"AT posits (following the A in AT) that *immanent* final causes are necessary to make sense of the world, to even make sense of efficient causality. Because if a cause is not ordered to produce a *specific* effect or range of effects than it is inexplicable why a cause produces just such effect(s) and not something else entirely."
IOW, an event happens because it's meant to happen, or it's designed to happen. How does this explain anything? It merely attaches a label to something we suspect we already know. A heart's final cause is to pump blood. What does this explain? We already know a heart's function (final cause) is to pump blood. We have to figured this out prior to deciding the final cause. So how does this explain anything new? Does it tell us how it pumps blood or why? No. So what is "final cause" adding to our understanding?
I agree with you. He's very intelligent and he has a real understanding of philosophy. That said, I don't retract my claim that he's been brainwashed by naturalism with regard to teleology. To say that the heart's function is not "to pump blood"--and, in fact, to call this claim an "extravagance"--is to prove that one has been blinded. Even William, with whom I disagree on many issues, is willing to support a moderate form of teleology. To affirm teleology is not to throw in the atheistic towel; it is merely to accept common sense.
"He overgeneralized teleology to parts of astronomy and other physics where he went wrong."
Teleology is a metaphysical notion applying across the board to the entire realm of being, so where did Aristotle went wrong?
"Many NeoThomists seem to fear throwing the metaphysical baby out with the physics bathwater, though"
Why should Thomists be afraid to toss away Aristotle's physics, which they have done, while retaining his metaphysics, which they did? You are making no sense.
"So what is "final cause" adding to our understanding?"
Now that rank sophist is done trifling with you, you turn to me as your next victim? What have I done wrong to suffer such a fate?
But to answer your question, here is an example of the predictive power and practical usefulness of final causes: you are ignorant, obtuse, devoid of any wit or grace. Any discussion with you is inevitably directed to, that is, its telos or final cause is, a black hole where all sense, meaning and logic is sucked out. Given this predictable outcome, it stands to reason that I should avoid engaging in debate with you like the plague. Thus I will.
ranksophist wrote: "To say that the heart's function is not "to pump blood"--and, in fact, to call this claim an "extravagance"--is to prove that one has been blinded. "
You are either ignoring what I wrote, or willfully misrepresenting it. I was the one that brought up the heart originally, and in that post I wrote: "[T]he heart's function is to pump blood through the circulatory system: that is to say it is an effect of the heart, the effect that keeps the animal alive, and which, if damaged, would kill its chances of reproducing, living, etc.. It is an essential part of this biological system's survival"
"Now that rank sophist is done trifling with you, you turn to me as your next victim?"
LOL! rank sophist was easy to dismiss. I don't expect he'll tell me why his god must be finite in order for him to be consistent.
"But to answer your question, here is an example of the predictive power and practical usefulness of final causes..."
This is typical of Thomists. All bluster and little understanding.
Suppose we are on a jury. The crime is murder. We want motive. We want to know why he did it -- assuming that in knowing motive we might understand why the defendant committed the crime. The prosecutor looks us in the eye and says, "Why did he commit the murder? Because he was directed to commit murder!" Who is going to buy that as "understanding" except a Thomist?
Note that I was talking about the discussion after those statements. BDK denied that directedness was A) irreducible and B) more than a "useful" "epistemic" distinction. He said initially that his "function" usage was non-teleological, and then, after being unable to explain how this was possible, reverted to the standard semi-teleonomic damage control. In other words, he does not believe that the heart's function/telos is to pump blood--rather, he thinks that this is merely the proverbial "useful fiction". I can't imagine what other meaning could be taken from his posts, but feel free to correct me.
But, yes; this discussion has been going forever. It might be time to put it to bed.
Sophist: function claims are not merely useful fictions: I never suggested that, I don't believe that, any more than I think talk of 'temperature' is merely a useful fiction. Perhaps others here can explain what I mean by that, as I'm done here.
One thing I think this conversation has accidentally accomplished is this: it's shown how deeply problematic (I'd say wrong, but the polite word is problematic, right?) to regard science as somehow automatically naturalistic. Even before the problems of defining 'natural' and 'supernatural', it seems better to say what I suggested early on: science as science is, with a modest exception to get it off the ground, metaphysically neutral. Really, given the teleology talk in biology and elsewhere, I think quite an argument could be made that if it's anything, science is methodologically non-naturalistic.
And with that said, time for me to get on a plane. Later, gents.
It's hard to argue rationally with these Thomists when they make such ridiculous non sequiturs such as: "To say that a thing is 'made out of something', 'is something', 'was made by something' and is 'for something' is to explain it via the four causes. And any of these statements end in the God of the Five Ways."
Virtually every argument they make is directed toward a proof of God.
>I do claim the universe is logically unknowable. Logic will never explain the universe. Everything we know about it is based on empirical data.
Certainly neither science nor naturalism are based on logic.
>Experimentation and observation are by nature empirical. Even the Thomist can't claim the universe is "logically knowable." He starts with empirical observation. He does try to draw wild logical conclusions based on empirical fact. But he begins with empirical observation.
I believe it was Atheist philosopher David Stone who said Hume & Popper where both irrationalists.
"Accept Aquinas accepted first principles and thus excepted logic."
Everyone accepts certain first principles and any reasonable person accepts logic, even an empiricist. This doesn't change the fact that Aquinas, following the Philosopher, argues for things like act/potency by first laying an empirical foundation.
"Even Atheist philosopher Stephen Law notes the problem of going nuclear by cutting out logic."
Nowhere did I cut out logic. I use and depend on logic extensively. Stick to what I say not to what you hope I said.
>But how can you prove the above claim true using empiricism alone sans logic?
How can you even answer the above question without using logic? If you use logic to answer it you would be attempting to explain the universe and thus know something about it.
This is why people who reject First Principles should not be disputed with. All discussion with them is vain.
If you believe this nonsense you might as well believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and be done with it.
"But how can you prove the above claim true using empiricism alone sans logic?"
Who says empiricism excludes logic? Certainly not me. Logic is a useful tool whether we're talking about empiricism, realism, idealism, or just about any philosophic school.
"you need logic to use empiricism."
Exactly. And I never said otherwise. But logic alone will never tell us anything about the universe. Reason alone will not either. In order to know about the universe we have to roll up our sleeves and dig in. Pondering these things in the abstract might narrow the search, it might suggest decent theories, but we'll never really know until we verify it empirically. This shouldn't be controversial in the 21st century. IMO, it's a sad thing that it is.
>Who says empiricism excludes logic? Certainly not me. Logic is a useful tool whether we're talking about empiricism,
But science therefore empiricism isn't based on it so how can we know this very concept it true without logic or philosophy?
>But logic alone will never tell us anything about the universe. Reason alone will not either.
Then without logic as a fallback how can you know what to add to logic to learn about the universe & how can you know it to be true? What a burning in the breast?
>In order to know about the universe we have to roll up our sleeves and dig in. Pondering these things in the abstract might narrow the search, it might suggest decent theories, but we'll never really know until we verify it empirically. This shouldn't be controversial in the 21st century. IMO, it's a sad thing that it is.
But you can't verify the concept you just esposed above empirically. Thus how can we know it too be true.
>There is a big difference between rejecting all First Principles and rejecting some of your First Principles. I do the latter.
"But science therefore empiricism isn't based on it so how can we know this very concept is true without logic or philosophy?"
Empiricism is a school of philosophy so your question isn't well phrased.
We can know almost nothing with certainty. But we can be very confident of some things. Scientific knowledge is put to the test in the real world every day and works pretty well We can be relatively sure Newton was mostly correct based on some very good practical results. These are not intellectual exercises which have no real consequence whether right or wrong (unlike act/potency). People bet their lives on scientific knowledge and win far more often than they lose.
"Then without logic as a fallback how can you know what to add to logic to learn about the universe & how can you know it to be true?"
Logic isn't the fallback.
How can we know your logic is "true" and what does this mean? Logic doesn't work in a vacuum. If, say, we use logic in a syllogism:
All men are mortal. All Greeks are men. All Greeks are mortal.
-- how do we know it's true? We must first verify the truth of the propositions. We can know men are mortal only by collecting that empirical data about men -- first.
I can write a wonderfully logical program. But is it "true"? Does it have bugs? What is a bug anyway? I mean, can there even be a bug in a program if it executes logically? Well, yes. It can be logical yet full of bugs -- that is, full of errors. How do we know? We test the program empirically in the real world. At some point we are confident the program is error-free. We can rarely, if ever, be certain. The proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.
"But you can't verify the concept you just espoused above empirically. Thus how can we know it to be true."
Feedback. Feedback gives us confidence. We can never "know" if by that you mean "know with certainty." I think a quest for certainty is irrational. It can easily lead to an extreme skepticism which says, essentially, since we cannot be certain we might as well give up. I reject that. It's true we cannot be certain. But it is not true that we are therefore doomed to be off the track entirely.
Me: "There is a big difference between rejecting all First Principles and rejecting some of your First Principles. I do the latter."
You: "which is why your beliefs are incoherent."
You're going to have to elaborate on that because I have no idea what you're insinuating. Surely you're not suggesting I must accept every person's First Principles no matter how outrageous.
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230"So what *is* your point exactly wrt the AT conception of teleology?"
Well, in my opinion, Aristotle was more or less right about teleology with higher animals, and possibly in applying such to life in general.
He overgeneralized teleology to parts of astronomy and other physics where he went wrong.
Many NeoThomists seem to fear throwing the metaphysical baby out with the physics bathwater, though :(.
grodrigues,
"AT posits (following the A in AT) that *immanent* final causes are necessary to make sense of the world, to even make sense of efficient causality. Because if a cause is not ordered to produce a *specific* effect or range of effects than it is inexplicable why a cause produces just such effect(s) and not something else entirely."
IOW, an event happens because it's meant to happen, or it's designed to happen. How does this explain anything? It merely attaches a label to something we suspect we already know. A heart's final cause is to pump blood. What does this explain? We already know a heart's function (final cause) is to pump blood. We have to figured this out prior to deciding the final cause. So how does this explain anything new? Does it tell us how it pumps blood or why? No. So what is "final cause" adding to our understanding?
RS
BDK is a good guy. That wasn't really necessary.
Even if he doesn't get what you are saying there is an order of magnitude level of difference between him and your average Gnu.
Ben,
I agree with you. He's very intelligent and he has a real understanding of philosophy. That said, I don't retract my claim that he's been brainwashed by naturalism with regard to teleology. To say that the heart's function is not "to pump blood"--and, in fact, to call this claim an "extravagance"--is to prove that one has been blinded. Even William, with whom I disagree on many issues, is willing to support a moderate form of teleology. To affirm teleology is not to throw in the atheistic towel; it is merely to accept common sense.
@William:
"He overgeneralized teleology to parts of astronomy and other physics where he went wrong."
Teleology is a metaphysical notion applying across the board to the entire realm of being, so where did Aristotle went wrong?
"Many NeoThomists seem to fear throwing the metaphysical baby out with the physics bathwater, though"
Why should Thomists be afraid to toss away Aristotle's physics, which they have done, while retaining his metaphysics, which they did? You are making no sense.
@Don Jindra:
"So what is "final cause" adding to our understanding?"
Now that rank sophist is done trifling with you, you turn to me as your next victim? What have I done wrong to suffer such a fate?
But to answer your question, here is an example of the predictive power and practical usefulness of final causes: you are ignorant, obtuse, devoid of any wit or grace. Any discussion with you is inevitably directed to, that is, its telos or final cause is, a black hole where all sense, meaning and logic is sucked out. Given this predictable outcome, it stands to reason that I should avoid engaging in debate with you like the plague. Thus I will.
ranksophist wrote:
"To say that the heart's function is not "to pump blood"--and, in fact, to call this claim an "extravagance"--is to prove that one has been blinded. "
You are either ignoring what I wrote, or willfully misrepresenting it. I was the one that brought up the heart originally, and in that post I wrote:
"[T]he heart's function is to pump blood through the circulatory system: that is to say it is an effect of the heart, the effect that keeps the animal alive, and which, if damaged, would kill its chances of reproducing, living, etc.. It is an essential part of this biological system's survival"
Why are you so confused, sophist?
grodrigues,
"Now that rank sophist is done trifling with you, you turn to me as your next victim?"
LOL! rank sophist was easy to dismiss. I don't expect he'll tell me why his god must be finite in order for him to be consistent.
