honig@ICS.UCI.EDU (David Honig) (02/22/91)
I got some intelligent email responses to my query, which generated the following. (Original respondent's name has been removed) Someone wrote: Watch your logic! It sound to me as though you are not making a distinction between causality and coincidence. Just because some trait may be more convenient for survival, and is demonstrated to be present, does not mean that the trait has been selected out over an evolutionary process. For argument, thetrait could have just appeared, as a new mutation, or even more likely, could be an unassociated coincidence. For example, if you graph the incidence of cancer and the per capita consumption of CocaCola, you would find a very good relationship between those two items. However, in numerous well controlled scientific studies, there has never been the slightest evidence that CocaCola CAUSES cancer. When you question the "utility", or the "reason" why any particular item appears to be, (to the best of our abilities to demonstrate the truth of our observation), you have left the realm of science, and have entered the realm of religion. The philosophy of the scientific method does not include a determination of the reasons why things are the way they are. Science is a method for determining what things are. The reasons are philosophical, matters of belief (read: religion), and are irrelevant to scientific investigation. It is precisely because of that dichotomy that several nobel prize winning physicists have stated that they see no conflict between their perception of scientific reality and their religious beliefs. The two areas do not conflict, they purport to answer different questions. In summary, be careful not to confuse science with teleology! Science does not address purpose in nature. To which I responded: 1) either someting is present in organisms becuase its been selected for, or its artifactual, which is to say, one does not believe it was selected for. 2) teleological explanation (when evolution is understood by thoseinvolved) is not religion. One can discuss how some trait is "made for" some purpose, as long as its understood that this is an abbreviation for a description of how some trait has tended to favor those who carry it. Re religious states, they may be artifacts, epiphenomenal properties of some structure otherwise subject to selection pressures, or they may have favored those who carried genes supporting them. Artifactual example: clearly looking for explanations of physical phenomena is useful to organisms that can do it; the same machinery that finds unifying explanations in everyday physical matters (and is responsible for e.g., the increase in population that has accompanied teh development of technology) may go overboard and find unification in unrelated events. Direct-selection example: Being able to support a faith or feel brotherhood may have provided psychological strength that was useful (in a fecundity sense) to the ancestors of modern humans. (I agree that to the extent that religion says nothing about the physical world, it is compatible with science; where they overlap they can conflict).
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (02/23/91)
In article <9102211738.aa19500@ICS.UCI.EDU> honig@ICS.UCI.EDU (David Honig) writes:
+
+Watch your logic! It sound to me as though you are not making a distinction
+between causality and coincidence. Just because some trait may be more
+..
+be an unassociated coincidence. For example, if you graph the incidence of
+cancer and the per capita consumption of CocaCola, you would find a very
+good relationship between those two items. However, in numerous well
Personally I like the following inference:
Women who take estrogen are less likely to be murdered, therefore
estrogen prevents murder.
Otherwise, start with David Hume, and follow the empericists for the
last 250 years.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edurk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert J. Knapp) (02/24/91)
Back to psycedellics and religion, the other night a friend of mine
took to hits{of LSD} with this thread in mind. The entire night he saw
religious symbols on the walls and even saw Shiva in a Mac.
Also, the person who mentioned that Shiva's many arms could be expained
by trailing maybe right; my friend saw people walking around with about
thirty arms. Could someone who medatates frequently please tell me if
they ever see trails after an intense session?
Just my two sense worth on the matter.
Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp
"Don't blame us,
it's not our fault,
that we were born to late"
- Minitstry
LEGALIZEminsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (02/25/91)
In article <9102211738.aa19500@ICS.UCI.EDU> honig@ICS.UCI.EDU (David Honig) writes: > It is precisely because of that dichotomy that several >nobel prize winning physicists have stated that they see no conflict between >their perception of scientific reality and their religious beliefs. The >two areas do not conflict, they purport to answer different questions. > >In summary, be careful not to confuse science with teleology! Science does >not address purpose in nature. Be careful not to confuse reason with rhetoric. The fact that some nobel prize winners 'see' no conflict doesn't mean that there isn't any. Maybe they might have accomplished even more.
connelly@labrys.enet.dec.com (Conal Sharim Moonraven) (02/26/91)
In article <5354@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes... >Be careful not to confuse reason with rhetoric. The fact that some >nobel prize winners 'see' no conflict doesn't mean that there isn't >any. Maybe they might have accomplished even more. Or less.;-) Who can say? Also, sometimes it's better to hold onto a certain level of conflict rather than attempt a brute force resolution, especially when there are plenty of unknowns on both sides. There may even be some "creative tension" engendered that pushes one on to further discovery. - csm Disclaimer: the above is strictly my own creation and not in any way representative of views of Digital Equipment Corporation!
honig@ics.uci.edu (David Honig) (02/26/91)
In article <5354@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: >In article <9102211738.aa19500@ICS.UCI.EDU> honig@ICS.UCI.EDU (David Honig) writes: >> It is precisely because of that dichotomy that several >>nobel prize winning physicists have stated that they see no conflict between >>their perception of scientific reality and their religious beliefs. The >>two areas do not conflict, they purport to answer different questions. >> >>In summary, be careful not to confuse science with teleology! Science does >>not address purpose in nature. > >Be careful not to confuse reason with rhetoric. The fact that some >nobel prize winners 'see' no conflict doesn't mean that there isn't >any. Maybe they might have accomplished even more. Just to clarify, (and because I respect Dr. Minsky's opinions highly), *I* did not write what he attributes to me; I was quoting what someone emailed me, which I followed with my commentary. *I* expressly do not subscribe to the opinions reposted there. -- David Honig "The complexity of the brain boggles the mind. Obviously."