Richard Dawkins: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
Charles Darwin: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
Karl Popper: "Since we have evolved and survived, we may be pretty sure that our hypotheses and guesses as to what the world is like are mostly correct."
W.V.O. Quine: "Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind."
Patricia Churchland: "The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive...Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."
So who is right?
Darwin and Churchland propose that the probability of human cognitive faculties' being reliable, given that they've have been produced by evolution is low. The ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if indeed they have a purpose or function, will be survival—of individual, species, gene, or genotype. But then it is unlikely that they have the production of true beliefs as a function. So the probability or our faculties' being reliable, given naturalistic evolution, would be fairly low.
Popper and Quine, on the other side, judge that probability fairly high.
What do you think? I was planning on going through Alvin Plantinga's entire argument against naturalism, but, since I hate to read long posts I guess probably shouldn't write one. It might even be better to let the argument unfold, err...., naturally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about 'cognitive faculties' but I'll assume you mean our ability to think - rather than the obvious fact that our senses can be fooled fairly easily...
Anyway... as far as I believe the mind is a by-product of the complexity of the brain. Now the brain is, of course, a product of evolution therefore you can say that the mind is a by-product of the evolutionary process. This says nothing however about its utility - whether or not it's good at what it does. After all wings are such a product and they seem to work fairly well for most birds.
I think what you're getting at is that we have made some truely whopping errors when we have tried to understand the world - and are probably making errors right now. But, the reason we *know* that errors have been made in the past shows that our knowledge and understanding of the world have increased.
The mistake that I think you are making is this: If a person sits in a room and thinks about the world - not having much experience of it - then she will most likely get many of her conclusions completely wrong. The mind is great for thinking up fantasies that on the surface seem reasonable. However, if that person is exposed to experiences they can accumulate fairly accurate information. Given this information they can think about meanings etc and (hopefully) come up with some kind of explanation for what she sees around her. This explanation could be completely wrong... but if her hypothesis is *testable* then she can see how accurate her original musings were. She can then gather more information to get an ever better idea about the world and so on. Basically she can investigate reality by using science.
This is why humanity has taken so long to prgress this far. Science is a relative newcommer which has finally allowed people to ditch old wrong ideas because we now have a good idea testing method. When false ideas are rejected and true ideas adopted then progress in many areas goes into high gear. It's not just because we know more - it's because we are pretty certain about what we *do* know. Such certainty is damned near impossible without a method for separating the wheat from the chaff.
Looking for natural (testable) explanations of phenomena in the world is by far the best method we have come up with for actually *knowing* things rather than just believing them.
I look forward to seeing an argument against naturalism.... [grin].
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about 'cognitive faculties' but I'll assume you mean our ability to think...
Pretty much, yes.
This says nothing however about its utility...
Right, that's my point. Sure we think, but do we think reliably; do we arrive at or even head in the general direction of truth?
After all wings are such a product and they seem to work fairly well for most birds.
According to Naturalism in combination with Evolution (N&E), birds wings were developed, or rather were passed on genetically, because they enhanced survival. What reason is there to believe that our cognitive facilities working reliably (serving truth) enhanced our survival?
...but if her hypothesis is *testable* then she can see how accurate her original musings were.
If her cognitive faculties are not reliable she can test and 'verify' all she wants but she would have no reasons to trust her conclusions, or even her observations.
It's not just because we know more - it's because we are pretty certain about what we *do* know. Such certainty is damned near impossible without a method for separating the wheat from the chaff.
How can we be "pretty certain" about anything, how can we know we really separated the wheat from the chaff, if we have no reason to think N&E has provided us with reliable cognitive faculties?
You seem to be focused on this question: How do we know what we think we know is actually true?
My question is this: If N&E is responsible for our current cognitive faculties, what reason do we have for trusting them? In other words, why should I believe that truth-awareness is a survival-enhancing trait? Unless I have some level of confidence that N&E 'sees' and seeks to preserve truth-awareness, any answer I give to the previous question would fall prey to circular reasoning.
laughing boy said: Right, that's my point. Sure we think, but do we think reliably; do we arrive at or even head in the general direction of truth?
