/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7562293

Is English your first language?

>>7562296
Third actually, I'm sorry

>>7562293

If you want to be technical, eyes do not "see". Eyes detect photons.

"Seeing" is done in the brain. If you want to complain about primary functions, blame the brain.

I figured English wasn't your first language because your question is just ridiculous.

>>7562306
So would you still say regardless that eyes are structured for a goal beyond themselves, right?

>THIS IS GONNA BE GOOD.JPG

>>7562306

>So would you still say

I didn't say this.

>>7562327
"So would you say", then

>>7562293
You have it backwards.
>In biology why do we specify functions to specific items?
This isn't done in biology. It's done in English. Eyes are for seeing. Weights are for being heavy. They're both good at having mass, but you wouldn't use a lead weight to see with, and you wouldn't use your eye like a paperweight. The most useful thing your eye will do for you, is feed stimuli from the outside world to your brain. It's not that the eye is designed with the objective and sole purpose to see with, or that the goal to see with is baked into its being. The eye is used to see with.
>that's what it's used for
>that's what it's for

>>7562330

I believe in Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.

Kill yourself, Christian infidel.

>>7562293
Do these various biological items convert one type of information to another, do physical work, or provide structural support or environmental protection?


Ok then.

>>7562351
???

>>7562344
But then aren't you put in a situation where you must explain the quality of its design towards the goal we put it towards? You're still in a situation where the eyes will, unless impeded, cause for the sensing of photons. To use older language, that the eye is an efficient cause of the sensing of photons entails that sensing photons is the final cause of eyes.

Do you think that if I went into any scientific institute and insisted "eyes are for having mass" rather than "eyes are for seeing" I'd get an argument about usefulness and not an argument about the structure of the piece of internal biology? Seems like a stretch.

Further, to say "we use eyes" seems like a stress of language, like it was a voluntary choice and not something which comes to us naturally, even if we do shut our eyelids voluntarily.

>>7562383

What's your point, bro?

>>7562386
I'm trying to discuss final causality, obviously, and the discourse surrounding it in the sciences.

Don't bother, /sci/ and most modern scientists are ignorant or sophists on this kind of subject.

>>7562383
Asking us to explain why eyes exist?
The answer is to see with.
Seeing has distinct evolutionary advantages compared to not seeing in our environment.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question, but you are drunk and making a bunch of stupid threads while shitposting.

>>7562383
>that the eye is an efficient cause of the sensing of photons entails that sensing photons is the final cause of eyes
Something weird is happening here. Is there a distinction between an object's final cause and what it's simply good at doing?
Have another example. The roots of a succulent plant are used to pull water into the body of the plant. They're also extremely good at rotting if there's too much water around. Is the "final cause" of the roots to rot and kill the plant? It's what they do unless otherwise impeded, and they're very efficient at it. If you came in with this argument, expect an argument about usefulness. The roots benefit the plant by bringing in water and harm the plant by rotting, so we say that the roots are used for bringing in water. To say this isn't a stress of language and it doesn't imply choice.

>>7562389

Final causality implies finality.

What's final?

Do you even evolution, bro?

DO YOU EVEN FUCKING EVOLUTION, BRO?

Ge the fuck out of here.

This is literally 100% philosophy

>>7562383
Idiotic language games.

>>7562293

Structure and function, faget

fuck this thread is retarded

>>7562296
And how would you say that?
*Interested foreigner*

>>7562687

>And how would you say that?
*Interested foreigner*

>>7562306

>>7562410
>Is there a distinction between an object's final cause and what it's simply good at doing?
Well yes, the final cause ties into its efficient cause. If you're looking for something's natural final cause you look for what its the efficient cause of when not impeded, as mentioned in the early part of this post >>7562383

And it may have incidental traits (it rots, it has mass, etc) but none of that deals with being an efficient cause of something. It rotting or being drowned or simply having mass makes it the material cause, not the efficient one.

>To say this isn't a stress of language and it doesn't imply choice.
There is no real distinction given as to whether roots are used for bringing in water to say it's either a statement of purpose or benefit. They could go either way. A solid example of this being trees and their ability to produce and distribute seeds. It provides no real benefit to the tree itself.

>>7562427
Yes, Philosophy of Biology. Though I'd say it extends outside this as well.

>>7562461
>I don't understand it so it's stupid

>>7563152

>the final cause ties into its efficient cause
>something's natural final cause

Please learn evolution, or have some poor idiot here try to explain it to you.

>trees and their ability to produce and distribute seeds...provides no real benefit to the tree itself.

What if...the tree provides the benefits to the seeds, as opposed to the seeds not providing benefit to the tree?

Did I blow your mind?

By the way, philosophy isn't science. Please leave and learn about evolution and natural selection.

>>7563186
>Please learn evolution, or have some poor idiot here try to explain it to you.
Literally nothing about this conflicts with evolution. This is just your amateur mistakes due to not understanding the natural world well enough. Hell, you're dismissing a branch of the Philosophy of Science as not science. This is a fucking sophomore mistake. Learn a book.

>What if...the tree provides the benefits to the seeds, as opposed to the seeds not providing benefit to the tree?
This implies the plant acting towards something beyond itself naturally. The topic was usefulness. This would have to mean usefulness for its own sake or else it's acting for something beyond itself, which would imply having goals innately beyond itself.

You haven't blown anyone's mind, you have just ruined the original point of trying explain away final causality and accidentally supported the OP.

>expecting /sci/ to get meta on the topic of science
>ever

you're fighting an immovable ignorance you can't win against

>>7563221
They have to learn somehow.

>>7563213

As an editor, reading your shit is so annoying.

>Literally nothing about this conflicts with evolution.

For a faggot who continues to use the term "final", literally everything you write conflicts with evolution. Figuratively literally.

I already had to deal with idiot "philosophers" like you, having to deal with stupid fucking concepts like "animus" and shit like this. Never again.

>>7563221

You're like those faggot theists who complain that atheists are bullying them.

It took thousands of years of accumulated thought for the scientific method to become what it is today. And here you have the fucking gall of a 21st century armchair philosopher to say it's an "immovable ignorance".

Kill yourself, nigger.

>>7562293

Why do you assume that the physical world exists, OP?

I mean, I know it's fun to derail science by asking whether eyes exist to see, or whether seeing is something they happen to allow, but if we're going to play in our own piss, which is what asking questions like that is akin to, then why not just sit on you thumb and spend the day wondering if the pain in your ass is real or illusory?

It certainly would make this board more enjoyable for me if you were to spend your days doing than instead of engaging in this sort of repetitive idea-vomit you keep doing.

>>7562293
>Eyes also are very good at having mass, weight, and other traits.
That's not unique to eyes. All body parts have that exact set of aspects. You need category theory.

>>7562293
What primary purpose does the eye perform that is greater than sight?

>>7563316
I'm sorry my manner of speech is a problem for you but if that's the closest you're going to get to actually discussing the content of my posts you're just wasting your fucking time. Instead of just name calling and criticizing unimportant details why don't you actually add to the discourse at hand or just fuck off and do something useful with your time?

And you're dense as shit to think that anon is actually talking about religion. He said "meta". This discussion has been largely about the Philosophy of Science which is indeed very meta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

To make this worse, that this is about the Philosophy of Science (specifically biology) has been said outright multiple times in this short discussion and you still have no grasp of what we're talking about.

>It took thousands of years of accumulated thought for the scientific method to become what it is today. And here you have the fucking gall of a 21st century armchair philosopher to say it's an "immovable ignorance".

I thought you were an editor? Read that post again, it's short; the post makes the claim that /sci/ can't get meta on the topic of science. The subject is /sci/, not the scientific community as a whole. This isn't hard.

>Animus
I assume it was some shit "soul substance" talk and not about Jungian Psychology? If so, I'm sorry, that must have been painful. Regardless, while it explains your standoff-ish behavior it does not explain away your ignorance.

>>7563339
On what metric do we judge different performances and their quality?

>>7563346
By performance and specialization.

The eyes aren't very good at tasting food or pumping blood, are they?

>>7563346
Biology. This isn't a quantum physics thread.

>>7563346
bitch, are you too fucking stupid to understand the term "category" ???

>>7563347
Thanks for sharing. It was a simple question, I know, but I wanted to help out the OP by having someone give the answer succinctly in case the OP returns.
I'm not sure that answers the goal-directedness line the OP mentions but it certainly implies an answer. Thanks again.

>>7563363
No problem, OP.

>>7562416
>>7563186
Final cause means the aim or purpose of the object, not whether it's unchangeable. Look up Aristotle's four causes.

>>7563316
>demonstrating my point

>>7563398

DO YOU EVEN EVOLUTION, BRO?

THERE IS NO PURPOSE. SHIT IS USED BECAUSE IT CAN BE USED, BECAUSE THE ANIMAL DIDN'T DIE DUE TO THE MUTATION WHICH OCCURRED, OR EVEN HELPED PROMOTE THE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF THE ORGANISM, THUS IMPROVING THE FREQUENCY OF THE MUTATION AMONG THE POPULATION.

THERE IS NO PURPOSE, NIGGER.

>>7563408

Kill yourself. How many times must I repeat myself?

>>7563432
>saying things in caps
>making opposing claims without justifying them
>using meme phrases
>not realizing that evolution has been lauded as a wedding of morphology and teleology by many

I already explained your view here >>7563221

>>7563450

CAN YOU NOT HANDLE CAPS? I'M SORRY. I GREW UP THINKING THAT CAPS WERE SUPPOSED TO "SOUND" LIKE A WHISPER. I LIKE HOW WRITTEN FORMS OF COMMUNICATION CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE BRAIN AS SOUNDS AND EVEN CAUSE DISCOMFORT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH STIMULUS. NIFTY, HUH? CAN YOU READ THIS IN MORGAN FREEMAN'S VOICE, TOO?

>not realizing that evolution has been lauded as a wedding of morphology and teleology by many
>many

And Islam is the fastest growing religion.

There is no "meta". A more accurate description of what you wanted to type was:

>expecting /sci/ to get unscientific on the topic of science
>ever

>>7562293
Teleology is stupid. Please join the 21st century. Aristotle was wrong about just about everything.

Evolution gives answers to "how" questions, not "why" questions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. Things don't evolve in a certain direction. Evolution is just the process whereby random genetic variations due to copying errors and sexual reproduction confer a reproductive advantage. It appeals to no "essence," "function" in the sense you are using it, or "goals." It is not goal directed (with the possible exception of artificial selection). If you think it is, I recommend that you brush up on your Mendel and your biology in general.

Teleology is unfalsifiable. It doesn't explain anything, and it also doesn't provide any reasonable explanation for anything we can't explain without it. It violates parsimony. There is no place for it in science, and any interpretation of evolution which appeals to it is not orthodox, scientific, or even rational given the data that we have.

3/10. You got me to respond.

>>7563450
>evolution is the opposite of teleology idiot
The only reason a gene propagates is because it causes its own propagation. There is no purpose, just the procession of causes.

>>7563152
No, just philosophy. 100% philosophy, no biology needed.

>>7563221
Epistemology isn't a science. Shitposting is a sort of science, but it's not the kind of empirical science this board is meant for.

Philosophy of science belongs on /x/. Until /x/ can make a testable hypothesis, philosophy of science is off-topic.

>>7563487
Philosophy of science is fine here. This is just a troll thread and has nothing to do with any mainstream phil of sci, which actually does normally take an informed view of science and the scientific method into account.

Biology is full of statements like that, qualitative statements that are debatable and subject to opinion, this is because it uses words to describe its object instead of formal symbols.

>>7563432
Shit, Anon, will you calm down. None of this has to do with natural selection because while adaptation was helped along through natural selection the same system from which we claim "function" to organ can be applied to the first of something as well, making discussing natural selection utterly useless to talk about. The only remaining claim you have is there is mutations because of that it's purposeless, which is an unsubstantial claim.

>>7563467
>There is no "meta"
>calling it unscientific

"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science."

Explain to me how this is unscientific. You literally cannot get off the ground and begin to work with empirical data without it. This is entirely absurd.

>>7563500
It doesn't have to be like that though. It's an abuse of language to do so (like most philosophical problem formulations).

>>7563505
Ludwig?

>>7563513
Das stimmt

>>7563496
Yes, but don't tell THEM that. They'll never leave.

>>7563487
>Until /x/ can make
>testable hypothesis
>philosophy of science is off-topic

>>7563503

>ultimate purpose of science

Allahu akbar. Why must science have a purpose?

>>7563479
>OP asks we grasp function when trying to explain parts of biology
>asks if that function exists objectively
>gets this whole post
Holy shit why are so upset with seemingly honest and curious inquiry? Throw your baggage somewhere else.

>Teleology is unfalsifiable. It doesn't explain anything, and it also doesn't provide any reasonable explanation for anything we can't explain without it. It violates parsimony. There is no place for it in science, and any interpretation of evolution which appeals to it is not orthodox, scientific, or even rational given the data that we have.
Teleology is falsifible (you can misjudge what the efficient cause is), it's a highly useful method of explaining things and extremely practical in explaining things than without. If it wasn't then most discussion in biology wouldn't be using teleological phrases and you wouldn't have people justifying it as "shorthand" for non-teleological logic.

>There is no place for it in science, and any interpretation of evolution which appeals to it is not orthodox, scientific, or even rational given the data that we have.
Nigga, our current understanding is that it's really just a chain of efficient causes. This makes no rational sense as efficient causes need final causation logically.

And the OP said nothing of essence. What in the world are you doing?

>>7563525
You're not getting the line. The purpose of science comment isn't relating to "is it useful for society?" or some social planning but related to if it's possible to understand the universe and how. Very basic and meta stuff that's required to get science off the ground.

>>7563518
>I don't like people peddling pop science so lets become a wall of ignorance at everything we think is it so we can retain our bubble

Holy fuck man don't make >>7563221 so true. This is embarrassing to be coming from a board on science.

>>7563534

Man, you're so bad at trying to be deep.

This is why no one takes philosophers seriously. This is why everyone makes fun of persons with philosophy degrees.

>>7563539
>trying to be deep
>that

If you're struggling this much with basic concepts gone through in early science and somewhat throughout the hundreds of years I suggest you actually read up on it a little bit before you end up looking stupid. It would be educational and useful to actually grasp the basics of science as we know it.

>>7563536
I specifically wrote that post to cohere to that post. If people want to think /sci/ anons are ignorant, that's their prerogative. It doesn't come into discussion here except in threads that never had a chance at being about science to begin with.

I don't like people peddling pop science to get out regardless of whether or not you think yourself a rational person or not. Rationality and philosophy don't make for good scientific discourse.

>>7563550

You think we don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you think our dismissal of it is merely because we didn't understand it well enough.

It's like theism. If only were more OPEN to religion, then we'd get it. But atheists are so closed minded, they remain ignorant of the knowledge and truth of Jesus Christ.

Fucking Muslims.

>>7563580
I am not a fan of it either, I have a lot of issues with the stupidity that comes out of the Philosophy of Mind and the other wacky bullshit that gets peddled in the world. However, final causality like what the original poster was talking about is a legit issue which is why I decided to back OP. It's hardly talked about and loaded with internal biases and misinformation. It is one of the more debated issues that exist in the sciences once you get away from stupid mainstream shit like qualia and Paley.

The sheer fact people are peddling evolution as an answer to this shows this goes well into the sciences. This is why it deals with the Philosophy of Science and specifically the branch on biology.

Getting rid of formal and final causality in how we understand the world is one of the most defining parts of modernity and yet it still struggles to overcome it, to the point we have people in the scientific community trying to justify using phrases that imply a final cause without them actually meaning it.

We shouldn't be acting like dumbasses overtly because pop science threads are shit because we'll end up attacking some things that aren't by mistake. We're more careful taking threads on individually.

>>7563588
My dismissal isn't about you being open to ideas but about being educated. People who aren't make stupid claims when they shouldn't often. A good example of that would be >>7563539
And of course this goes for any topic. As others have already said /sci/ gets a lot of people who are like that about the natural world. It's sad.

>>7563530
>Holy shit why are so upset with seemingly honest and curious inquiry? Throw your baggage somewhere else.
I'm not upset. I'm responding to a loaded question posed by someone who is demonstrating textbook magical thinking, and providing a benefit to any onlookers who are not informed about where OP is getting these ridiculous assumptions.

>Teleology is falsifible (you can misjudge what the efficient cause is), it's a highly useful method of explaining things and extremely practical in explaining things than without. If it wasn't then most discussion in biology wouldn't be using teleological phrases and you wouldn't have people justifying it as "shorthand" for non-teleological logic.
That's not what falsifiability means in this context. I'm not saying that you can't state obviously statements involving teleological assumptions. I'm saying the framework of teleology itself is unfalsifiable.

Example:
Proposition 1: An evil demon controlled my mind and made me draw a round square yesterday.
Proposition 2: Whenever people commit murder, an evil demon is controlling their mind.

You are talking about falsifying something of the first form (the paradox is thrown in to show that it's false regardless of the evil demon bit).

I'm talking about something of the form of P2. It's ludicrous, but no amount of empirical data or experiment (or mathematical/rational proof) will falsify it. It's not even a candidate for an explanation to anything or for science/math.

>>7563602 cont.
>Nigga, our current understanding is that it's really just a chain of efficient causes. This makes no rational sense as efficient causes need final causation logically.
No, it's not, and no it doesn't. You are couching the argument in your terms and thereby assuming what you would like to demonstrate. Define efficient cause. Then prove that they actually exist in reality. Finally, demonstrate that it is a logical consequence that if what you are describing exists, then necessarily there are final causes.

>And the OP said nothing of essence. What in the world are you doing?
You apparently don't even understand the anachronistic metaphysics you are spouting. In this view (which is Aristotelean) a thing's function and causes are determined by it's ESSENTIAL and accidental properties (mostly on the former). This assumes both essences and a matter/form distinction. Neither of these assumptions can be substantiated. Go ahead and try if you'd like.

>>7563580
>I don't like people peddling pop science so get out
Sorry, typo.

>>7563600

Cry.

>>7563530
>seemingly honest and curious inquiry
>seemingly

Is it just me or are there five different people on tonight that can be dismissed based on the phrasing of the first line of their post?

>>7563602
>I'm saying the framework of teleology itself is unfalsifiable.
My bad, I misunderstood. However, how could teleology be unfalsifiable if the ground it sits on - final causality - is still argued? Modern science is partly defined by a rejection of final causality and it was rejected by arguments that seemed to falsify it.

>>7563603
>You are couching the argument in your terms and thereby assuming what you would like to demonstrate.
The thread is about a Aristotlean term (final causality) and so I used language fitting for the discussion.

>Define efficient cause.
"An agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change." Ex. The efficient cause of a statue's shape is the sculptor

>Then prove that they actually exist in reality
Push something in the room you're in. You caused real change while not being the thing you pushed and the location of the thing you pushed not being in that position before you did that. The term for you in that situation is the efficient cause.

>Finally, demonstrate that it is a logical consequence that if what you are describing exists, then necessarily there are final causes.

For this I'll talk about ice and the cold as a basic example. Just try to grasp the underlying logic: Ice produces the cold necessarily. The ice, thus, is the efficient cause of the cold. Likewise, the final cause (the purpose or aim of an action or the end toward which a thing naturally develops) of the ice would be the cold. The ice doesn't produce bile or fire by necessity, thus we can say that the final cause of cold is connected to the ice by necessity. Thus to toss out final causality assumes that anything could come from ice. However, if anything could come from an efficient cause then we cannot grasp what does anything or their relation of causation. It becomes highly irrational.

Pt. 1/2

>>7563662
Pt 2/2

Now I assert scientists do support and believe in final causality on a functional level but there is a widespread denial of its existence that in part defines modernity academically. A support of using the logic practically while denying the reality of the logic and its application (much like how most biologists use teleological language while denying teleology). They follow Francis Bacon' misunderstanding of terms and believe empirical science to deal with just material and efficient causes. Thus, things that look goal-directed in nature aren't actually goal-directed but an ever-complex assortment of actors playing parts (Saying final causality can be explained by efficient causes). And there is legitimacy to the claim but it's more complex than that.

>You apparently don't even understand the anachronistic metaphysics you are spouting.
I do grasp the Aristotelean language, I'm criticizing you for what is obviously you assuming much of the OP from the original post that wasn't a given. Just because he mentioned goal-directedness in the OP and in a later post says the term "final causality" you begin to criticize hylomorphism as a whole to the guy. It's stupid and, as I said, you need to throw your baggage somewhere else.

>>7563621
>Barbara Palvin
Cute as shit.

>>7563638
I stand by it. You can't tell hostility or ill-intent from the OP post.

>mfw 67 replies

>>7563666
>You can't tell hostility or ill-intent from the OP post.
No, but I can read the assumptions your mind makes in order to respond to the archetype you've supposed me to be.

>>7563670
>the archetype you've supposed me to be.

Well you assumed the OP a troll while assuming the argument the OP was making (I'm sure you realize that final causality and teleology ARE two different things), and began to take on that argument you think is going on in greater knowledge than is assumed of the OP given he asked such a low ball question.

There is no doubt you are pretty educated and have some internal baggage - likely due to any invading God Squad that comes around in /sci/ or in America or popscifags - that does upset you to some degree.

So yes, you fit the archetype fairly well without being mad as shit. I'm glad you can read me as well. It's important to be on the same page.

>>7563678
>I'm sure you realize that final causality and teleology ARE two different things
I would if I knew what they were. I'm the guy that just came in from /x/ tonight. I'm assuming it's not that hard to pick out which posts have been mine tonight. I'm enjoying the pace of this board so far.

>>7563662
>My bad, I misunderstood. However, how could teleology be unfalsifiable if the ground it sits on - final causality - is still argued? Modern science is partly defined by [something it is totally unconcerned with]
The same way people still argue that astrology is legitimate.
It wasn't rejected because it was falsified, it was rejected because it is unnecessary in any explanation of the physical world and precisely because it is unfalsifiable.

>The thread is about a Aristotlean term (final causality) and so I [fallacy]
Sure you did, but that doesn't mean you aren't begging the question when now trying to establish the basis for Aristotelean metaphysics now that you've been challenged to do so.

>>Define efficient cause.
>"An agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change."

>>Then prove that they actually exist in reality
>Push something in the room you're in. ( … )
Okay. We can call it that if you want.

>>Finally, ( ... )

>Just try to grasp the underlying logic: Ice produces the cold necessarily. [Clear misunderstanding of thermodynamics and logic goes here] Thus to toss out final causality assumes that anything could come from ice.

Ice does not produce coldness. Coldness causes water to become a solid. Due to thermodynamics (laws of nature), heat (energy) tends to dissipate when not in equilibrium. The energy required to melt ice is already present in your glass of water if it is at room temperature. Since the ice has less energy, the water cools as the heat melts the ice as the system approaches thermal equilibrium. Therefore the final cause of ice cannot be producing coldness, because coldness precedes ice formation, and the ice never "acts" to cool anything but rather the energy in the environment heats the ice and becomes slightly lower as a result.

No, we do not say that anything comes from ice if we deny retrocausality. Are you dense?

>>7563666
>Pt 2/2

>Now I assert scientists do support and believe in final causality on a functional level but there is a widespread denial of its existence that in part defines modernity academically. A support of using the logic practically while denying the reality of the logic and its application (much like how most biologists use teleological language while denying teleology) ( ... )
There are no final causes to explain. If you think any mainstream scientific theory appeals to them (relies on Aristotelean metaphysics) you have a very poor grasp of said theory. Yet again, you need to explain why efficient causes, as you've defined them necessarily entail final causes.

>I do grasp the Aristotelean language, I'm criticizing you for what is obviously you assuming much of the OP from the original post that wasn't a given. Just because he mentioned goal-directedness in the OP and in a later post says the term "final causality" you begin to criticize hylomorphism as a whole to the guy. It's stupid and, as I said, you need to throw your baggage somewhere else.

There's no baggage here. You may not like what I'm saying, but that's too bad. I'm not assuming too much at all. There has been a single source of teleology in the history of Western thought which every single proponent of it borrowed from. The premises of it (hylomorphism and a particular type of essentialism) are absurd. There are zero non-Aristotelean derived teleological frameworks which have made it into modernity in the Western world.

It helps a lot that OP insinuates essential properties by talking about "primary functions." Also, both you and the OP are taking statements from biologists clearly meant in one way to pretend they are meant another. This is equivocation. Aristotle has a few things to say about that ;)

>>7563707
>The same way people still argue that astrology is legitimate.
Please.
You would make such a rash claim to anything. Likewise, you could say that modern science consistently struggles to find the best way of explaining away final causality but such unsubstantiated claims get us no where.

And further, final causality being rejected dealt very little with perceiving it as unnecessary. Any reference to it being unnecessary was driven by the modernist notion of wanting to command nature and thus a focus on application rather than wisdom (No doubt you know of the agenda many of the Enlightenment thinkers had). They changed the game, not the systems they were working with. This had its influence but it couldn't get anywhere without finding a way to reject it academically and there was much use come the advent of Newtonian physics to make claims that they weren't consistent with reality. They were falsified (or at least people attempted to) and that's unavoidable to work against history with this point.

>Ice does not produce coldness. Coldness causes water to become a solid.
I was worried that example might be written too simplistically and lead to shit like this. I suppose fire and heat would be a better example but I expected you to look at the underlying logic and not screw around with me. Ice and the coldness coming from it (ignoring the coldness that generating it) were supposed to be simple examples of a non-sentient agent of change and a change it makes naturally. You're overthinking the scenario entirely to the point of adding to it while not rejecting the underlying logic. Hell, you miss my point entirely chiming in at the end "and becomes slightly lower as a result".

Let me try again with you, in a more simplistic way so you grasp it easier:

Pt. 1/2

>>7563778

>Finally, demonstrate that it is a logical consequence that if what you are describing exists, then necessarily there are final causes.

If efficient causation exists then causation exists.

Non-sentient efficient causes in the world have a specific things they do either when applied in situations or simply get done by existing. These thing, are limited in scope based on the capabilities of the thing in question. Thus, the capabilities are innate to it and they stick to these capabilities and not others out of logical necessity. These results they are the efficient causes of are final causes as I defined to you last post. As these results develop naturally and by logically necessity then the title of final causation is fitting.

Now final causation is necessary as without it we cannot understand causality. Rejecting final causality means rejecting results developed from efficient causes that came about from logical necessity. At that point there is an undefined amount of results possible from the efficient cause and because of that we cannot grasp the full extent of causation and isolate players in causation. We cannot grasp the details of causation.

>There are no final causes to explain...

And you're very mistaken and wrong, but I won't judge you harshly for biases they teach you in schools.

See how this kind of argumentation is useless? Unsubstantiated claims and "nuh uhs" are the worst, right?

>There's no baggage here.
Whatever help you feel better, man.

