Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 21 of 120 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 119 120
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Thanks Fallible.

.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Terry/NZ, you asked about John Dewey. I trust you will find the following helpful:

http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/john_dewey.htm

IMHO, he was a great thinker. I respect and love his appoach to knowledge.

BTW, He died the year I was married, 1952--This Sept., will be the 55th year of marriage for Jean and me.

BTW, I finished my studies for the ministry of the United Church of Canada, in 1953, and was ordained. That July, Jean and I were assigned to go to a squatter's town, Happy Valley, Goose Bay, Labrador. Quite a story!!!!

Last edited by Revlgking; 08/07/07 02:11 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Thanks Rev. I now remember I've read "Democracy and Education". I was impressed.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TerryNZ: What was it, about this essay by Dewey, that impressed you?

BTW, realizing that you are not an American, I ask the following question: As one who has numerous cousins in the USA, I ask: To what extent do you think the USA is, presently, a democracy?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I'll answer your last question first. There is no way you can have democracy if a primary consideration for office is immense personal wealth. But this link gives me hope:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070809/us_nm/usa_politics_grassroots_dc

I am one of the many who think Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are just Bush-lite. Nothing will change whoever wins.

As for John Dewey. Several comments from your link give the idea: "Dewey’s deeply ingrained sense of social justice". "He recognized that freedom implies both negative freedom, or freedom from constraint, as well as positive freedom, or freedom for something". "Darwinian thinking greatly influenced Dewey’s philosophy. It was where he first acquired the notion that a human being or community is like a highly complex natural organism that must function within its environment". "Dewey explicitly rejected "Social Darwinism" with its self-serving and antidemocratic rhetoric about the survival of the fittest. The question is always, fit for what? Dewey learned from Huxley that even laissez faire economists must weed their garden if they want lovely flowers". "We can create a world where everyone is fit to survive and thrive, not just those who excel at crude capitalism". "As a neo-Darwinian, Dewey knows the key to survival is diversity not homogeneity".

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Survival of the fittest is a phrase which is a shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance.

Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.

The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively prefer to use the phrase "natural selection".

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Terry/NZ,I presume that you quote with greement: "...the key to survival is diversity not homogeneity".

Permit me to put it this way: "As one who believes in progress, not just survival, I believe the key to progress is for us to welcome, and love, enriching differences, not just boring uniformity.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Revlgking wrote:

"Survival of the fittest is a phrase which is a shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance".

As you say first used in economics and should have stayed there. Much misused in support of supremacist ideas. If it is true in economics it obviously leads eventually to monopolies, something most free market advocates keep quiet about. The phrase is meaningless in biological evolution. Individuals simply survive and pass on their genes. Not necessarily just the fittest, whatever that means in this context.

Rev. I certainly agree that diversity is the key to survival but I'm not sure what you mean by "progress".

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
"The phrase is meaningless in biological evolution. Individuals simply survive and pass on their genes. Not necessarily just the fittest, whatever that means in this context."

Never thought of it that way, good point. Before I beleived in Evolution, i thought "how come there are still apes if we are more 'fit' and survied down the tree of evolution?" But it is much more random and controlled, I have found.

Anyways, earlier today, I was at the library reading a biography of Darwin by his great-great grandson. (I forget his name, something Keynes or something to that extent). He argues, through Darwin family records and notes, that Darwin was largely influenced and conformed his theory after his daughter Annie died of sickness when she was ten (by then he had already been on the Beagle, but that sweetened the deal, says the biographer). It was his problem of pain that led him to develop his system of evolution. So perhaps Darwin himself beleived in "survival of the fittest."

Would that be a correct assertion anybody?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Evolutionary 'progress' (that's not exactly the right term, but I'll go with it) depends on diversity AND a ruthless process of winnowing.

More importantly, however, adaptability and even survival depend on diversity.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
"More importantly, however, adaptability and even survival depend on diversity."

Yeah, but unfortunately politics is different.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim pondered:

'So perhaps Darwin himself beleived in "survival of the fittest."'

My guess is that he almost certainly did. He was a product of his time and class. At the time (the Industrial Revolution) most people believed that technological progress at least was inevitable. The highest form of biological progress was considered "man", especially English Man. Women didn't come into for some strange reason although a moment's thought would have revealed they are essential for biological progress.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"My guess is that he almost certainly did. "
Could very well be. Darwin said he was influence by Malthus. It's a short read which I recommend it.

