[Taxacom] Teleology Revisited

Tue Mar 12 07:36:49 CDT 2013

Sorry Robin, my replies come in spurts. Pedantry has a place and a
time but it is not an excuse for knocking someone around for no good
reason. I suspect most everybody in Taxacom is a pedant to one degree
or another ( I know I am) and I am happy to leave it at that.

As for the nature of evolution, anybody who says they understand it
completely probably doesn´t (starting with me). It is a bit like
quantum physics, it is what it is and our apish brains try to explain
it  as best they can. To me it is just the time arrow of a movie. At
every moment you have a still frame and it is the sequence of those
frames that makes the movie or what we call evolution, the change.
This change can lead to something or nothing, but in the same way that
a movie has twists and turns or is thoroughly confusing, evolution is
rarely a clear march from A to B. Cause and effect/form and function
can be clear at the immediate level but this can subtly change as time
goes on. That is what makes it more like quatum physics than classical
physics and why I am not too bothered by Popper or comparisons to
"real" hard sciences. The more science advances the more clear it
seems that mathematics is different from everything else.

Best

Jason

On 11 March 2013 18:51,  <Robinwbruce at aol.com> wrote:
> I think the idea was to try to be more precise in the choice of  words both
> by external criticism and internal self-constraint.  The  consensus would
> seem to be that evolution and purpose do not go together like  say horse and
> carriage. I am not sure I am in that consensus. I do not  think any words
> have been offended in the writing of this thread and certainly  none have yet
> been banned, although the noisy profanities at the back of  the room are on
> their final warning.
>
> As to where evolution exists, as for example in Popper's world one, I am
> not sure I can answer you. I think I am comfortable with evolution, in some
> form, existing in a joint world of organisms, time and space. Does
> evolution exist in a purely physical/material world, i.e. a matter, time and  space
> conjunction? I do not know. We can make a narrative which we can feel
> comfortable about, but it seems to me that humans can always make  narratives
> that they are comfortable with, until a more  shiny narrative comes
> along.................
>
> Cheers
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/11/2013 2:54:35 P.M. GMT Standard Time,
> Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za writes:
>
> I am  sorry I have not kept up with this thread. But the word BAN jumped
> out at me  before I hit the delete key. Are people really serious about
> banning words!!!!  Might as well ban freedom of thought as well then! This is a
> slippery slope  with razor blades at the end. Surely most scientists
> (particularly  taxonomists) try to be as precise as possible and if they feel some
> ambiguity  can be read into their use of words they define how they are using
> them?
>
> Words exists in Poppers World three, the world of symbols. The  meanings of
> words exist in World two, the world of concepts. Both of these  worlds are
> constructs and so lack the objectivity of World one; the physical  world
> that can be measured and observed. The question is does evolution exist  in
> World one? I think it does (and that we have good evidence for it) and see  no
> problem. Possibly others disagree and believe it is only a hypothetical and
> symbolic construct. Who is correct?
>
> Ashley
>
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of  Robinwbruce at aol.com
> Sent: 11 March 2013 15:26
> To:  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Teleology  Revisited
>
> For my part I have found this a fascinating  thread.
>
> The idea of banning words would have perplexed Alice. Just  which
> rabbit-hole did she go down she must wonder!  And after banning  words, do  we ban
> sentences? And then......?
>
> The problem to me  seems to be just what is the theory of evolution? Is it
> science, belief or  metaphysics, or a combination of two or three, or yet
> more  unstated  categories?
>
> Popper some time ago categorized evolution as a   'metaphysical  research
> programme'. This categorization did not last  I  believe, for reasons I do
> not know, but I have not pursued its   demise.
>
> To me evolution seems to be a cosmology or a cosmogony, or  perhaps more
> precisely a geo-gony, as we have no empirical evidence for life  beyond the
> Earth. Life seems to be immanent on Earth. And how does life  present itself
> on  Earth? Always, it seems to me, as organisms, not as  liquids, gasses,
> compounds, molecules, ideas, information or dreams, but as  concrete  organisms.
> And organisms  - what is their nature? Well  they come into being  from
> previously existing organisms, and go out of  being, hopefully leaving issue
> in the form of... well you have guessed  it........organisms. One can of
> course take a gene-centric view of the  organism, but equally one can take an
> organism-centric view of the gene. The  world of organisms revolves  around
> the exclamation of 'the king is dead,  long live the king'; this is  true for
> royal houses but also kingfish and  king snakes, otherwise no
> kings........... no  genes.............
>
> It is easy (and fun) to parody excessive  pan-selectionism,  Dr.  Pangloss
> again. But what would excessive  pan-structuralism look like? Would it  be a
> world where nothing changes?  This suggests to me that we are  looking at
> the problem from the wrong  viewpoint.
>
> All of this reminds me of the conversation between  Wittgenstein and
> Anscombe, about the shift from a geocentric world view of the  heavens to a
> heliocentric one, based on analyses by three-dimensional  geometry. What had
> changed in the change of world view..........the heavens,  or our perception of
> the heavens?
>
> In 1916, E. S. Russell wrote;   'It may well be that the intransigent
> materialism of the 19th century is  merely an episode, an aberration rather, in
> the history of biology - an  aberration brought about by the over-rapid
> development of a materialistic and  luxurious civilisation, in which man's
> material means have outrun his mental  and moral growth.'  Form and  Function, a
> Contribution to the  History of Animal Morphology. Well, 100 years on  we are
> in the same  hole, and still digging..............time methinks to  look
> over the edge  of the hole,  perhaps?
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> ======= Please find  our Email Disclaimer here-->:
> http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer  =======
> _______________________________________________
> 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.