>There are zero non-Aristotelean derived teleological frameworks which have made it into modernity in the Western world.
We're still in the midst of shitting our pants over final causality. Still adamant to just sit on it and now making some arguments as to why that's not them that smells. I don't expect teleological frameworks to survive in a system that rejects the basics for it to exist. Teleology was never the main topic at hand, no matter how much you wanted it to be.

>>7563778
To add to this, if you don't think usefulness and commanding nature didn't become the prime drive of the sciences over wisdom and understanding nature please read Descartes and you're see why he's considered the father of modernity.

>>7563778
>Please.
>You would make such a rash claim to anything. Likewise, you could say that modern science consistently struggles to find the best way of explaining away final causality but such unsubstantiated claims get us no where.
There's nothing to explain away! Final causality is supposed to itself be an explanation, but there's no need for it.

>And further, final causality being rejected dealt very little with perceiving it as unnecessary.
No, it's because it became clear that we could explain natural phenomena without talking about inanimate objects having purposes and goals.

>I was worried that example might be written too simplistically and lead to shit like this.
Perhaps because it was a complete misunderstanding of how the physical world works?
>I suppose fire and heat would be a better example
It wouldn't have been.
>but I expected you to look at the underlying logic and not screw around with me.
Make a cogent argument and I won't reject it.
>Ice and the coldness coming from it (ignoring the coldness that generating it) were supposed to be simple examples of a non-sentient agent of change and a change it makes naturally.
The reason objects behave the way they do is not because they have an innate purpose. It's because the world has structure in the form of natural laws. There doesn't have to be a purpose or reason (in the sense of a final cause).

>You're overthinking the scenario entirely to the point of adding to it while not rejecting the underlying logic.
I specifically pointed out how your logic was flawed. Since ice is formed as a result of the cold, the cold is the efficient cause of the ice. Therefore it can't be the final cause (to use your terminology). I don't even have to reject your framework to show that this is a bad argument (which I do, but if you can actually come up with something better maybe you'll get to see).


>Let me try again with you, in a more simplistic way so you grasp it easier:
Oh boy here we go

>>7563789
Starting with a fallacy is a good way to form wrong hypotheses.

>>7563807
>but there's no need for it.
And yet final causality is consistently used by scientists and the lay today and is actually justified as a useful shorthand. There is need for it even by people who openly reject it, Anon.

>No, it's because it became clear that we could explain natural phenomena without...
It totally became clear in the 17th century when they totally couldn't make an argument and instead began arguing in all manner of strange ways to the point of denying causality? I'm somehow doubtful. As I said, the name of the game was changed and became the focus on application and so things that were mainly focused on wisdom and understanding the world and not ready application were tossed by the wayside to some degree. What really did it in was the failure of Enlightenment and modern non-scholastics to grasp the material they were trying to dismiss (Note Bacon's consistent screw ups using and understanding terms) and this led to academic dismissals which were bullshit, to say the least.

>The reason objects behave the way they do is...
Are you dense? The natural end result of an efficient cause is its final cause. This is indeed constructed by natural laws. You're actually agreeing with me now, but seemingly confused about the use of the word "purpose". This is why people focused on terms like "end" or "goal-directedness" rather than purpose. It's easy to confuse with divine command kind of "purpose".

>I specifically pointed out how your logic was flawed. Since ice is...
This is what I'm talking about. You're arguing details without taking on the underlying logic. You've now explained why it's more fitting to make the cold the efficient cause. This does not change the claim that you cannot understand efficient causes without final causality. The very fact that you established the necessary results of the efficient cause ends up implying the same final cause I mention. You cannot grasp its results necessarily if you have no grasp of its final cause.

>>7563822
I give myself breaks at 4am.

>>7563780
>If efficient causation exists then causation exists.
Woah, woah, woah. Stop right there.

Now you're diverging from the definition we agreed upon earlier. You never said efficient causation was a subset of some larger thing, and you certainly didn't define it that way.

>Non-sentient efficient causes in the world have a specific things they do either when applied in situations or simply get done by existing. These thing, are limited in scope based on the capabilities of the thing in question.
Wrong, they are limited in scope due to the laws of nature and the environment they are in. Lead bars float around in 0g. Boiling points change at different altitudes. Time passes at a different rate depending on spacetime curvature and speed.

>Now final causation is necessary as without it we cannot understand causality. Rejecting final causality means rejecting results developed from efficient causes that came about from logical necessity.
No it doesn't. I can say that I kicked the wastebasket over on the way to the bathroom after I woke up without resorting to saying that the wastebasket was knocked over for a purpose. In fact, no property of the wastebasket at all (except perhaps its mass, which, spoiler alert, is likely a result of the Higgs mechanism) caused this. And certainly that my wastebasket is a wastebasket is incidental. I could have easily used it as a bucket or a hat.

>>There are no final causes to explain...

>And you're very mistaken and wrong, but I won't judge you harshly for biases they teach you in schools.
lol

>>7563835
Try to give everyone else a break every hour or so instead.

>>7563807
>>7563839 cont.

>See how this kind of argumentation is useless? Unsubstantiated claims and "nuh uhs" are the worst, right?
Yes to the former. You're the one that's making unsubstantiated claims. Really, all they merit is "nope." Just talking out of your ass like you've been doing really is a useless form of making arguments.

>Whatever help you feel better, man.
I feel great. Have you deluded yourself into thinking you've said anything convincing in the course of our discussion? I'm being rather magnanimous toward you right now, which I wouldn't do if I were in a sour mood. I normally ignore idiots who can't string together arguments and slept through chemistry.

>Teleology was never the main topic at hand, no matter how much you wanted it to be.
Final causality IS teleological. How is this so hard for you?

>>7563839
>biases they teach you in schools
Thanks based /sci/ anon. It's nice to see someone taking the time to disassemble rampant fallacy. Wish I had time to read your full post, but just the things you quote let me know how fallacious their posts are.

>implying bias is the only thing that can be taught
It's a wonder these people can find /sci/ at all.

>>7563842
>Have you deluded yourself into thinking you've said anything convincing in the course of our discussion?
They have, yeah. It's a special form of delusion I've encountered on /x/ before.

>>7563834
>And yet final causality is consistently used by scientists and the lay today and is actually justified as a useful shorthand. There is need for it even by people who openly reject it, Anon.
It's not justified. It's poor style and abuse of language. Final causation isn't what is meant. There is no need for it. Do you understand what shorthand means?

>It totally became clear in the 17th century...
Who gives a shit? If you know anything about logic at all, you would realize that the history of something that isn't specifically about a historical event has nothing to with its satisfiability.

>Are you dense? The natural end result of an efficient cause is its final cause.
You keep repeating this mantra. Are you really this bad at comprehension? Prove. It.

>This is indeed constructed by natural laws. You're actually agreeing with me now,
No, I'm not. Are you okay?