I thought that your point was that minds produced by evolution are inherently un-reliable? Personally I don't think that whether or not a mind has evolved has no bearing on the issue. I think that minds are evolutionary by-products but that fact alone cannot indicate if the minds are useful or not.
We *can* think reliably if (and only if) such thinking is tested by periodic dealing with reality. If ideas stay inside peoples minds - even if debated amonst multiple minds - they can still err. Only when tested against the real world can a close approximation to the truth of a situation be arrived at. Theories are OK as far as they go but they can't really adequately exist on their own.
laughing boy asked: What reason is there to believe that our cognitive facilities working reliably (serving truth) enhanced our survival?
Minds are a great evolutionary leap forward. With them we are self-conscious of our surroundings and can over-ride our instincts. We can see patterns (sometimes where none exist) and plan for the future. We can think both tactically & strategically which gives us a HUGE advantage over creatures that can't think. Also coupled with language minds give us the opportunity to create culture which is another huge advantage over creatures without it. So, yes. Minds have a clear evolutionary benefit.
laughing boy asked: If her cognitive faculties are not reliable she can test and 'verify' all she wants but she would have no reasons to trust her conclusions, or even her observations.
Cognitive facilties can be trusted *because* they are tested. We also have every reason to trust conclusions of the tests for the very reason that they *work* in practice. We clearly have a good grasp of how the world works because we can design and build machines based on our understanding of the Universe. If our understanding was at fault then our technology would not work. We *know* these things because they are no longer theories.
laughing boy asked: You seem to be focused on this question: How do we know what we think we know is actually true? My question is this: If N&E is responsible for our current cognitive faculties, what reason do we have for trusting them? In other words, why should I believe that truth-awareness is a survival-enhancing trait?
I think they're the same question: How do we know what we think we know is actually true and If N&E is responsible for our current cognitive faculties, what reason do we have for trusting them?
Basically how can we trust our thought processes.
As I said before just because our minds are natural products of evolution is not grounds for mistrusting (or trusting) the outcome of any cognitive process. We trust our ideas in relation to their utility in the real-world and not just in our heads. When ideas fail IRL that makes them less trust-worthy. When they work IRL that makes them more trust-worthy.
Are we talking about the same thing here because I'm trying to be as plain as I can be....?
I think you are guilty of circular reasoning when you say we can know our minds are functioning properly because, using the very minds in question, we can assess our beliefs and determine that they are true. Again, the argument is not about whether or not we indeed have properly functioning minds, but if naturalistic evolution—rather than any brand of evolution not wed to naturalism—in and of itself gives us a reason to believe it would have produced such minds.
However, I do believe that I have poorly presented the argument by not stating it properly as an argument. I have not established the premises and worked forward from there. I'm not sure I want to attempt to rehabilitate it within this post. I will create a new post of the argument and hopefully we can start from a place a agreement on terms and premises. In the end I want to give you a true argument; not that I expect you to acccept it, but at least it should be a proper arguement that you reject.
I hope to get the new post up today or tomorrow at the latest. Check back then, and thanks for your input so far.
laughing boy said: I think you are guilty of circular reasoning when you say we can know our minds are functioning properly because, using the very minds in question, we can assess our beliefs and determine that they are true.
Actually this is the *opposite* of what I'nm saying [sigh]. As I said earlier: If ideas stay inside peoples minds - even if debated amonst multiple minds - they can still err. ONLY when tested against the real world can a close approximation to the truth of a situation be arrived at.
