Empirical Experimental Science – A Teleological Endeavor
by Techne
The project to try and banish teleology by mechanistic-cum-empiricist interpretations of physical science looks like…well, still a project. People have been and still are trying and trying to explain it away and some even call it "science". Yet, no matter how hard people try, teleology is still “grinning residually up at us like the frog at the bottom of the beer mug”. Never mind the ironic fact that trying to explain away teleology is a teleological, goal-directed enterprise in itself.
The Scholastic view of empirical experimental science is that it is in the business of discovering the nature or essence of substances and the active (and passive as described here) causal powers inherent in them. Causal powers of course point beyond themselves towards some end, their final cause[s]. So one can say that empirical experimental science is a goal-directed endeavor chasing after the essence or nature of things and their inherent active and passive causal powers. From this point of view there is no need to go look for it with empirical tests. Final causality, natural ends, dispositions, potencies, active and passive powers. etc. all are just features and facts of reality. Grinning frogs everywhere, Mike Gene would of course prefer rabbits 
.
So what is preventing people from accepting a thoroughgoing teleological and essentialist view of reality? There isn't anything from the empirical experimental sciences (EES) to suggest that we need to abandon it or that it is "unscientific". In fact, the natural end of EES itself is goal-directed towards increasing our knowledge of reality. What prevents people from dropping the non-teleological-cum-mechanistic-cum-materialist view of reality?
Special pleading? Ideology? Ignorance of an alternative? False and misleading caricatures? Fear? Perhaps something else?
August 16th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Easy: the teleological and essentialist view of reality inevitably concludes that God exists. And not one of those ancient "gods" who'd be at home in the typical beer commerical, either. Folks want a universe that's ordered enough to build high-def TVs, but not one that's ordered enough to be meaningful. So you pretend that science works without it and refuse to admit that there's Someone who knows better than you.
Comment by DL — August 16, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
August 16th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
This appears to agree with my contention that a limited form of teleology is entirely compatible with the empirical stance.
Indeed there is considerable evidence to support such a model.
The reluctance of the scientific community to allow of such hypotheses seems to be emotional rather than rational, stemming from our quite natural anthropocentric tendencies as well as from the taints of superstition with which teleology has been historically associated.
My latest book "The Goldilocks Effect" and also its predecessor "Unusual Perspectives" both advance arguments this notion.
Both are available as free e-book downloads from the "Unusual Perspectives" website.
Comment by peterkinnon — August 16, 2011 @ 10:09 pm
August 17th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
A lack of supporting evidence.
You act as if the cause of beaver dams and cave painting were rejected because they were teleological. But, no, they're accepted because they're supported by actual evidence.
Nothing at all. Have at it. We don't need to abandon a thoroughgoing teleological and essentialist view of reality because of anything about science, we just have abandoned it in the general case because after hundreds of years of effort, it hasn't led anywhere. But many, many people would be pleased as punch if future efforts changed that trend, so stop complaining and make it happen.
Comment by don provan — August 17, 2011 @ 2:54 pm
August 17th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Reality as evidence is just fine.
No I don't.
Err… who is complaining? There isn't anything from the empirical experimental sciences (EES) to suggest that those who accept a thoroughgoing teleological and essentialist view of reality need to abandon it. It is not unscientific. Those that do not adhere to such a view need not worry about the charge that it is somehow "unscientific".
Comment by Techne — August 17, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
August 17th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I thought you brought it up because you thought something needed to be improved. I stand corrected.
Comment by don provan — August 17, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
August 19th, 2011 at 6:52 am
I didn't bring it up because I thought something needed or did not need to be improved.
The point is that there isn't anything unscientific about a thoroughgoing teleological and essentialist view of reality and I am asking what prevents people from accepting such a view.
Comment by Techne — August 19, 2011 @ 6:52 am
August 19th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I don't see anything preventing people from accepting that view, so I think you're asking why people don't accept that view, right? Your suggestions boil down to them being irrational or ignorant. I suggested another possibility: their rational and thorough investigations have led them to conclude that it isn't true.
Because you asked the question, I assumed you thought it would be an improvement if people did accept that view, especially since the possible explanations you suggested were all negative. Most people would consider a lack of special pleading an improvement, for example. But since you don't think there's any need for improvement, my more positive suggestion is probably what you're looking for.
Comment by don provan — August 19, 2011 @ 2:24 pm
August 19th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
No.
Don't misrepresent what I said. I'll repeat again.
I didn't bring it up because I thought something needed or did not need to be improved.
Comment by Techne — August 19, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
August 19th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
I don't understand why or how you think I'm misrepresenting you, but obviously you aren't interested is making yourself clear. Since understanding you is my only motive here, there's no reason for me to continue.
Comment by don provan — August 19, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
August 20th, 2011 at 2:55 am
Now, now children.
Why do blog discussions nearly always deteriorate into silly bickering?
Don asks for evidence.
Techne, why don't you point to evidence?
Perhaps you cant actually think of any?
I certainly can! As pointed out (but apparent ignored) is that advanced in detail in "The Goldilocks Effect"
The argument presented there is not at all abstruse, although it does require a shift away from our usual anthropocentric mindset and I have "dumbed it down" as much as possible accordingly.
So Don, I will give you what I consider to be the prime evidential exhibit:
Glass.
There are, of course, other exhibits , some discussed in TGE and others treated at much greater length in "The Evolution of Chemistry" by Williams & Frausto Da Silva. Even as far back as 1913 Lawrence Henderson was considering such a model in "The Fitness of the Environment" There is a link to a list of other related reading to be found halfway down the home page of the "Unusual Perspectives" website.
Comment by peterkinnon — August 20, 2011 @ 2:55 am