>but seemingly confused about the use of the word "purpose". This is why people focused on terms like "end" or "goal-directedness" rather than purpose. It's easy to confuse with divine command kind of "purpose".
Is it really so hard to grasp that future events do not cause effects in the past? Therefore the outcome, result, etc. has no bearing on the description/explanation of any event in question. If you'd like to deny this, I can whip up a reduction to the absurd for you in about 5 seconds.

>This is what I'm talking about. You're arguing details without taking on the underlying logic.
I don't think you know what that means. I gave you:
p and q are mutually exclusive.
r iff p.
q.
Therefore not r.

This is only about logic.
p: The final cause of ice is to produce coldness
q: The efficient cause of ice is coldness.
r: Ice is caused because it produces coldness

>You've now explained why it's more fitting to make the cold the efficient cause.
I hope it's clear to you why by now.

>>7563858 cont.
>This does not change the claim that you cannot understand efficient causes without final causality.
You're right. It doesn't. Can you actually back the claim up at some point?

>The very fact that you established the necessary results of the efficient cause ends up implying the same final cause I mention.
Okay. Show. Me. How. If all of this is as necessary as you say, then prove it! If you're talking about logical entailment. Write me a formal proof. Because at this point it's very obvious you can't make an argument to save your life.

>You cannot grasp its results necessarily if you have no grasp of its final cause.
I grasp the results fine, thank you very much. Guess what? No final cause necessary

>>7563858
>No, I'm not.
I haven't been reading your posts, but if the other anon claims you've said something that agrees with what they were saying, I'm going to take their word as an authority on the meaning of your words over your word any day.

>>7563839
>You never said efficient causation was a subset of some larger thing, and you certainly didn't define it that way.

I figured it was a simple judgement we would both grasp immediately.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/causation
There is no way to grasp this notion without grasping agents in some way, shape, or form. I don't think I have diverged at all and if I have I apologize but you're going to have to explain how. Please.

>Wrong, they are limited in scope due to the laws of nature and the environment they are in.
?
Nothing about final causality or teleology works outside of the laws of nature and the environment they are in. In fact, I made room for environmental differences by talking about application. Your criticism falls flat. At the same time I must remind you that an innate final cause as dealing with a natural function is the type of thing's end unless impeded by outside influence. Grasping that is a challenge, of course.

>No it doesn't. I can say that I kicked the wastebasket over on the way to the bathroom after I woke up without resorting to saying that the wastebasket was knocked over for a purpose.
Of course, as the wastebasket has logically necessary results due to the laws of nature and it's form. We're not dealing with any grasp of natural purpose in this scenario but you still have things play out to their logically necessary end, hence a kind of final causality. You're not grasping "purpose" correctly in light of final causality, that seems to be your whole issue. For some reason you think this is at odds to the laws of nature, as if purpose was some mystical guidance.

>>7563842
>I feel great.
Wonderful, keep at it.

>Final causality IS teleological. How is this so hard for you?
As I've already told you, final causality is the foundation of teleology but it isn't itself teleology. Someone asking about final causes doesn't mean the whole teleological ball of wax.

>>7563868
>Someone asking about final causes doesn't mean the whole teleological ball of wax.
I literally have no reason to believe you have even a primitive notion of either of those words. If you'd understood any of what the other anon was saying, I'd expect you to be able to formulate a reply that lets ME understand what your stance is, while yet I haven't bothered to look up "teleological" or "final causes." I'm not seeing you make an actual claim that can be argued or supported or suggested in any form. You could, without knowing the definition of either word, say exactly that sentence without knowing anything about the actual concepts. I see literally no reason to believe you have even a primitive grasp on the concepts you're beating at the bush about.

>>7563868
>In thinking about the four causes, we have come to understand that Aristotle offers a teleological explanation of the production of a bronze statue; that is to say, an explanation that makes a reference to the telos or end of the process. Moreover, a teleological explanation of the type sketched above does not crucially depend upon the application of psychological concepts such as desires, beliefs and intentions. This is important because artistic production provides Aristotle with a teleological model for the study of natural processes, whose explanation does not involve beliefs, desires, intentions or anything of this sort. Some have contended that Aristotle explains natural process on the basis of an inappropriately psychological teleological model; that is to say, a teleological model that involves a purposive agent who is somehow sensitive to the end. This objection can be met if the artistic model is understood in non-psychological terms. In other words, Aristotle does not psychologize nature because his study of the natural world is based on a teleological model that is consciously free from psychological factors. (For further information on the role that artistic production plays in developing an explanatory model for the study of nature, see Broadie 1987, pp. 35–50.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FinCauDef

>>7563858
>It's not justified.
I'm not against you there. I don't particularly like scientists trying to explain biology to people and passing their wording off as metaphors. It's an awful practice but I understand the frsutration of trying to figure out new wordings for everything and their inability to do in many cases.

>Who gives a shit?
...Well me and hopefully you, as it hinges on your point there. You can't be saying "it was rejected because ___" and then when commenting on the time period it was rejected say "Who cares about history?"

>You keep repeating this mantra. Are you really this bad at comprehension? Prove. It.

I explained the details to you already. Must I prove to you empirically that things continue to do what they were made to do as per the laws of nature unless impeded? That the final cause of a seed is the tree and the final cause of a falling weighted object is to land? Because if you have time I can get you seeds. You bring the wastebasket.

Here is a discussion on the matter from someone working in philosophy about efficient causation requiring final causation.
http://philosophy.ucr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Does-Efficient-Causation-Presuppose-Final-Causation.pdf


>No, I'm not.
>he thinks he's not

>Therefore the outcome...
So on normal circumstances the seed won't become the tree? It has potential to become an elephant? A fire? Myself? No it doesn't. This is absolutely stupid. You need to play with the circumstances to grasp such a thing. To disagree with this despite would to be rejecting the laws of nature.

>If you'd like to deny this, I can whip up a reduction to the absurd for you in about 5 seconds.
I'll give you 20. I'm not talking about the future effecting the past. I'm implying determinism.

>I don't think you know what that means. I gave you:
This is flawed by its structure and ignoring that the work you did changed what is the efficient cause, didn't change any discussion about efficient causes.

>>7563912
>I'm not against you there. I don't particularly like scientists trying to explain biology to people and passing their wording off as metaphors. It's an awful practice but I understand the frsutration of trying to figure out new wordings for everything and their inability to do in many cases.
There's no inability.

>>Who gives a shit?
>...Well me and hopefully you, as it hinges on your point there. You can't be saying "it was rejected because ___" and then when commenting on the time period it was rejected say "Who cares about history?"
Talking about the transition from scholasticism during the enlightenment period does nothing to explain why Aristotelean metaphysics fails to satisfy the basic requirements of modern science. I'm not talking about the reasons people thought they were moving away from Aristotle, but rather the actual reason his metaphysics is an inadequate way to understand the world.

