Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Philosophy

At The Scientist: Trofim Lysenko and “stamping out science” Yes… yesterday. Sure. But what about today?

From this distance, to whatever extent Lysenko thought epigenetics was a feature of life forms, he was right. To whatever extent Darwinians opposed the idea, they were wrong. The rest is totalitarianism, whether of Lysenkoists or Darwinists. To get some idea how that sort of thing plays out today, consider the current COVID-19 debacle: The lab leak theory has always been a reasonable idea, not a conspiracy theory. Yet it was treated as a conspiracy theory for purely political reasons… Read More ›

Are there really any “primitive” animals?

Our philosopher and photographer friend Laszlo Bencze proposes a cultural reason why Darwinism sounds believable. He points out that Charles Darwin lived in an era of continuous mechanical improvements. Did that shape his — and others’ — optimism about things that “just sort of happen” in nature? Read More ›

How Big Tech manufactured a science “consensus” against a lab leak of COVID-19

It’s one thing to trust Darwinblither, just to take an example, when nothing immediate is at stake. But if we agree that COVID-19 is a problem, let’s evaluate more carefully what we have been told on the Authority of Science. And take in the fact that Big Tech backed up the Authority of Science when it was obviously way off base. Read More ›

The COVID-19 saga is getting people talking about bogus scientific consensus

For some months there has been a bogus consensus that the theory that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan was a crackpot conspiracy theory. Then the dam broke. People may understand the concept better now. Read More ›

Could artificial intelligence change the mind–body problem?

Angus Menuge: I don’t see any reason from these amazing enhancements of the complexity of these [computer] systems to think that the systems would move from not having subjective awareness to having it or from moving to true intentionality about anything beyond themselves. Read More ›

Angus Menuge on the mind–body problem: It’s like developing and then writing down an idea

It would be a very poorly designed system if, every time we wanted to raise our arm, we’d have to know how to adjust each and every molecule in our arm or what specific pattern of nerve signals we would have to send. Well, then we’d be unable to act. And likewise, if what matters is that I don’t stub my toe again, all I’ve got to remember is, don’t push your toe like that rather than worrying about how I did it this time. Because the odds are, I’d never do the same physical movement again. Read More ›

Philosopher Angus Menuge on why traditional physicalism isn’t really working

The shift toward emergentism will probably begin to affect debates over evolution. Evolution theories based on physicalism will likely face challenges from unexpected quarters. Read More ›

A materialist philosopher explains how panpsychism is logically compatible with materialism

Whether or not Strawson’s panpsychism offers a coherent view of evolution, it’s easy to see the attraction: a way of accommodating consciousness, the one thing of which we feel utterly certain, in a wholly material universe. Those who are content to make fun of panpsychism are probably underestimating that attraction. Read More ›

Conundrum: What if you could make an exact duplicate of yourself?

The problems of replicating oneself are addressed in a funny sci-fi short on human selfhood: For one thing, the replicant doesn't know that he is not the original. He has no reason to think so. Read More ›

Michael Egnor to Jerry Coyne: Why the universe itself can’t be the most fundamental thing

Egnor: The cause of the universe must be something other than the universe itself and must have the power to cause things independently of the laws of nature. That is what all men call God. Read More ›

Philosopher Mary Midgeley (1919–2018) on scientism

At RealClearScience: Science is a method and discipline, but Scientism is something more – it establishes a set of beliefs by which to view things. It sees science as “realistic” or “just the facts”, like some objective totem. What’s more, Midgley argued that Scientism is invariably aligned with some kind of excessive reductionism, where everything is reduced to neurons or evolutionary psychology, for instance. Read More ›