>ROG:
>I have no problem with recognizing that there are value attractors in
>evolution. I am OK with the causation-as-evolution angle too. No teleology
>or mystical purposes are required for either.
ERIN: You are confusing me here. You say you have no problem that there
are value attractors? So you don't have a problem with "Pirsig saw that
empiricism could be viewed 'better' as B values precondition A."
Why is this not teleological?
ROG:
Not sure why I am confusing you. I readily recognize that there are various
patterns to evolution and that one such pattern is toward adaptability and
versatility. For example, animals at the top-of-the-food-chain nitche tend
to evolve in what is broadly called a "K strategy" defined as large, complex,
intelligent, with heavy parental investment and slow development. There is
an "attractor" toward such patterns. This in no way implies "evolution wants
to seek out large, slow developing, intelligent species in nitches at the top
of the food chain." As another example, evolution can lead to a pattern
called an "arms race" within and between species. For example, the trend in
forests toward tree height. This does not imply though that "evolution's goal
was tall trees".
Similarly, gravity can be explained by mathematical values in Newton's or
Einstein's theories. Neither resorts to the pseudo-scientific teleological
explanation of "matter wants to come together."
"B values precondition A" is awkward, but it isn't teleological. Does this
help?
Rog
PS -- i found this on newton's view of teleology and its lack of explanatory
power.
> In other words, Newton declares that, as natural philosophy, a theory is
> superior to the degree that it excludes teleological explanation, confining
> itself instead to descriptive and physical explanation.
>
Does this mean Newton was an atheist? Far from it. ...The point is: Newton
had discovered that ... pseudo-explanatory hypotheses did nothing to advance
what he understood to be the aims of science (in his terminology, natural
philosophy). These aims, for him, were purely and simply to clarify what the
rules of operation are for how nature actually works. And he realized that,
for this purpose, teleological explanation was only pseudo-explanatory, and
had no contribution to make, no role to play.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST