Purpose in Biology

[Resha Caner]

In the sense that one distinguishes between effective causes and final causes.

The final cause being ... ?

 

[The Barbarian]

The final cause being ... ?

...beyond the reach of science. But not beyond the reach of scientists.

 

[Resha Caner]

...beyond the reach of science. But not beyond the reach of scientists.

Does that mean the final cause can be perceived (by scientists) yet not measured (by science)?

 

[The Barbarian]

Does that mean the final cause can be perceived (by scientists) yet not measured (by science)?

It means that the methodology of science can't determine the purpose of nature. But there are other ways of knowing that.

 

[Resha Caner]

It means that the methodology of science can't determine the purpose of nature. But there are other ways of knowing that.

That sounds like a 'yes' answer to my question, though qualified. You needn't be so guarded. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm intrigued ... basically to know how your view is received by unbelieving scientists you might know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just clarifying what it means.

Most "unbelieving" scientists, like Richard Dawkins, are actually agnostics. So they recognize that science is merely unable to confirm or deny anything supernatural.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/re...awkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

 

[Resha Caner]

Unless you've had a conversation with Dawkins, that doesn't really answer my question. But you answered the OP, so OK.

 

[The Barbarian]

As I said, most scientists who aren't believers are agnostics. At least all the ones I have known, are agnostics, not atheists.

As one said, "I get that someone might take God on faith, but how do you take 'no god' on faith?"

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That sounds somewhat Platonist to me.

In the sense that one distinguishes between effective causes and final causes.

Aristotlean actually, not Platonic.

This is understandable, as Aristotle is the first Biologist and the Grandfather of Science. He spent many years collecting specimens, dissecting and writing books on animals and the natural world, and how they live. Many of his findings, like Cephalopod mating tentacles or placental dogfish, have only recently been confirmed.

Anyway, Aristotle recognised four causes: The formal, material, efficient and final cause.
Only when all can be described, is causation established. This was taken to extremes by the Scholastics.

Now Francis Bacon in his New Philosophy, rejected the formal and final causes; and subsequently Science initially did as well. Surreptitiously they have made their way back in.

Modern Biology has all four causes, only differentiated by discipline. It is perhaps the 'purpose' of Biology:

1: The Material cause is Physiology and Biochemistry. The substance as causation.
2: The Efficient cause is Developmental Biology and Neurophysiology in certain instances. This is the mechanism of change.
3: The Formal cause is Genetics itself. It is way thing occur, the information according to which it does. Aristotle's nutritive souls and such, if these terms are replaced with more modern terminology like Phenotype and Genotype, read as if a biology textbook. Tongue-in-cheek, some modern biologists have said that if Nobel prizes were given posthumously, Aristotle deserves one for describing the mechanism of action for DNA.
4: The final cause is found in Evolutionary Biology. The reason or purpose of an adaptation can be seen after it arose. Elephants have trunks to grasp - so the reason this was favoured by the blind purposes of evolution for adaptation. It is thus an after-the-fact determination. The uncovering of final causes is thus not in competition with how something innately occurs, therefore.

It is quite fascinating. Prof Leroi, an Evolutionary Biologist, has written extensively on this. How Biology just made its way home to Aristotle, its founder. He wrote a fascinating popular history on this, called Aristotle's Lagoon, that I highly recommend.
While Aristotle was a theist, the final cause is not really dependant on a 'watchmaker' as it can be determined as the reason why impersonal forces acted in a certain way, why one path was, in practice, favoured over another. It is dependant on the thought paradigm one applies.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think Aristotle would have approved of a final cause made up of effective causes.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't think Aristotle would have approved of a final cause made up of effective causes.

The final cause is conceived by Aristotle as why the formal or efficient causes act as they do. It is the cause for the sake of which everything is done. So the final cause is not made up of efficient causes, but does explain them. As in Evolutionary Biology explaining why a certain mutation or such was favoured. So Finches say, develop certain beaks by natural selection (efficient cause) for the purpose of more efficient eating (formal cause) that can ultimately be deduced as the evolutionary pressure that was at play; or bees develop sterile drones by group selection for certain genes, etc.
This is certainly not the final cause made up by efficient causes, but efficient causes showing the way to the final cause. Aristotle would certainly approve, as he did something very similar to deduce final causes for why objects fall and such.

Edit: I quickly googled for a nice article on Aristotle's teleology vs modern biology. Here you go:

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieSpas.htm

 

[Resha Caner]

Aristotlean actually, not Platonic.

Maybe so, but let me clarify my thoughts. I was thinking Platonist in the sense that it seemed to invoke a Form called "science" that exists apart from the scientist rather than looking at science as a creation of the human mind.

Further, my use of "unbeliever" was not a synonym for "atheist", but moreso for "nonChristian". I don't bother with the atheist and agnostic labels anymore because I've seen people use them a thousand different ways. Even in Dawkins I see an element of "I want to be a hard core atheist, but for the purposes of debate I need to stick with what I can defend."

So, I would be surprised if there are unbelieving scientists who would accept people can perceive things that can't be measured. Maybe it falls in that gray zone where neither believers nor unbelievers can find firm ground, but I still suspect there are few (if any) unbelievers who would accept such a notion.

