Wednesday, January 05, 2005
via BW, i found a link to this piece in the science section of the NYT, wherein 'scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers' were asked to answer the question 'What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?' richard dawkins, not surprisingly, cites his faith in darwinism:
but if design comes at all, doesn't that presuppose a designer? the word seems to imply to me some sort of conscious intention, but from what i've read elsewhere, dawkins wouldn't assent to the existence of a designer. at any rate, i see no reason to accept his axiom that design 'cannot precede evolution'; it seems perfectly reasonable that design would precede any sort of development, if and only if one first accepts the existence of a designer; if one does, it is more logical to believe that design would precede all else. but, to be fair, a one paragraph blurb in the NYT is not a place to offer substantive support for his claim.
two later answers present good reason to be wary of grand ontological beliefs that stem from research alone. in answer to the question posed above, donald hoffman, a cognitive scientist, replied,
to the same question, nicholas humphrey, a psychologist, responded,
the moral of this whole story seems to me to be that scientific research is (or can be) a very, very good thing, but that it does not, and indeed cannot, answer ultimate questions, nor is it designed to. as long as research leads to diametrically opposed unjustifiable beliefs (that is [to take the above example] if humprey's claim that human consciousness is a 'trick' means he believes it to be an illusion, his view would be opposed to hoffman's view of the truly existing consciousness), it appears that some of the grand propositions should be treated with a dose of skepticism. as a side note, i find humphrey's implication that value for human life is a fraud disturbing. i also do not understand why people speak of 'purpose' in relation to an impersonal process such as natural selection. can an impersonal force have purpose, which implies intention, which, (to me, at least) implies consciousness? this is an honest question, so if anyone has any thoughts, please shower them upon the dave.
UPDATE: i was reading jacques barzun on history and science tonight and thought the following relevant to the foregoing:
earlier in the same selection ('the search for truths', 2000), he urges due caution when the science-incensed convert claims that he 'will mop up all the other nonsense still in your heads and give you cast-iron truth':
I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
but if design comes at all, doesn't that presuppose a designer? the word seems to imply to me some sort of conscious intention, but from what i've read elsewhere, dawkins wouldn't assent to the existence of a designer. at any rate, i see no reason to accept his axiom that design 'cannot precede evolution'; it seems perfectly reasonable that design would precede any sort of development, if and only if one first accepts the existence of a designer; if one does, it is more logical to believe that design would precede all else. but, to be fair, a one paragraph blurb in the NYT is not a place to offer substantive support for his claim.
two later answers present good reason to be wary of grand ontological beliefs that stem from research alone. in answer to the question posed above, donald hoffman, a cognitive scientist, replied,
I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.
to the same question, nicholas humphrey, a psychologist, responded,
I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.
the moral of this whole story seems to me to be that scientific research is (or can be) a very, very good thing, but that it does not, and indeed cannot, answer ultimate questions, nor is it designed to. as long as research leads to diametrically opposed unjustifiable beliefs (that is [to take the above example] if humprey's claim that human consciousness is a 'trick' means he believes it to be an illusion, his view would be opposed to hoffman's view of the truly existing consciousness), it appears that some of the grand propositions should be treated with a dose of skepticism. as a side note, i find humphrey's implication that value for human life is a fraud disturbing. i also do not understand why people speak of 'purpose' in relation to an impersonal process such as natural selection. can an impersonal force have purpose, which implies intention, which, (to me, at least) implies consciousness? this is an honest question, so if anyone has any thoughts, please shower them upon the dave.
UPDATE: i was reading jacques barzun on history and science tonight and thought the following relevant to the foregoing:
But we must recognize that our work to attain truth succeeds only piecemeal. Where our hope of truth breaks down is at the stage of making great inferences from well-tested lesser truths. Still, we cannot help inferring. Our love of order impels us to make theories, systems, sets of principles.
earlier in the same selection ('the search for truths', 2000), he urges due caution when the science-incensed convert claims that he 'will mop up all the other nonsense still in your heads and give you cast-iron truth':
This sounds delightful, but even in those disciplines where exactness and agreement appear at their highest, there is a startling mobility of views. Every day the truths of geology, cosmology, astrophysics, biology, and their sister sciences are upset.
