What is that supposed to mean, John, honestly? A better job? Biology has been wonderful for psychology and cog sci - it's even turned both into profitable industries based on the predictions their models make.

(March 25, 2021 at 4:16 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: My innitial thought was "Why should the theory of evolution do/say anything about the systems within an organism?"

The theory is more 'Over arching' isn't it?

I don't know if that's true. Evolution touches everything from genotype to phenotype. And behavior is often considered to be part of an animal's phenotype. Any textbook on evolutionary psychology will have this quote:

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” -Charles Darwin

That said, I would argue that "evolution" plays a role similar to "fMRI" in current psychological research. Which is to say, people use it to make their research "appear" more scientific, more alluring, and more likely to get published, meanwhile, it contributes very little to the issue.

(March 25, 2021 at 1:30 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: So I guess no Freud or Jung then? Your loss.

Seriously man, I think you are too smart to be denying evolution. Not all Christians deny evolution. Not all Christians posit design. Design is a very bad argument now that we've been able to examine the fossil history. And I'm one of the people who thinks it was a very GOOD argument when William Paley made it back in the day. But since we've had a good look at fossils and the cosmic microwave background-- no. Terrible argument.

What exactly are your credentials in philosophy to denigrate the teleological argument without bothering to explain why? Let's say we have a theory A which superseeds evolution, and which completely explains existence and all aspects of beauty in nature... so what.. you stupid fools ? Is explaining the workings and the evolution of an object somewhat dispenses with the possibility of a creator? 

Let's say you fully understand the workings of your car engine... and thousands of years from now, they found you car engine's fossils and assembled a fossil history.. Would they then be entitled to say : oh it looks like we understand better how engines evolved.. no need for manufacturing companies!

(March 25, 2021 at 1:30 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think you are an honest person, Breezy, but design is not an argument that is pushed by honest people (nowadays, anyway, in the post-Paley era). 

Modern philosophers like Swinburne and Lennox defend this same argument... They're not honest enough.. maybe? In any case, where is your essay responding to their defenses?

That's exactly what vulcan just said. It's not an honest argument, today, if it ever was. That would include any contemporary charlatan by default.

Allow your god this wiggle room. Biology does not have to be false for your god to be true. If you insist this, if you demand this, then you're strangling your own god before it can even get started doing anything.

(March 25, 2021 at 4:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Biology [emphasis added] has been wonderful for psychology and cog sci...

Why did you switch evolution to biology?  These words are not synonyms. (Here's a thesaurus.)

They are, in fact. That's why. If your faith needs to deny a biological fact, your faith is wrong, full stop.

Save yourself any and every second you ever intended to argue over the meaning of words. As ever - pointless.

(March 25, 2021 at 9:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Save yourself any and every second you ever intended to argue  [emphasis added] over the meaning of words.

It's unsurprising that a person who butchers words, also dislikes being called out for it.

Drich also had his own special meaning for words, if you catch my drift.

(March 25, 2021 at 12:55 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'll accept it as good when I see it do a better job with psychology and neuroscience. Until then, it is just a tool that has overextended it's use. I'll look into biologos with an open mind. Thanks.

I agree with you that people have tended to overextend the use of evolution by natural selection as an explanation. 

Early on people used it to talk about "social darwinism," as if they could justify social class, and economic winners and losers, through the theory. Ayn Rand thought she was strictly following the science. More recently, evolutionary psychology has been on a roll, but I have read more strict evolutionary biologists criticize it severely for misapplying the idea of evolution in ways that science can't justify. 

So the answer doesn't seem in doubt to me: evolution by natural selection does a great job of explaining the particular range of things it is appropriate to explain. With the proviso, as always, that scientific theories are always open to adjustment. And serious scientists (i.e. not ideologues) are willing to listen to concerns or criticism. 

But sometimes it is seen as some kind of theory of everything, which answers all questions. If someone proposes that evolution is a sufficient explanation for something, when in fact there is reason to doubt that, then critics shouldn't be put in the same boat as young-earthers.

---

(March 25, 2021 at 4:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: That said, I would argue that "evolution" plays a role similar to "fMRI" in current psychological research. Which is to say, people use it to make their research "appear" more scientific, more alluring, and more likely to get published, meanwhile, it contributes very little to the issue.

I used to make a lot of money by sitting with a group of Japanese brain researchers and helping them to read and write fMRI papers in English. One thing they were clear on: careful professional use of fMRI is narrow and tentative and small-scaled, while publicly-reported conclusions from fMRI are often exaggerated wildly. 

They were publishing papers on how patients with a history of severe depression performed, on average, a few fractions of a second slower on decision-making tasks carried out while they were in a confining noisy tube. Meanwhile The Guardian was writing that fMRI had proved that people love their cel phones as much as their girlfriends. It was attention-getting science fiction for the gullible masses.

(March 25, 2021 at 4:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 25, 2021 at 4:16 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: My innitial thought was "Why should the theory of evolution do/say anything about the systems within an organism?"

The theory is more 'Over arching' isn't it?

I don't know if that's true.

Evolution touches everything from genotype to phenotype.

And behavior is often considered to be part of an animal's phenotype. 

Any textbook on evolutionary psychology will have this quote:

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” -Charles Darwin

That said, I would argue that "evolution" plays a role similar to "fMRI" in current psychological research. Which is to say, people use it to make their research "appear" more scientific, more alluring, and more likely to get published, meanwhile, it contributes very little to the issue.

So an interesting response.

You only reply to half my comment.

You refer back to a Psychology book, (Okay, that's your ballywick and I get that) but produce particular quote that's, like 150 years old? Huh?

Heck, lets go off and pull up Nagel's "What it is to be a bat." and plug that into the discussion?

I feel there's a strange twisitng happening in our dialogue but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Cheers.

Not at work.