Re: Bad science

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:25:43 -0700 (PDT), evoid@xxxxxxx wrote:

On 31 Mar, 18:50, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:36:08 -0700 (PDT), ev...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 16 Mar, 14:10, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:02:08 +0100, Joe Cummings

<joecummi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

   Sometimles I despair of present-day scientists.

   Just look at this abysmal interpretation of biological data:

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7292334.stm

Well instead, I suppose you could do some sort of easier breakdown
into elements very approximately like this:

an [entity] [formulates] a [plan] which it [executes] [successfully]
to [intentionally] [outwit] an [opponent]

and then the scratching cat's "Catcunning" would be what? Well I don't
know, but would look something like:

an [entity]  [may or may not][formulates] a [plan] which it [executes]
[may or may not][successfully] to [may or may not][intentionally]
[outwit] an [opponent]

You would just have to accept that all the terms in the list are used
completely neutrally as that's impossible to achieve in reality.
Otherwise you would argue forever about the loadedness of the words.

Then "Antcunning" would have it's list of entities, presumably a
simpler list, and "Genecunning" would be simpler still. Then you could
approach the problem like the physicists do and define things more
certainly and accurately

        This is getting a little difficult:

        Let's try another example  

        Most of us pick our noses, generally in private.

        I'll give you a scenario:

        A restaurant, an individual sitting by himself, a couple
unobserved by the first individual, and an invisible extraplanetary
observer.

        The first individual, unconscious of the presence of the other
two, starts to pick his nose.

        One of the couple remarks, "Why, look ,Algernon, at that dirty
bugger picking his nose."

        Second member of the couple says,"Ugh."

        The extraplanetary observer notes: "in order to annoy other
members of the species, the organisms pick their noses."

        I think you'll agree that the observer has got it wrong.

        Now back to the cat.I think you'll agree that the cat scrapes
on hard ground and soft ground.

        I'm claiming that the cat has no intent to deceive.  

        What's happening is that the cat is performing a series of
actions after defecation. If there were no prey within a million miles
of our feline hero, it would still scrape after shiting (I pronounce
"shiting" with a long "i" for emphasis)

        Now why on earth are you persisting in looking for intent????

        Can you not see that it is you, and not the cat,that sees
intent?

        Have fun,

        Joe Cummings

.

Sorry! I misunderstood. I wrote 'maybe[intentionally]' because I
thought you meant it was uncertain whether the cat had intent as we
don't know what it's thinking, but as you believe it certainly doesn't
then my list now reads as:

Gene:
an [entity] has a [behaviour] which it [executes]
[successfully] to un[intentionally] [outwit] an [other]
Ant:
an [entity] has a [behaviour] which it [executes]
[successfully] to un[intentionally] [outwit] an [opponent]
Cat:
an [entity] has a [behaviour] which it [used to][execute]
[successfully] to un[intentionally] [outwit] an [opponent]
Man:
an [entity] [formulates] a [plan] which it [executes]
[successfully] to [intentionally] [outwit] an [opponent]


So I have changed the cat's behaviour to unintentional, and the reason
I put it in the past tense is because I suppose it's a throwback. What
else do you think I should change to this list to make it more
accurate?

I don't have any problems with these descriptions, but what
about
"......executes successfully and co-incidentally affects in some way
another organism."?

Let me suggest another example:

The bee orchid has flowers that resemble a bee, and when
insects try to copulate with them, they fly away with pollen on their
bodies, etc.

Now whatever else a bee orchid has, it certainly hasn't a
brain! So I think I'm justified in my argument that we aren't
justified in assuming intention.



(I know genes don't have cunning, but I am trying to see how processes
in the natural world relate to human cunning to determine the
appropiate descriptive words. And you must excuse me using words like
'outwit' which I don't mean in the normal sense, but am intending them
to neutrally describe the situation.)

I believe from your posts that I can summarise you're view as:-

1.'Cunning' is the wrong word.
2. There isn't an appropiate simple replacement - Journalists will
just have to become more wordy.


Nope, my position is that as long as we don't have access to
other organisms' internal mental states, we are just speculating.

Whether we like it or not, we have to use a behaviourist
approach, one which acknowledges the difficulty.

If we don't, then we can and do think up all sorts of weird
"explanations."

My main point is social-political one.

When old Paley looked at nature, he saw design all around him.

The social Darwinists likened society to nature "red in tooth
and claw,"an arena of struggle that was merciless; Wealth went to the
strongest and fittest. Social justice was an idle dream.

Today, we, too have our interpretations of nature that we try
to apply to society.

The mosr egregious one is that of philosophical egoism, where
each one works for him/herself.

Now the big problem with applying egoism to the world of
nature is that it requires a thinking mind; a mind that can make a
cost-benefit analysis of the situation, can anticipate to some extent
the action of another, and can visualise an outcome.

I don't think our ants have that capability.

When this kind of description is used, it is evidence that we
share the illusions of our time.


Sorry for the delay in replying, I'm up to my neck in DIY -
not to be recommended for the over seventies.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

.

Loading