We do not test the stength of our beliefs & ideas about the Universe through argument - but though observation, theory and (most importantly) experiment. If our theories are correct then they work *in practice*. When things happen as we expect them to happen we have confidence that our theorising was good. When we can producing working machines based on our ideas of how the Universe operates it shows that our thought processes where adequate to the task. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
I am *not* saying that we can simply think about an issue and arrive at the truth of the matter. We can *only* arrive at truth (or as close an approximation as we can) by testing our thoughts in the real world. That testing process is called Science and it is the most reliable method we know of at arriving at truthful statements about reality.
laughing boy said: if naturalistic evolution—rather than any brand of evolution not wed to naturalism—in and of itself gives us a reason to believe it would have produced such minds.
Erm... Why not? I know of no reason to think that our minds arrived by any other route other than through natural processes. Evolution has given humans large and complex brains. Minds are (as far as I know) a by-product of this complexity. What other process are you putting forward as a way of producing human minds?
laughing boy said: thanks for your input so far.
My pleasure. I do this sort of thing for fun.... It's also good to sharpen your reasoning skills against someone who is willing to argue the points and present their own arguments without it descending into name-calling. It makes a nice change actually.
In the meantime...
We do not test the stength of our beliefs & ideas about the Universe through argument - but though observation, theory and (most importantly) experiment.
1. So argument makes use of our minds, but observation, theory*, and experimentation do not? If you can't trust your mind to argue, how can you trust it to observe and and to draw conclusions from experiments? Just because something is occurring externally to us does not mean our perception of it is independent of our minds.
*Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. In other words, an argument.
2. How many of our beliefs have we arrived at by way of direct personal observation rather than argument? Very few. In fact, a person who only 'knew' what he personally observed or verified by personal experimentation would be functionally incapacitated.
What did you have for breakfast this morning?
What technique are you using to determine the answer; observation, theory, or experiment?
---
It's also good to sharpen your reasoning skills against someone who is willing to argue the points and present their own arguments without it descending into name-calling.
Yes, you are a valued friend.
I'm getting that "we seem to be talking different languages" feeling because I'm not making myself clear enough for you to understand what I'm trying to say so I'll try one more time.
laughing boy said: If you can't trust your mind to argue, how can you trust it to observe and and to draw conclusions from experiments? Just because something is occurring externally to us does not mean our perception of it is independent of our minds.
As I've said what... three times now.... we can trust our knowledge of the Universe because we have used that knowledge to create things that work. If our understanding was at fault then our technology wouldn't do the things we know it does. If we didn't understand Gravity in the way we do then we wouldn't be able to put probes around Mars (for example). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp is it?
Yes, our perceptions of the world are potentially questionable and we take a great deal of it on trust - but unless *everything* we experience is a fantasy we can know things with confidence because we use that knowledge to make repeatable effects in the real world.
laughing boy said: How many of our beliefs have we arrived at by way of direct personal observation rather than argument? Very few.
Yes, that's true - which is why many beliefs are just that... beliefs. I can honestly believe that something is true. That doesn't mean that it *is* true if all I have to go on is my own (or others) thought processes. Because I have nothing to test itself against (expect possible flawed arguments that have also never been tested) then I cannot arrive at the truth of the question. I may have an opinion or belief about something but I cannot know the truth. The truth of a proposition can only be arrived at when it is adequately tested against reality. How else can we arrive at truth? Certainly not by thoughtful introspection alone.
laughing boy strangely asked: What did you have for breakfast this morning? What technique are you using to determine the answer; observation, theory, or experiment?
Honey-nut cherios, why?
I knew what they were because I have had them before (previous knowledge/experience), it was the name on the side of the box (observation) and they looked, tasted and felt like Cherios.... (experimentation).
I guessing you're trying to make a point here?
This whole 'how do we know what we know' bit is getting tedious. The new post should get us untracked.
But before we go let's revist my strange question...
me: What technique are you using to determine...
you: I knew what they were because...
I think you misunderstood me. I asked which of those techniques you would employ NOW to determine what you did THEN. The answer I was expecting was 'none of the above.' You employed memory, right?
P.S.: Keep an eye on Kevin's 'meaning' post. I hope to respond to your last comment shortly.
Post a Comment