[Taxacom] teleology example

Mon Mar 11 16:45:32 CDT 2013

Fair enough - simple laziness should never be underestimated as a major
factor in the history of science!

Michael

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <Robinwbruce at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> 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.
>
>

-- 
Wellington, New Zealand.

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