>I explained the details to you already. Must I prove to you empirically that things continue to do what they were made to do as per the laws of nature unless impeded? That the final cause of a seed is the tree and the final cause of a falling weighted object is to land? Because if you have time I can get you seeds. You bring the wastebasket.
Things in the natural world are not typically made or designed. There is no final cause of a seed. Nor of a weighted object. In fact objects only have weight relative to more massive objects. The laws of nature do not determine that seeds grow into trees or "that weighted objects typically land." They describe how these objects interact with each other physically.

>>7563948 cont.

>Here is a discussion on the matter from someone working in philosophy about efficient causation requiring final causation.
>http://philosophy.ucr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Does-Efficient-Causation-Presuppose-Final-Causation.pdf
What a surprise. A Thomist trying to salvage the shambles of his faith by bastardizing both Aquinas and the science he is addressing.

>>No, I'm not.
>>he thinks he's not
Yes, and it's a justified true belief.

>>Therefore the outcome...
>So on normal circumstances the seed won't become the tree? It has potential to become an elephant? A fire? Myself? No it doesn't. This is absolutely stupid. You need to play with the circumstances to grasp such a thing. To disagree with this despite would to be rejecting the laws of nature.
Yes, in fact all of the parts of a seed, the fundamental building blocks, were once inside of a star somewhere. There is nothing special about the subatomic particles in the seed, the elephant, or you.

>>If you'd like to deny this, I can whip up a reduction to the absurd for you in about 5 seconds.
>I'll give you 20. I'm not talking about the future effecting the past. I'm implying determinism.
Determinism does not imply final causation or teleology.

>>I don't think you know what that means. I gave you:
>This is flawed by its structure and ignoring that the work you did changed what is the efficient cause, didn't change any discussion about efficient causes.
No it isn't. How about you point out where instead of making more baseless claims?

Also, did you read the SEP article? It might dispel your ignorance on the matter of final causation requiring teleology.

>>7563948
Growth is a type of physical interaction. Thanks for swapping out with Nubti though. You seem like you still have brains left.

>>7563952
>No it isn't. How about you point out where instead of making more baseless claims?
For people of your variety? What purpose could there be in bothering of your kin?

>Yes, in fact all of the parts of a seed, the fundamental building blocks, were once inside of a star somewhere. There is nothing special about the subatomic particles in the seed, the elephant, or you.
By your own reasoning you have testified that the essential particles of this discussion are not parts, but assemblages of parts. What holds meaning is the seed itself, which is a unique arrangement of atoms. While the parts mean nothing apart, they gestalt into a coherent whole about which we can reason abstractly.

Undefinition is not your strong suit.

>>7563954
Okay. If want to cherry pick, I can be pedantic. No seed becomes a tree. The seed is a tree. It has the genetics of a tree. A seed that is not a tree seed will not become a tree. The laws of nature do not dictate that it will turn into a tree. They describe that, since the seed got all of its genetic information (with random variation) from a tree, that it is a tree seed. The tree didn't form the seed in order to plant another tree. It formed the seed because the lineage of trees (and precursor organisms) before it randomly varied in such a way as to reproduce more efficiently in the given environment. This wasn't purposeful. It wasn't in order to do anything. It just happened coincidentally. But since it did happen, the tree now passes on its genetics in the form of a seed because that was the result random variations that took place before it, and it is a product of those variations. Likewise the seed. Wasn't that neat how I appealed to zero final causes or teleology anywhere, yet have a consistent explanation?

>>7562299
which are the first two?

>>7563964
>Wasn't that neat how I appealed to zero final causes or teleology anywhere, yet have a consistent explanation?
It was until you referred to your ability to do so as if it could ever have entered into the discussion as a relevant particle.

>>7563957
>>No it isn't. How about you point out where instead of making more baseless claims?
>For people of your variety? What purpose could there be in bothering of your kin?
I don't know, maybe to give an appearance of knowing what you're talking about for a change?

>>Yes, in fact all of the parts of a seed, the fundamental building blocks, were once inside of a star somewhere. There is nothing special about the subatomic particles in the seed, the elephant, or you.
>By your own reasoning you have testified that the essential particles of this discussion are not parts, but assemblages of parts. What holds meaning is the seed itself, which is a unique arrangement of atoms. While the parts mean nothing apart, they gestalt into a coherent whole about which we can reason abstractly.
The seed holds no meaning. You are projecting meaning onto the natural world. There is structure, yes. Our words and propositions denote things, yes. But the seed has no inherent purpose. It has no objective meaning. It simply has structure and has relations to other things in the natural world. These aren't good or bad. These aren't true or false. They simply are.

>Undefinition is not your strong suit.
Could you try to actually give a decent rebuttal at some point? This is just getting tiresome. I feel like I'm kicking an infant repeatedly.

>>7563971
>There is structure, yes.
That is meaning.

>>7563976
Yes, just like when I throw some bones on the ground and they line up just so the big man in the sky mansion is giving me a sign to go take revenge for Waco.

>>7563979
Yeah, that's another valid meaning. Maybe not one that coheres to natural logic, but it's means something to anyone that's desperate to assign it that meaning.

>>7563860

>Write me a formal proof.
I'll see how I do this late.

1. Causation exists (empirical premise)

2. Efficient Cause, Final Cause, Material Cause, and Formal Cause are terms to use to explain causation: An Efficient Cause explains the agent which triggered the change, the Final Cause would be an end toward which a thing naturally develops, the Material Cause is the material the thing is made out of, and the Formal Cause would be the shape of the thing. (Ex. For a statue the efficient cause would be the sculptor, the final cause the purpose of its creation, the material cause the material the statue is made of, and the formal cause is the shape of the statue, respectively.)

3. Under normal circumstances, types of things in nature develop in similar, if not the same ways unless impeded. These developments that come about naturally is the thing's final cause.(Ex. Seed becomes a tree. Seed is the efficient cause of the tree. Tree is the final cause of the seed.)

4. Final Causality does not exist.

5. As a final cause is an end to which something naturally develops, rejecting final cause no specific end to which something naturally develops, which violates 3.

5. Having no specific end to which something naturally develops, the ends to efficient causes cannot be predicted. If they are, it would violate 4.

6. If efficient causes cannot have predicted developments we cannot gauge how they interact in causation.

7. Thus causation is unintelligible.

I fumbled my way through that, given the exceedingly late time, but I hope you got the point. Final causation is part of what is logically necessary for nature to be intelligible.

>>7563986
Now if you'll excuse me, I need rest. I'll respond to criticisms and insults when I get back.

P.S. Poking fun at the structure of the proof will get you no where. I know it's bad. It's 8. Fuck the world.

>>7563984
>Yeah, that's another valid meaning. Maybe not one that coheres to natural logic, but it's means something to anyone that's desperate to assign it that meaning.

