Language requires a sense of agency and purpose is for meaningful speech. And Darwinists are looking for ways to change language, for that very reason. Friend have written to offer some helpful bibliography items along those lines:
– Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief, “We need a new language for evolution… everywhere,” BioEssays, Volume 33, Issue 4, page 237, April 2011 :
It is about time that we stopped such anthropomorphic terminology and thinking, and confronted the likelihood that – far from being ‘excusable short-hand’ – it is an important contributor to a false impression of evolution among many non-scientists. I feel that much of the ‘excuse’ for using terms that evoke will, direction and strategy in evolutionary processes is a problem of finding the right words; or at least of not falling so easily into the anthropomorphisms that we use in other realms of experience
– Marc H. V. Van Regenmortel, “The rational design of biological complexity A deceptive metaphor,” Proteomics (2007) 7:965–975 :
Biologists often claim that they follow a rational design strategy when their research is based on molecular knowledge of biological systems. This claim implies that their knowledge of the innumerable causal connections present in biological systems is sufficient to allow them to deduce and predict the outcome of their experimental interventions. The design metaphor is shown to originate in human intentionality and in the anthropomorphic fallacy of interpreting objects, events, and the behavior of all living organisms in terms of goals and purposes. Instead of presenting rational design as an effective research strategy, it would be preferable to acknowledge that advances in biomedicine are nearly always derived from empirical observations based on trial and error experimentation. The claim that rational design is an effective research strategy was tested in the case of current attempts to develop synthetic vaccines, in particular against human immunodeficiency virus. It was concluded that in this field of biomedicine, trial and error experimentation is more likely to succeed than a rational design approach. Current developments in systems biology may give us eventually a better understanding of the immune system and this may enable us in the future to develop improved vaccines.
– W.J. Bock, “Design An inappropriate concept in evolutionary theory,” J Zool Syst Evol Res (2009), 47(1): 7–9 :
The concept of accident in evolution refers to causes which are stochastic with respect to selective demands arising from the external environment and acting on the organism, while the concept of design refers to causes which meet the requirement of these selective demands. The condition with respect to selective demands is generally forgotten so that evolutionary changes are described as being design modifications. Design is an invalid synonym for adaptation. Further it implies a designer and has been used by some authors since before Darwin to argue that design in organisms demonstrates the existence of a designer and hence a plan. Yet if evolution depends on two simultaneously acting causes, one of which is accidental, then the process of evolution and all attributes of organisms are accidental. The concept of design is inappropriate in biology and
should be eliminated from all biological explanations.
In any event, Darwinians ultimately believe that consciousness is an illusion anyway. They think that we did not evolve so as to know whether something happened by design or not. We must trust them, our betters, that the answer is no.
What matters is not the greatest idea but the biggest fist.
See also: Note to Darwinists: Language itself is “anti-science”
7 Replies to “Darwinists know language is against them and they seek a new language”
Translating the above two passages into simple logic:
“My goal is to eradicate the use of language to imply goal-oriented behavior. I am using language to accomplish my goal of eradicating the use of language to imply goals.”
I know that language against Darwinism?
But language isn’t conscious. Nor does it exhibit a will or options on anything. So how can it be against anything, let alone Darwinism? Are we seeking some other language that somehow exhibits those traits?
Also using the “logic” of the OP, does this means that language against the idea that language is against Darwinism because it cannot be against anything?
Furthermore, when Newton unified the motion of falling apples and the orbits of planets, was he trying to seek a new language?
Was language against nuclear physics because the origin of the word “atom” was “atomos”, which is a Greek word meaning uncuttable?
Again, words are ultimately undefined because they depend on other words, which depend on other words, etc. All of their definitions would result in an infinite regress.
Rather, words are shortcuts for ideas and we should be willing to adopt the terminology of others when having a discussion.
What? Is this a Google translation from another language?
Nice strawman. Language is used by conscious beings to transfer information. As such it can be used in such a manner to be either for or against anything (see rhetoric).
Distraction. Non-sequitur. Just what is the other hand doing?
Ahhh. It’s all undefined. So why are we listening to you?
So you’re willing to adopt the language of purpose and teleology when talking here on UD. OK.
It won’t work changing or inventing words.
Neils Bohr spoke on this often when he pointed out that there is nothing to compare the atom with. Even “particles” are abstractions he said.
“We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry,” -creating images in effect.
Language predicates intelligibility, doesn’t it? A new form of intelligibility, in this case – which doesn’t quite jive, does it?
First, you seem to be confused. Arguments can be used for or against things, not language, which is mostly neutral. Even then, only a specific argument would be against something, not arguments in general.
Second, I’m just trying to take the OP serious.
Apparently, according to the author’s logic, ability to intepret a word in a way that implies agency, conciseness, etc. is supposedly to actually imply that thing actually exhibits agency, etc. Doesn’t seem to make sense to me, but I’m just trying to take the OP serious. Being taken seriously is what the OP wants, right?
Or am I mistaken about that?
Don’t stop there. Why is it a distraction, non-sequitor, etc.?
How was the word “atom” not against nuclear physics because it originally meant “uncuttable”?
“Ultimately undefined” is not the same as utterly and completely undefined. Words are shortuts for ideas, not ultimate definitions or essences.
I’m willing to accept your terminology, in that I’m willing to take the ideas behind the words you refer to seriously, for the purpose of discussion and criticism. Unless we’re both willing to do this, a discussion may never go anywhere because we could just get stuck arguing over the definitions of words.
Thank you for your considered reply.
I don’t think I’m confused about anything. In the article referenced. BioEssays, Volume 33, Issue 4, page 237, April 2011 : you will find the following: Pardon my inability to format this quite the way the original article formated it.
It goes on from there. Notice that there is no change in the argument, which would be a marshaling of facts and logic, just a change in the language. Language is not neutral, it carries with it implications used to sway unrelated to the underlying facts or logic.
Again, you are mistaken. The OP is using the article from Bioessays which makes exactly the point that words do in fact imply just what you are attempting to deny.
Because you have taken your unsupported argument that language is neutral and launched off in a direction that doesn’t either support that contention or further your argument, at least not that I can see.
Yeah, seems like a distinction without a difference. Still results in a low signal to noise ratio and unreliable communication. Did you even read the Bioessays article? He seems to think that the definition of the words he was using were quite specific and understandable.