[Taxacom] teleology example

Robinwbruce at aol.com Robinwbruce at aol.com
Mon Mar 11 16:37:57 CDT 2013 

With due respect to Bacon Michael, it is not teleology that puts the  
brakes on thinking, not thinking does that all by  itself................
 
Cheers
 
Robin
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/11/2013 9:25:41 P.M. GMT Standard Time,  
m.j.heads at gmail.com writes:

I've  found this topic intriguing for years! It's pretty fundamental to a
lot of  biology. In practice, the problem with teleology is that it puts the
brakes  on thinking, as Bacon recognised at the start of the  scientific
revolution:



‘For the handling of final causes  [teleology], mixed with the rest in
physical enquiries, have *intercepted  the severe and diligent inquiry of
all real and physical causes, and given  men the occasion to stay upon these
satisfactory and specious causes, to  the great arrest and prejudice of
further discovery*. For this I find done  not only by Plato, who ever
anchoreth upon that shore, but by Aristotle,  Galen and others... For to say
that ‘the hairs of the eyelids are for a  quickset and fence about the
sight’; or that ‘the firmness of the skins and  hides of living creatures 
is
to defend them from the extremities of heat  and cold; or that ‘the bones
are for the columns or beams, whereupon the  frames of the bodies of living
creatures are built’... is well-enquired and  collected in metaphysic, but 
*in
physic [i.e. science] they are  impertinent. Nay, they are indeed but
remoraes [suckerfishes] and  hindrances to stay and slug the ship from
further sailing; and have brought  this to pass, that the search of the
physical causes hath been neglected  and passed in silence*...  Not because
these final causes are not  true, and worthy to be inquired, being kept
within their own province; but  because *their excursions into the limits of
physical [material and  efficient] causes hath bred a vastness and solitude
in that tract...* For  the [final] cause rendered, ‘that the hairs about the
eyelids and for the  safeguard of the sight,’ doth not impugn the cause
rendered, that ‘pilosity  is incident to orifices of moisture...’ and so of
the rest: both causes  being true and compatible, the one declaring an
intention, the other a  consequence only.’ (Bacon, 1966, pp. 113-114).



Bacon, F. (1605  [1966]), *Of the advancement of learning* (second book).
Oxford  U.P.

Michael Heads


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Neal  Evenhuis 
<neale at bishopmuseum.org>wrote:

> 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.
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing  List
> 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.
>



-- 
Wellington, New Zealand.

My new  book: *Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *
University of California  Press, Berkeley.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom  Mailing  List
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.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list