It's not a valid meaning, and it isn't just because it's irrational. It's because I'm finding meaning that isn't there, just like a certain someone else is doing with the whole of the universe.

why would you even respond to someone who was using philosophy to deny the possibility of knowledge? it is fundamentally unworthy of answering with language. better would be a slap on the mouth.

>>a seed doesn't have meaning, you're just projecting it!

death doesn't have meaning, kill yourself.

>>7563986
Proofs are made up of assumptions and constructions that logically follow from those assumptions. You've provided a list of statements. Point four doesn't follow from any other premise, nor it is labeled as an assumption. If this is your idea of a formal proof, you've lost your marbles.

>>7563986

What the actual fuck.

In your argument you assume both that final causation exists and that it doesn't exist. Of course you can prove anything like that (principle of explosion).

Here, I'll show you.

1. Santa Claus is the jolly old man that delivers presents to boys and girls each Christmas.
2. Santa Claus does not exist.
3. Either Santa Claus is the jolly old man that delivers presents to boys and girls each Christmas or OP is a faggot.
4. If Santa Claus does not exist then it is not the case that Santa Claus is the jolly old man that delivers presents to boys and girls each Christmas.
5. Thus OP is a faggot.

>>7563997
Wow, maybe you should try reading the post again. This time, with comprehension!

>>7563991
>I'm finding meaning that isn't there, just like a certain someone else is doing with the whole of the universe.
I understood how both of your mental blocks work the moment I met you. Everything I said back then still applies now. It's a shame neither of you could see that I was RPing. It was funny you thought it was hypnosis, but now it's just sad.

I was never hypnotized. It was RP. Failure to see that implies you've both deluded.

Never forget that I know your names.

>>7563997

Heh.

And this guy isn't me, the first "kill yourself" guy that appeared in this thread.

I like.

>>7562327
>that gif
Hnnnnng ty anon

>>7563467
allcapsisjusthardertoreadjustlikeifyouwerewritingwithoutspaces

>>7564009
>In your argument you assume both that final causation exists and that it doesn't exist
Despite the poor quality you can actually grasp the person's argument and not keep trying to pretend to be blind to it.

>>7564726
To add, the poster obviously has no idea how to demonstrate the consequence of it not existing, which is why the proof fucked up, but if you read the discussion prior it is intelligible despite.

>>7563707
>It wasn't rejected because it was falsified, it was rejected because it is unnecessary in any explanation of the physical world and precisely because it is unfalsifiable.

Actually it was only because Bacon thought empirical science dealt with efficient and material causes and modern science was highly influenced by Bacon. It was clear Bacon did not know the words he was using so they were rejected as unnecessary particularly because the scientists didn't know his terminology.

>>7564726
>>7564729
No. That's not it at all. You can assume anything for reductio, asshat. The real problem is that he assumes final causes DO exist at the very beginning!

The fourth premise can be an assumption just as well, but then all we are left with is that we can come to any conclusion so therefore one of them is wrong.

It's an abortion of a reductio combined with assuming the very thing he wants to prove.

>>7562293
The main purpose of studying biology is to study life. Because of this, biologists are more interested in why an organ would be found in a creature and what purpose it would serve for the creature rather than the physical properties of that organ.

TL;DR Physical properties (mass and shape) are a tad bit too irrelevant in biology.

Because if it didnt have a useful function we probably wouldnt fucking have them

>>7566638
>biologists are more interested in why an organ would be found in a creature and what purpose it would serve for the creature rather than the physical properties of that organ.
A tree spreading its seeds give literally no benefit to the tree itself. It would be the tree acting towards something beyond itself.

>>7566837
Reproduction is the single most important thing an organism can do. It is why we exist. It is what we are entirely geared towards doing. It is the fundamental principle underlying evolution.

>>7566848
No doubt but that changed nothing I said, particularly in reference to a tree.

>>7566837

Dude, you're so fucking dumb, man.

Study botany, study mycology, and you'll understand what a tree is for.

Are you aware of the Selfish Gene hypothesis? Switch "selfish gene" with "selfish gamete".

I really hate you, man.

>>7566869
>you'll understand what a tree is for.
Well if you would say it's for anything at all than you'd side with the OP and be a dumbass.

>>7566638
>TL;DR Physical properties (mass and shape) are a tad bit too irrelevant in biology.
But the form of the physical thing determines its possible effects.

>>7567002

Close, but no.

The problem with OP is that he's trying to say that something has meaning beyond itself.

Ultimately nothing has meaning, but some versions of meaning are less incorrect than others.

It is more incorrect to say that a tree produces seeds than it is to say that a seed produces a tree.

And it's more incorrect to say that a seed produces a tree than it is to say that a gametophyte produces a seed.

>>7567097
Define meaning in the most general sense so we can understand what's really rejected here.

>>7567097

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#ExpPriFinCau

>>7567097

I've never before seen such meticulously constructed yet totally worthless information. It's like hand-painted wargame miniatures of communication.

Do you get nervous around girls, anon? Do people snicker and make fun of the way you behave in social situations, but these beliefs are your friends now, and beloved too, for they never judge you?

>>7567106

Nah, I have no friends.

But girls get nervous around me. I've been told I'm intimidating quite a few times. I only wish I were taller so my intimidation level were of a higher quality.

Can't have everything. I used to play Warhammer, once.

I like your post.

>>7562357
>chemfag
Aren't you a pedophile?

>>7563986
>1. Causation exists (empirical premise)
causation is not at all empirical

causation is purely a device from the reason (or intellect at best)

>>7567255
Hume go home

>>7563986
It seems like the main person you're arguing with is thinking about final cause in terms of physical causation, while you're thinking about something more epistemological.

You define a "final cause" as an end which can be predicted from an efficient cause, i.e. an inference that can be made from some data. This even sort of fulfills the aspect of "final cause" that's related to purpose and definition. You could say that the (intuitive) idea of a "seed" entails both some prescriptive, observable qualities and some inferences that can be made based on those qualities, such as that it'll eventually turn into a tree. However, taking this view creates some problems with the terms "final cause" and "efficient cause".

If we just think of final cause in terms of possible inferences, you can't consistently refer to one event as the "efficient cause" and the other as the "final cause"; it's just a question of what is the data and what is the inference. For example, given a seed, you can infer that it will grow into a tree; equivalently, given a tree, you can infer that it was, at one point, a seed.

One way to deal with this would be to define "final cause" as something that a) follows its "efficient cause" in time and b) can be predicted from its "efficient cause", i.e., there's some statistical correlation between them. Once you do this, though, I feel like you're starting to blur the boundaries between physical and epistemological ideas of causality. This idea of "final cause" isn't very useful in epistemology and doesn't make much sense in a physical context, where objects can be defined without any reference to their future behavior.

Finally, I'd like to make clear that while I am interested in Bayesian epistemology, I am not an insane LessWrong retard. Thank you.