "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com<mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com>> scribbled the following tidbit:

I don't think it matters at all about how one comes to a belief. A belief
is a belief is a belief - its just a statement of what we think is true,
whether in science or in religion. I would go far as to say that what we
believe is not science as such, for all that a certain belief may be a
product of scientific investigation.

John Grehan

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Dick Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu<mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu>> wrote:

Curtis,

I think it depends on what one means by (i.e, how one defines) "belief".
I believe that certain things will happen in the laboratory, and in nature,
because there are sound scientific explanations for them.  This form of
belief is not the same as what is generally accepted for religious belief;
the idea that I accept, simply by faith with no empirical evidence, that
something is true or can be explained.

The same holds for "purpose".  Given John Grehan's position that
definitions don't matter, it seems that another explanation is that Grehan
and Winter are using two different definitions of purpose (at least one
definition of purpose makes no reference to intent) .  If that's the nature
of the problem, then there can be  no resolution until both provide a
definition of what they mean  by "purpose".

Cheers,

Dick J

----- Original Message -----

From: "Curtis Clark" <lists at curtisclark.org<mailto:lists at curtisclark.org>>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:34:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] teleology example

On 2013-03-11 3:30 AM, John Grehan wrote:
> The real nature of the problem may be that there is this a
> pervasive and explicit language of teleology in evolutionary biology
> that is perfectly at home with theologically based approaches such as
> intelligent design and creationism.

I would go further and say that is is pervasive in English (and probably
other natural languages as well), that we are biologically predisposed
to seek teleological arguments, and that a different view of the world
must be learned.

> But in this case the teleological statement was so explicit and direct
> that it was worthy of notice.

And I contend that a single statement is not an accurate enough measure
of the underlying state to be adequate for analysis (as contrasted to
hand-waving). It seems that the best example is not one where an
evolutionary biologist's thought processes *could* be explained by
teleology, but rather one in which they cannot be explained any other way.

> My personal view is that for many biologists, evolution has become a
> substitute for traditional religious belief - which would explain a
> lot of the hostility that arises in evolutionary biology when
> certain fundamental 'truths' are challenged, and the sometimes deified
> or saintified  state given to Darwin.

I totally agree. I would never put a "Darwin fish" on my auto, because
evolution isn't my religion. A relative told me that she "doesn't
believe in science", and I responded that I don't, either: "belief"
plays no useful role in science (beyond the belief that there is a
consensus reality).

--
Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:
mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:
mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.

________________________________
This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.