"But to answer your question, here is an example of the predictive power and practical usefulness of final causes..."
This is typical of Thomists. All bluster and little understanding.
Suppose we are on a jury. The crime is murder. We want motive. We want to know why he did it -- assuming that in knowing motive we might understand why the defendant committed the crime. The prosecutor looks us in the eye and says, "Why did he commit the murder? Because he was directed to commit murder!" Who is going to buy that as "understanding" except a Thomist?
ranksophist claims BDK said
the heart's function is not "to pump blood"
blue devil said 100 posts earlier:
"the heart's function is to pump blood through the circulatory system"
ranksophist is pwnd
>blue devil said 100 posts earlier:
My count says 82 posts. So in fact it is "Factchecker" & Zack are pwnd!
Yea! I'm better then them!:-)
Alright enough of this petty shit. Let's have a serious discussion Ok?
Note that I was talking about the discussion after those statements. BDK denied that directedness was A) irreducible and B) more than a "useful" "epistemic" distinction. He said initially that his "function" usage was non-teleological, and then, after being unable to explain how this was possible, reverted to the standard semi-teleonomic damage control. In other words, he does not believe that the heart's function/telos is to pump blood--rather, he thinks that this is merely the proverbial "useful fiction". I can't imagine what other meaning could be taken from his posts, but feel free to correct me.
But, yes; this discussion has been going forever. It might be time to put it to bed.
Sophist: function claims are not merely useful fictions: I never suggested that, I don't believe that, any more than I think talk of 'temperature' is merely a useful fiction. Perhaps others here can explain what I mean by that, as I'm done here.
One thing I think this conversation has accidentally accomplished is this: it's shown how deeply problematic (I'd say wrong, but the polite word is problematic, right?) to regard science as somehow automatically naturalistic. Even before the problems of defining 'natural' and 'supernatural', it seems better to say what I suggested early on: science as science is, with a modest exception to get it off the ground, metaphysically neutral. Really, given the teleology talk in biology and elsewhere, I think quite an argument could be made that if it's anything, science is methodologically non-naturalistic.
And with that said, time for me to get on a plane. Later, gents.
Blue Devil Knight,
It's hard to argue rationally with these Thomists when they make such ridiculous non sequiturs such as: "To say that a thing is 'made out of something', 'is something', 'was made by something' and is 'for something' is to explain it via the four causes. And any of these statements end in the God of the Five Ways."
Virtually every argument they make is directed toward a proof of God.
>I do claim the universe is logically unknowable. Logic will never explain the universe. Everything we know about it is based on empirical data.
Certainly neither science nor naturalism are based on logic.
>Experimentation and observation are by nature empirical. Even the Thomist can't claim the universe is "logically knowable." He starts with empirical observation. He does try to draw wild logical conclusions based on empirical fact. But he begins with empirical observation.
I believe it was Atheist philosopher David Stone who said Hume & Popper where both irrationalists.
The above speaks for itself.
So now even empiricism is irrational. Too bad Aquinas starts with it. The foundation seems to be shaky today.
Accept Aquinas accepted first principles and thus excepted logic.
Even Atheist philosopher Stephen Law notes the problem ofgoing nuclear by cutting out logic.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/pz-meyers-and-sye-bruggencate-video.html
Zach,
Are you in high school?
Zack seems to want to piss off everybody or try too feebly.
He is like a "Theistic" version of djindra.
An interesting case.
BenYachov,
"Accept Aquinas accepted first principles and thus excepted logic."
Everyone accepts certain first principles and any reasonable person accepts logic, even an empiricist. This doesn't change the fact that Aquinas, following the Philosopher, argues for things like act/potency by first laying an empirical foundation.
"Even Atheist philosopher Stephen Law notes the problem of going nuclear by cutting out logic."
Nowhere did I cut out logic. I use and depend on logic extensively. Stick to what I say not to what you hope I said.
>Certainly neither science nor naturalism are based on logic.
Then there is no rational basis to believe in either science, naturalism or even empiricism since you cut out reason.
>Logic will never explain the universe. Everything we know about it is based on empirical data.
But how can you prove the above claim true using empiricism alone sans logic?
You pretty much can't without using the logical philosophical foundations of science.
You can't do science without a philosophy of science.
Like I said irrationalism.
>Nowhere did I cut out logic. I use and depend on logic extensively.
Why it can't explain the universe or show naturalism is true and empiricism can't prove any of this plus you need logic to use empiricism.
What you say taken at face value is incoherent.
>But how can you prove the above claim true using empiricism alone sans logic?
How can you even answer the above question without using logic? If you use logic to answer it you would be attempting to explain the universe and thus know something about it.
This is why people who reject First Principles should not be disputed with. All discussion with them is vain.
If you believe this nonsense you might as well believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and be done with it.
"But how can you prove the above claim true using empiricism alone sans logic?"
Who says empiricism excludes logic? Certainly not me. Logic is a useful tool whether we're talking about empiricism, realism, idealism, or just about any philosophic school.
"you need logic to use empiricism."
Exactly. And I never said otherwise. But logic alone will never tell us anything about the universe. Reason alone will not either. In order to know about the universe we have to roll up our sleeves and dig in. Pondering these things in the abstract might narrow the search, it might suggest decent theories, but we'll never really know until we verify it empirically. This shouldn't be controversial in the 21st century. IMO, it's a sad thing that it is.
"This is why people who reject First Principles should not be disputed with. All discussion with them is vain."
There is a big difference between rejecting all First Principles and rejecting some of your First Principles. I do the latter.
>Who says empiricism excludes logic? Certainly not me. Logic is a useful tool whether we're talking about empiricism,
But science therefore empiricism isn't based on it so how can we know this very concept it true without logic or philosophy?
>But logic alone will never tell us anything about the universe. Reason alone will not either.
Then without logic as a fallback how can you know what to add to logic to learn about the universe & how can you know it to be true? What a burning in the breast?
>In order to know about the universe we have to roll up our sleeves and dig in. Pondering these things in the abstract might narrow the search, it might suggest decent theories, but we'll never really know until we verify it empirically. This shouldn't be controversial in the 21st century. IMO, it's a sad thing that it is.
But you can't verify the concept you just esposed above empirically. Thus how can we know it too be true.
>There is a big difference between rejecting all First Principles and rejecting some of your First Principles. I do the latter.
which is why your beliefs are incoherent.
"But science therefore empiricism isn't based on it so how can we know this very concept is true without logic or philosophy?"
Empiricism is a school of philosophy so your question isn't well phrased.
We can know almost nothing with certainty. But we can be very confident of some things. Scientific knowledge is put to the test in the real world every day and works pretty well We can be relatively sure Newton was mostly correct based on some very good practical results. These are not intellectual exercises which have no real consequence whether right or wrong (unlike act/potency). People bet their lives on scientific knowledge and win far more often than they lose.
"Then without logic as a fallback how can you know what to add to logic to learn about the universe & how can you know it to be true?"
Logic isn't the fallback.
How can we know your logic is "true" and what does this mean? Logic doesn't work in a vacuum. If, say, we use logic in a syllogism:
All men are mortal.
All Greeks are men.
All Greeks are mortal.
-- how do we know it's true? We must first verify the truth of the propositions. We can know men are mortal only by collecting that empirical data about men -- first.
I can write a wonderfully logical program. But is it "true"? Does it have bugs? What is a bug anyway? I mean, can there even be a bug in a program if it executes logically? Well, yes. It can be logical yet full of bugs -- that is, full of errors. How do we know? We test the program empirically in the real world. At some point we are confident the program is error-free. We can rarely, if ever, be certain. The proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.
"But you can't verify the concept you just espoused above empirically. Thus how can we know it to be true."
Feedback. Feedback gives us confidence. We can never "know" if by that you mean "know with certainty." I think a quest for certainty is irrational. It can easily lead to an extreme skepticism which says, essentially, since we cannot be certain we might as well give up. I reject that. It's true we cannot be certain. But it is not true that we are therefore doomed to be off the track entirely.
Me: "There is a big difference between rejecting all First Principles and rejecting some of your First Principles. I do the latter."
You: "which is why your beliefs are incoherent."
You're going to have to elaborate on that because I have no idea what you're insinuating. Surely you're not suggesting I must accept every person's First Principles no matter how outrageous.
Slight correction, where I mentioned "quest for certainty" I should have written "demand for certainty."
Post a Comment