ref.
On Jan 12, 1:17 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Evolutionary Epistemology is a naturalistic approach to epistemology,
> which emphasizes the importance of natural selection in two primary
> roles. In the first role, selection is the generator and maintainer of
> the reliability of our senses and cognitive mechanisms, as well as the
> "fit" between those mechanisms and the world. In the second role,
> trial and error learning and the evolution of scientific theories are
> construed as selection processes."[1]
>
> I think the first "role" is relevant and sounds similar in nature to
> what you're saying. It seems to be an attempt at grounding better
> epistemology with more "ecological" relations, as opposed to say a
> 'vacuum' of theory.
>
> 1 -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:19 AM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey, I am having difficulty with the term evolutionary epistemology. I
> > can see that physical changes in the brain occur through mutations
> > which are apt. Better peception, more complex synaptic connections
> > complex
> > etc. I can see that we may become more able to construct complex
> > arguments as a result. But as to the methods, our perceptions
> > regarding the theory of knowledge arn't they just a by product not
> > evolutionary particularly apt.
> > Help me here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:34 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I agree with RP that we are looking at complex relations. Lots has
> >> been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\ example:
>
> >> "The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century suggested an
> >> alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the pragmatists.
> >> Human beings, as the products of evolutionary development, are natural
> >> beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are also the
> >> products of a natural evolutionary development. As such, there is some
> >> reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity, could and
> >> should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible with its status,
> >> i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view, there is no
> >> sharp division of labor between science and epistemology. In
> >> particular, the results of particular sciences such as evolutionary
> >> biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant to the
> >> solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches, in general, are
> >> called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are directly
> >> motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those which are
> >> directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and which argue that
> >> the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution in biology
> >> are called "evolutionary epistemologies."
>
> >> Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions in the
> >> theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view. Evolutionary
> >> epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and metaphors drawn
> >> from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize and resolve
> >> issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As disciplines
> >> co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus, evolutionary
> >> epistemology also involves attempts to understand how biological
> >> evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models drawn from our
> >> understanding of conceptual change and the development of theories.
> >> The term "evolutionary epistemology" was coined by Donald Campbell
> >> (1974)."
>
> >> I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply science methods' to
> >> look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.
>
> >> On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Here is a thought.
>
> >> > If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful evolutionary
> >> > developement of the biological brain then that is all it is. Certainly
> >> > rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a fungus in a cave
> >> > for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill is nothing more
> >> > than an apt evolutionary development.
>
> >> > On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > those are just excuses, yes my back ground and experiences are what I use
> >> > > for making decision --- that does not bind me, i still have the choice to
> >> > > respond as i like
> >> > > Allan
>
> >> > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom is wrapped
> >> > > > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we don't we
> >> > > > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without, binds us.
>
> >> > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are early-tuned to
> >> > > > > religious ones. I suspect that the idea of social science is one of
> >> > > > > them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960 - I'd guess
> >> > > > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We mythologise many secular
> >> > > > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership another. Science
> >> > > > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions or (as in
> >> > > > > Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we have no free will we
> >> > > > > should stop locking up criminals. The question on free will is what
> >> > > > > life would entail without it and consequent responsibilities denied.
> >> > > > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should make oursleves
> >> > > > > works of art.
>
> >> > > > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> I totally agree with you Molly
> >> > > > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and effect. Many of us
> >> > > > >> > just prefer it there.
>
> >> > > > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > Free will is a reality.. the problem comes once you made your
> >> > > > choice and
> >> > > > >> > > the effects of the choice ,, these results appear that you have no
> >> > > > >> > > choice,, you just mad it earlier.
> >> > > > >> > > Allan
>
> >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
> >> > > > >> > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in
> >> > > > order to,
> >> > > > >> > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > >> > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are
> >> > > > not.
>
> >> > > > >> > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in
> >> > > > his
> >> > > > >> > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our attention
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > >> > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and
> >> > > > there is
> >> > > > >> > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
> >> > > > >> > > > required elements are found.
>
> >> > > > >> > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > >> > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
> >> > > > >> > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first place. Also,
> >> > > > >> > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>
> >> > > > >> > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea is so
> >> > > > >> > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a reality.
> >> > > > Even
> >> > > > >> > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the idea. So
> >> > > > >> > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the question of
> >> > > > >> > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could have
> >> > > > been
> >> > > > >> > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some eminent
> >> > > > >> > > > philosophers believe that free will and determinism can sit
> >> > > > >> > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a
> >> > > > myth.
>
> >> > > > >> > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > >> > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
> >> > > > >> > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of
> >> > > > free
> >> > > > >> > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
> >> > > > >> > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
> >> > > > >> > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect.
> >> > > > It
> >> > > > >> > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things
> >> > > > just
> >> > > > >> > > > are.
>
> >> > > > >> > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually
> >> > > > discover, if
> >> > > > >> > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how
> >> > > > should we
> >> > > > >> > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with
> >> > > > such a
> >> > > > >> > > > 'truth'?
>
> >> > > > >> > > --
> >> > > > >> > > (
> >> > > > >> > > )
> >> > > > >> > > |_D Allan
>
> >> > > > >> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > (
> >> > > )
> >> > > |_D Allan
>
> >> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário