Re: The evolution of knowledge

Kermit wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:04 am, Stephen Trapani <fahgetabou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ritsjoena wrote:
On Jul 4, 6:07 am, Stephen Trapani <fahgetabou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evolution is a much bigger concept than just Biology.
Evolution actually is a fundamental building block of our very
existence. In a free society, the competition and selection of ideas and
products has fueled the advancement of mankind in many areas, including
technology, the advancement of Science and the progress of morality, to
name a few.
Two brilliant works have described this evolution: The Fabric of
Reality, by David Deutsch, and Conjectures and Refutations, by Karl
Popper. Popper explains how knowledge grows through conjectures and
refutations and Deutsch describes Evolution and one strand of the Theory
of Everything.
Denying the truth inherent in the evolution of knowledge, whether
genetic or otherwise is more ridiculous than denying a round earth.
Stephen
I think you have to distinguish between the theory of evolution and
the concept of evolution.
The concept of evolution is a process/algorithm without an inherent
application.
The theory of evolution is the application of this concept in the
biology of the development of species.
It is the concept that can be applied to a lot of things.
In most cases when the word "evolution" is used in this newsgroup it
means the concept of evolution as applied in the biology of species.
So generally speaking you are right, but sometimes the words are used
a bit more specific.
I am saying that the same process of evolution underlies the foundation
of our existence whether it is biological or otherwise. The competition
in biological systems is just one example. The competition of ideas
works the same way.

The process of evolution is the same in all areas where information
(knowledge) is allowed to compete. This is the same process in world of
human knowledge as it is in the ecosystem. Evolution is the random
production of information which is then selected based upon it's
robustness compared to the information that already exists.

The point is that those who deny evolution are not just denying
biological evolution. They claim it is far fetched for ape-like
ancestors to evolve into humans. They might as well also claim it is far
fetched for grass huts to evolve into sky-scrapers, or for kingdoms to
evolve into free societies. The theory of evolution is responsible for
all of it. Read "Evolutionary Epistemology" by Radnitzky and Bartley.

Stephen

Nope, not the same.

Of course, I didn't say they were the same. I said that the underlying process is the same. Evolution is a process that is the foundation of the non-random growth of information. Anytime information is generated and subjected to competition, growth via evolution occurs. We see this in DNA and we see it in the world of human ideas.

Organisms (except a few special cases like lateral
transfer of genes in some bacteria) must modify the structures of
their predecessors. Theories and ideas can and do embrace concepts,
evidence, and methods from other fields and theories.

While biological evolution is physical, evolutionary epistemology occurs via the conjecture of ideas, the refutation of bad ideas, and survival of the fittest ideas. The former occurs via the mutation of DNA which is then subjected to an ecosystem, the latter via the creation of conjectures (guesses), then subjected to competition with the world of existing ideas.

Also, ideas
require an intelligent vector - the human brain.

In the case of evolutionary epistemology, survival of the fittest ideas does require the human brain, that's true.

Creationists will sometimes use the evolution of technology to support
their assertion that there must be an intelligence behind biological
evolution. Nope, same objections. Life forms a nested hierarchy; ideas
and technology do not.

You should read Evolutionary Epistemology, or Conjectures and Refutations. I don't know what you mean by "nested hierarchy" but it is very obvious that since we started making them, ideas have been competing and selected for based upon their verisimilitude. It's no accident that human minds work the same way that they were created in the first place. Creationists just have it backwards. It's not minds that create evolution, it was evolution that created minds, which use the same process to work. It's no coincidence.

This doesn't mean that we can't discuss the evolution of ideas, as
long as we realize that it is *not the same as biological evolution.
One area of inquiry certainly might offer insight into the other, and
vice versa.

Right, not the same, but they use the same process to combat entropy.

Stephen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?
    ... direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. ... Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot ... and typical alleles. ... You said evolutionary biology could not make quantitative predictions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is technology part of evolution?
    ... explantion of evolution by natural selection and the subsequent ... natural selection has to work on. ... on real biology. ... assumptions about how evolution works. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: bio-evolution lacks both a dynamic and an object
    ... disagreement as to the OBJECT of selection. ... evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different ... You come across as an engineer who knows physics but not really much at all about biology. ... In real science even "superb" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?
    ... direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. ... Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot ... and typical alleles. ... You said evolutionary biology could not make quantitative predictions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?
    ... direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. ... Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot ... and typical alleles. ... You said evolutionary biology could not make quantitative predictions. ...
    (talk.origins)