1). Does evolutionary theory imply that there is a basic hierarchy in the way things exist?
2). What difference does it make whether or not evolutionary theory is committed to a hierarchical outlook?
Thoughts?
What are the ontological commitments of evolutionary biology?
Re: What are the ontological commitments of evolutionary biology?
The "theory" of evolution is hokum.Aero wrote:1). Does evolutionary theory imply that there is a basic hierarchy in the way things exist?
2). What difference does it make whether or not evolutionary theory is committed to a hierarchical outlook?
There's a great deal of science mixed up in it but anyone who believes that species origin or change falls within this hypothesis are in for a rude awakening.
What we believe matters a great deal and this belief is a dangerous one because it does "order" species and individuals and removes us from understanding our own nature.
Re: What are the ontological commitments of evolutionary biology?
A1: Evolutionary theory does not imply that there is any hierarchy.Aero wrote:1). Does evolutionary theory imply that there is a basic hierarchy in the way things exist?
2). What difference does it make whether or not evolutionary theory is committed to a hierarchical outlook?
Thoughts?
A2. If evolutionary theory was considered to be "committed to a hierarchical outlook" (which it does not) it would imply that there was some goal or aim to evolution, (which there is not) and would therefore imply a complete misunderstanding of evolution.
Re: What are the ontological commitments of evolutionary biology?
Besides, it's a [proven] scientific theory, not a political platform or creed.
Science doesn't make "commitments" to any particular view.
Science makes observations about what is observable and deductions about what is testable.
Science doesn't make "commitments" to any particular view.
Science makes observations about what is observable and deductions about what is testable.
Re: What are the ontological commitments of evolutionary biology?
I'm going to a little devil's advocate here...
A1:
I was thinking that evolutionary theory implies a basic hierarchy with respect to a species' process of change over generations. Like the theory of technological evolution, technology gets ranked with respect to what version it is. For example, the iPhone 3 is ranked below the iPhone 4, which in turn is ranked below the iPhone 5 and etc. It implies a hierarchy.
A2:
I'm not sure if there is a difference, but there is an importance. By this I mean that for human beings, we have always categorized and ranked things for general purposes. One of the reasons, I think, is because of limited resources. Scarcity forces species to compete with each other in order to determine who gets what.
A1:
I was thinking that evolutionary theory implies a basic hierarchy with respect to a species' process of change over generations. Like the theory of technological evolution, technology gets ranked with respect to what version it is. For example, the iPhone 3 is ranked below the iPhone 4, which in turn is ranked below the iPhone 5 and etc. It implies a hierarchy.
A2:
I'm not sure if there is a difference, but there is an importance. By this I mean that for human beings, we have always categorized and ranked things for general purposes. One of the reasons, I think, is because of limited resources. Scarcity forces species to compete with each other in order to determine who gets what.
Science doesn't make any commitments nor does it makes any observations and deductions. Scientists do that. Scientists being people and people have a tendency to rank things implicitly or otherwise.Skip wrote:Besides, it's a [proven] scientific theory, not a political platform or creed.
Science doesn't make "commitments" to any particular view.
Science makes observations about what is observable and deductions about what is testable.
Re: What are the ontological commitments of evolutionary biology?
Point taken.
Go ahead and rank, but don't commit - and wear the prescribed protective gear.
A theory may imply something to the cast of mind that organizes things in that way. That is, the theory, and its proofs, and its examples, may have a certain pattern, but each mind regarding that pattern will interpret it differently. To you, it may look like a hierarchy (with you on the tippy-top, natch) while to Maude, it indicates a tree-structure; Harry sees overlapping wave pattern and I perceive a web design. I really don't see evolution as analogous to technology, since technology is goal-driven and evolution is opportunistic.
Yes, there is competition involved, every time a species is modified. But it's not the same competition in every insatnce, and it's not straightforward, predictable competition for a known quantity of a designated substance. The chance elements are different and there are a lot more of them in nature than in human economics. There are also a lot more, and far more varied, desiderata.
If you rank species, the cockroach wins. Or mildew? Maybe the caribou? Lion? Cormorant? It depends on what the competition is.
Go ahead and rank, but don't commit - and wear the prescribed protective gear.
A theory may imply something to the cast of mind that organizes things in that way. That is, the theory, and its proofs, and its examples, may have a certain pattern, but each mind regarding that pattern will interpret it differently. To you, it may look like a hierarchy (with you on the tippy-top, natch) while to Maude, it indicates a tree-structure; Harry sees overlapping wave pattern and I perceive a web design. I really don't see evolution as analogous to technology, since technology is goal-driven and evolution is opportunistic.
Yes, there is competition involved, every time a species is modified. But it's not the same competition in every insatnce, and it's not straightforward, predictable competition for a known quantity of a designated substance. The chance elements are different and there are a lot more of them in nature than in human economics. There are also a lot more, and far more varied, desiderata.
If you rank species, the cockroach wins. Or mildew? Maybe the caribou? Lion? Cormorant? It depends on what the competition is.