So, back to "purpose", as I've tried to indicate in several posts, I'm feeling out this idea. I don't have a settled notion. One thing I do know is that I wasn't trying to sneak God in the back door as the "final cause." I just found comments by @The Barbarian interesting. Maybe I'm looking for something that falls in the cracks between rigid determinism and relative moralism. Shuffling off the moral impulses of people as a mere evolutionary mechanism doesn't feel right to me. Life is about more than surviving. Even unbelievers can appreciate beauty without thinking such appreciation must be aiding their survival in some way. Yet I also realize all the pitfalls of moral systems that come from varying perspectives. But is there something in the middle? Are there competing purposes wherein people are willing to jeopardize survival for joy (or revenge, et. al.)? If so, does that have a place in biology? If so, how do you then define those purposes?

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe so, but let me clarify my thoughts. I was thinking Platonist in the sense that it seemed to invoke a Form called "science" that exists apart from the scientist

In the sense that there is a Form called "plumbing" that exists apart from the plumber.

Even in Dawkins I see an element of "I want to be a hard core atheist, but for the purposes of debate I need to stick with what I can defend."

I suppose he cares about being intellectually honest.

So, I would be surprised if there are unbelieving scientists who would accept people can perceive things that can't be measured.

Lewis Thomas, for example.

"But the soul can be identified?" I try once more.

"Yeah," he says.

"So who put it there?"

"I guess evolution put it there. That's a very unsatisfactory answer. But biology put it there."


"God did not put it there?"

"Could be. Put it there, and then left it alone, and let it emerge over its own billions of years. Maybe even planned it that way. But I don't know whether something like that could have happened, or ever did happen. And I think I could cook up explanations that would rely more on what we already know about the evolutionary development of the nervous system, or the creatures on the planet."
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/21/magazine/lewis-thomas.html

Stephen Gould, who suggested that maybe humans evolved because Someone wanted other intelligences with whom to share it all.

If that surprises you.

Maybe it falls in that gray zone where neither believers nor unbelievers can find firm ground, but I still suspect there are few (if any) unbelievers who would accept such a notion.

Maybe very intelligent ones.

So, back to "purpose", as I've tried to indicate in several posts, I'm feeling out this idea. I don't have a settled notion. One thing I do know is that I wasn't trying to sneak God in the back door as the "final cause."

No need. Michael Denton is a thorough believer in a teleological universe, without any apparent recourse to God.

Shuffling off the moral impulses of people as a mere evolutionary mechanism doesn't feel right to me. Life is about more than surviving.

Somewhere, Lewis Thomas wrote that it seemed wasteful to have all that experience merely end as the body expires. So that's a common thought.

Even unbelievers can appreciate beauty without thinking such appreciation must be aiding their survival in some way. Yet I also realize all the pitfalls of moral systems that come from varying perspectives. But is there something in the middle? Are there competing purposes wherein people are willing to jeopardize survival for joy (or revenge, et. al.)? If so, does that have a place in biology?

Biology is not equipped to make that kind of determination. Perhaps someday, a metabiology. Denton seems to think ID can do that. But I don't see anything of interest or utility coming from that belief system.

If so, how do you then define those purposes?

Outside of a universal purpose, I don't see how.

 

[Resha Caner]

I suppose he cares about being intellectually honest.

I don't have much regard for Dawkins. I consider it more intellectually honest to admit one's actual beliefs along with admitting what one can't defend. I'm more than willing to do that, and to put aside what others ask to put aside. Those not interested in merely scoring chest-pounding points are usually willing to do the same.

Maybe Dawkins said something along those lines. I don't know and don't really care.

In the sense that there is a Form called "plumbing" that exists apart from the plumber.

I don't believe in plumbing apart from a plumber. I don't believe anything exists apart from the mind that created it. For the universe, that means God.

 

[The Barbarian]

he final cause is conceived by Aristotle as why the formal or efficient causes act as they do. It is the cause for the sake of which everything is done. So the final cause is not made up of efficient causes, but does explain them. As in Evolutionary Biology explaining why a certain mutation or such was favoured. So Finches say, develop certain beaks by natural selection (efficient cause) for the purpose of more efficient eating (formal cause) that can ultimately be deduced as the evolutionary pressure that was at play; or bees develop sterile drones by group selection for certain genes, etc.
This is certainly not the final cause made up by efficient causes, but efficient causes showing the way to the final cause. Aristotle would certainly approve, as he did something very similar to deduce final causes for why objects fall and such.

I've seen this before, but not Aristotle...

“Observe how noses are designed to hold up glasses, and therefore, we have eyeglasses. Legs are obviously meant for wearing shoes, and so we have shoes. Rocks having been designed to be quarried and used for building purposes, the Baron has a singularly beautiful mansion.”

Voltaire exaggerated the assumptions of Leibniz, but not by much.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't believe in plumbing apart from a plumber.

Turns out, water behaves hydraulically whether or not there was a conscious mind messing with it.

I don't believe anything exists apart from the mind that created it.

Plumbers don't create anything. They merely apply that which is already in existence.

For the universe, that means God.

I think you're underestimating Him.