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 -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário