Why Evolution is True (2012 Jerry Coyne Lectu

One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

At 6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

Do you just like saying things for the sake of saying things?

Scientists aren't using "nature" in an old-school Aristotelian sense. They're using it in terms methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism. Anything empirically measurable which is not significantly acted upon by human agency is considered part of "nature." If it is acted upon by human agency, we say it is "artificial" yet exists as part of nature. Methodological naturalism isn't meant to be an exhaustive description of reality.

At 6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

this is a scientific topic, not philisophic, so I'm assuming the scientific definition would need to be accepted rather than Aristotle's (although I love his work).

At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

Coyne is terrible at philosophy (as he consistently demonstrates with his forays into issues like free will, religion, and ethics) but I'm sure he's a much better scientist than philosopher. I'll read the book whenever I have time.

The Fool: There is NO Demarcation between Philosophy and Science.

Critical philosphy, that is.. Knowledge through critical analisys. Theorizing it self is always philosophy, That is Natural Science is within the framwork of philosophy, its not an option.

At 6/16/2012 4:59:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There is NO Demarcation between Philosophy and Science.

Critical philosphy, that is.. Knowledge through critical analisys. Theorizing it self is always philosophy, That is Natural Science is within the framwork of philosophy, its not an option.

I really do think you just ype to watch your own posts.

At 6/14/2012 10:45:47 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

Do you just like saying things for the sake of saying things?

Scientists aren't using "nature" in an old-school Aristotelian sense.

The Fool: oh really? Sorry, I didn't expect it to be over you head.

They're using it in terms methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism.

The Fool: oh yeah. Your right the non-existing stuff.

Anything empirically measurable which is not significantly acted upon by human agency is considered part of "nature."

The Fool: Oh you mean measureing conscious experiences. In this case the pre-concpetualized sense data, in our minds.

If it is acted upon by human agency, we say it is "artificial" yet exists as part of nature.

The Fool: Oh like a MEASUREMENT. I get it now. Oh I most of missed that part when I said 'Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.' But you are sharp one, I tell you that.

Methodological naturalism isn't meant to be an exhaustive description of reality.

The Fool: oh I thought I was all reality. When I mention it next time, I will make sure include that part.. Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack for it unless you ready for an intellecual smack!!!