"Yeah, but unfortunately politics is different. "
I'm not sure that politics is different. Evolution is an exemplar, an archetype really, of complex adaptive systems - nonlinear systems where there are every component of every system has some effect on the other systems and on itself. There is not universal positive. Everything is an interplay between positives and negatives.

Which is better adapted - a lion or a penguin? It depends.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
"Rev. I certainly agree that diversity is the key to survival, but I'm not sure what you mean by "progress"." TerryNZ comments.

TNZ, IMHO, by "progress" I mean that life, for me. is a progressive process. I like to think that all who choose can be involved in an eternal adventure in an infinite space.

I find it difficult to think of life as having a final destiny, a resting place, a place where all good people will all be together in one perfect, static and happy state of being--the usual Christian idea of heaven.

I admit that I could be wrong, but I like to think of the future life, not as a place of being where I will be at rest, but as a state of being where I will have all the energy I need to get things done.

How about you?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Excuse the digression from the conversation, but I found an article of interest.

I would have been pleased to have written this article myself, so to save myself the time, here it is:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/do_science_and_rationality_support_atheism/


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Rede. Well, yes but. I agree with comments a couple of people made on the link. I hate jimmy page (I don't actually mind him) wrote:

"To the practical atheist, it doesn’t matter if God exists. It only matters if God has any kind of influence on our lives. So far, it just seems to be a bunch of old books. That’s not much of a real influence".

And the reasoning really just adds yet another question. Quote from Patrick:

"If God created the universe, the same question still stands. Why is there a God rather than no god?"

Now to Revlgking. I think you're talking about the evolution of the individual rather than the evolution of the species. They are quite different.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Terry

(i) A 'God hypothesis' can be as viable the 'no God hypothesis'

(ii) A God hypothesis clearly does matter to vast numbers of people because it does, equally clearly, have a very great influence on their lives.

(iii) The answer to "Why is there a God rather than no God?" is evident to many.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
TFF wrote "Which is better adapted - a lion or a penguin? It depends."

I see where your'e going with that, but to validly answer that you would need some type of device to measure their adaptation 'rating' of sort. But I would agree with your reasoning.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Terry

At the risk of going round in ever decreasing circles, more thoughts on the question: "If God created the universe, the same question still stands. Why is there a God rather than no god?"

This is, of course, a conceptual issue and, as we know well enough, views of God are many and varied, and so discussions of the subject tend to be fraught with mutual misunderstanding and confusion. However, based on the proviso that one cannot present objective proof one way or the other, this, in regard to one kind of concept, which for the sake of this post I'll call 'Fredism' (I trust that Fred won't mind): -

Atheism has it that the universe is the way it is because the laws of physics are such as they are, and the laws of physics are such possibly because of a previous scientifically explicable cause, and so on, possibly ad infinitum.

Fredism has it that, ultimately, a first cause underlies all of existence, be that a multiverse or whatever, and this first cause does indeed 'precede' all by 'infinite regression', being the 'absolute' infinity beyond all infinities.

Atheists tend to find Fredism uninteresting because it gets them no closer to understanding the first cause. This is a scientifically valid perspective which leads them to declare of Fredism, incredulously, "Wow, that's useful!"

In fact, people do find Fred useful. It allows them to conceptualise - based upon their experience, and however vaguely - an actual first cause, lying at the 'point' of infinite regression , i.e. in absolute transcendence, that necessarily determines the purpose of all else. They therefore have what one might call a specific and ultimate spiritual 'location' or 'being' for all that they see as having real value.

So for many, that's why there is a God. For them, Fredism is the only truly rational concept of life, the universe and everything.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Rede. The problem remains that even Fredism doesn't actually explain anything. We don't know how it all started except to say that, "Fred did it". And as far as we know Fred has "no kind of influence on our lives" except in our imagination. Sure we may be more comfortable believing Fred "determines the purpose of all else" but it's a bit like passing the buck. Of course I agree that a God hypothesis can be as valid as a no God hypothesis or even Dan Morgan's invisible purple rhinoceros hypothesis.

Regarding another point you make. "A God hypothesis clearly does matter to vast numbers of people because it does, equally clearly, have a very great influence on their lives". Is that statement correct? I suspect the God hypothesis affects individuals less that what you believe. May give them an excuse to stop drinking or such but doesn't alter the type of person they are. They are still the same people, a product of their upbringing and genes. A God hypothesis may provide some meaning to their life personally but probably hardly alters it from any external perspective.

Page 21 of 120 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5