7 ms·

> we can't really say either way. Well, no. We can say that it very likely isn't a teleological process, because, one, we have no evidence it is; two, we have

by derleth 14y ago

> we can't really say either way. Well, no. We can say that it very likely isn't a teleological process, because, one, we have no evidence it is; two, we have a lot of evidence that seems to say it isn't; and, three, if it were, it would have massive implications in other fields that we haven't seen any evidence for, either. Humans are allowed to think statistically and proceed on the basis of best (not absolute, but best) evidence; indeed, in the real world, we must do so.

Alex3917 14y ago
"we have no evidence it is" I mean everything that's considered evidence of evolution could also be considered evidence of teleology: the entire process of the universe creating new forms of novelty, from matter to biology to ultimately possibly some sort of technological singularity. "we have a lot of evidence that seems to say it isn't" What is there that exists that is fundamentally incompatible with teleology existing or makes it highly unlikely? "if it were, it would have massive implications in other fields that we haven't seen any evidence for, either." What makes you think that you would see evidence for it if it existed? (Or rather, what makes you think that most or all evidence in favor of teleology couldn't be explained by some other non-teleological process?)
- derleth 14y ago
  > everything that's considered evidence of evolution could also be considered evidence of teleology No. Teleology has a goal in mind and evolution has been seen to run down dead ends many, many times. All of the extinct species are dead ends. > What is there that exists that is fundamentally incompatible with teleology existing or makes it highly unlikely? All of the extinct species. The fact the human eye has a blind spot whereas the squid eye does not. The fact cancer is possible. If I had a biology textbook closer to hand, I could go on at length. > What makes you think that you would see evidence for it if it existed? If we can't see something, or measure it in any other way, or otherwise provide evidence for its existence, then why should we ever behave as if it existed? > evidence in favor of teleology I've yet to see any actual evidence in favor of teleology in evolution. Non-teleological explanations are simpler and they also explain all of the weird crap we see. In addition, our non-teleological theories have allowed us to predict quite a bit about how biology works in the real world. That mix of simplicity and increased predictive power makes the non-teleological theories a lot better than the previous teleological ones.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "No. Teleology has a goal in mind and evolution has been seen to run down dead ends many, many times. All of the extinct species are dead ends." The best way I've heard it described is like dropping a marble into a bowl. The marble will go up and down and wobble around but will eventually settle at the bottom of the bowl. In other words, it would basically be encoded into the universe as a preference that over time would win out. "All of the extinct species. The fact the human eye has a blind spot whereas the squid eye does not." Just because not all matter in the universe is condensed into a single point doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Sometimes things get further apart, sometimes things get closer together, but gravity still exists. "That mix of simplicity and increased predictive power makes the non-teleological theories a lot better than the previous teleological ones." I'm not arguing that teleology is a better scientific theory than evolution; it's not. But just because it's a crappy scientific theory (well, actually it's not even a theory) doesn't mean that it's less likely that there are some sort of teleological forces baked into the universe, e.g. a preference for the creation and preservation of novelty.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      It sounds like you're using analogies to "prove" your point, rather than using evidence to prove and analogies to illustrate. This is a very common theme in my experience with arguments in favor of an external force guiding evolution (and other unprovable subjects). If we're not careful, thinking by analogy can lead us to believing incorrectly that irrelevant attributes of the analogy actually apply to the universe.
      - Alex3917 14y ago
        Except I'm not arguing in favor of an external force. Tokenadult said there was no external force, I said we can't know if there is an external force.
        derleth 14y ago
        > I said we can't know if there is an external force. Can you know for sure you're not the Queen of England?
s_baby 14y ago
>We can say that it very likely isn't a teleological process, because, one, we have no evidence it is; two, we have a lot of evidence that seems to say it isn't; A) Even an organism "at rest" is actively moving against the direction of Entropy. Evolution and life in general is factually teleological. You just seem to have a very specific idea of what teleological means. B) Evolution moves towards diversity. Even as a purely stochastic process this is a motion towards vertical complexity as well as evolutionary dead ends.
- derleth 14y ago
  > You just seem to have a very specific idea of what teleological means. If you redefine any word into a fine enough mist, you can make it mean anything you want. > Evolution moves towards diversity. So does cream spreading out in a cup of coffee. Is that teleological, too?
  - s_baby 14y ago
    >If you redefine any word into a fine enough mist, you can make it mean anything you want. Yea, that's my point. >So does cream spreading out in a cup of coffee. Is that teleological, too? Absolutely. Otherwise my previous juxtaposition of entropy and biological systems wouldn't make sense.

by derleth 14y ago

Alex3917 14y ago

"we have no evidence it is" I mean everything that's considered evidence of evolution could also be considered evidence of teleology: the entire process of the universe creating new forms of novelty, from matter to biology to ultimately possibly some sort of technological singularity. "we have a lot of evidence that seems to say it isn't" What is there that exists that is fundamentally incompatible with teleology existing or makes it highly unlikely? "if it were, it would have massive implications in other fields that we haven't seen any evidence for, either." What makes you think that you would see evidence for it if it existed? (Or rather, what makes you think that most or all evidence in favor of teleology couldn't be explained by some other non-teleological process?)

derleth 14y ago
> everything that's considered evidence of evolution could also be considered evidence of teleology No. Teleology has a goal in mind and evolution has been seen to run down dead ends many, many times. All of the extinct species are dead ends. > What is there that exists that is fundamentally incompatible with teleology existing or makes it highly unlikely? All of the extinct species. The fact the human eye has a blind spot whereas the squid eye does not. The fact cancer is possible. If I had a biology textbook closer to hand, I could go on at length. > What makes you think that you would see evidence for it if it existed? If we can't see something, or measure it in any other way, or otherwise provide evidence for its existence, then why should we ever behave as if it existed? > evidence in favor of teleology I've yet to see any actual evidence in favor of teleology in evolution. Non-teleological explanations are simpler and they also explain all of the weird crap we see. In addition, our non-teleological theories have allowed us to predict quite a bit about how biology works in the real world. That mix of simplicity and increased predictive power makes the non-teleological theories a lot better than the previous teleological ones.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "No. Teleology has a goal in mind and evolution has been seen to run down dead ends many, many times. All of the extinct species are dead ends." The best way I've heard it described is like dropping a marble into a bowl. The marble will go up and down and wobble around but will eventually settle at the bottom of the bowl. In other words, it would basically be encoded into the universe as a preference that over time would win out. "All of the extinct species. The fact the human eye has a blind spot whereas the squid eye does not." Just because not all matter in the universe is condensed into a single point doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Sometimes things get further apart, sometimes things get closer together, but gravity still exists. "That mix of simplicity and increased predictive power makes the non-teleological theories a lot better than the previous teleological ones." I'm not arguing that teleology is a better scientific theory than evolution; it's not. But just because it's a crappy scientific theory (well, actually it's not even a theory) doesn't mean that it's less likely that there are some sort of teleological forces baked into the universe, e.g. a preference for the creation and preservation of novelty.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    It sounds like you're using analogies to "prove" your point, rather than using evidence to prove and analogies to illustrate. This is a very common theme in my experience with arguments in favor of an external force guiding evolution (and other unprovable subjects). If we're not careful, thinking by analogy can lead us to believing incorrectly that irrelevant attributes of the analogy actually apply to the universe.
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      Except I'm not arguing in favor of an external force. Tokenadult said there was no external force, I said we can't know if there is an external force.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > I said we can't know if there is an external force. Can you know for sure you're not the Queen of England?

s_baby 14y ago

>We can say that it very likely isn't a teleological process, because, one, we have no evidence it is; two, we have a lot of evidence that seems to say it isn't; A) Even an organism "at rest" is actively moving against the direction of Entropy. Evolution and life in general is factually teleological. You just seem to have a very specific idea of what teleological means. B) Evolution moves towards diversity. Even as a purely stochastic process this is a motion towards vertical complexity as well as evolutionary dead ends.

derleth 14y ago
> You just seem to have a very specific idea of what teleological means. If you redefine any word into a fine enough mist, you can make it mean anything you want. > Evolution moves towards diversity. So does cream spreading out in a cup of coffee. Is that teleological, too?
- s_baby 14y ago
  >If you redefine any word into a fine enough mist, you can make it mean anything you want. Yea, that's my point. >So does cream spreading out in a cup of coffee. Is that teleological, too? Absolutely. Otherwise my previous juxtaposition of entropy and biological systems wouldn't make sense.