Fred, Bob and Saber-Toothed Tigers

_{Barry Arrington
March 11, 2015

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In this post the UD News Desk quotes from Nancy Pearcey’s new book concerning evolutionary epistemology:

An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

Piotr thinks he has a cogent response to this:

Does she believe “the ideas in our minds” are innate, or what? At best, it could be argued that the human mind has been shaped by natural selection in such a way that it can produce ideas which help us to survive and have offspring. As far as I can see, thought processes which allow us to understand the world and make correct predictions (and so are empirically “true”) are generally good for survival.

Sorry Piotr. Truth (i.e., saying of that which is that it is and of that which is not that it is not) has no necessary connection to survival. This has been illustrated many times along the following lines:

Assume you have two cavemen, Bob and Fred. Consistent with truth, Bob believes saber-toothed tigers are fearsome monsters that want to eat us. When Bob sees a saber-toothed tiger he runs and hides.

Contrary to truth, Fred believes saber-toothed tigers are warm and fuzzy and only want to be our friends. It just so happens that Fred also believes (again, contrary to truth) that “hide and seek with people” is saber-toothed tigers’ favorite game. Therefore, whenever he sees a saber-toothed tiger he also runs and hides.

Assume for the sake of argument that Fred’s running and hiding as part of the game he thinks he is playing is just as effective at eluding saber-toothed tigers as Bob’s running and hiding out of stark raving fear.

Here’s the kicker: Natural selection is blind to the difference between Fred’s belief and Bob’s belief. Natural selection “selects” for traits that result in differential survival rates. If Fred and Bob survive at the same rate, natural selection cares not that Fred is a loon.

Comments

Box,
So you are suggesting that an entire system is selected for instead of individual beliefs?
Well, what's actually selected for is behavior, and behavior is a function both of beliefs and of the cognitive system that produces and acts on those beliefs. My point is that you can't focus on a single belief in isolation. You have to consider all of the beliefs and capacities that are relevant for survival and reproduction. If Fred avoids saber-toothed tigers but flings himself into the path of stampeding woolly mammoths, thinking that their footfalls will feel good on his aching back, then he is not long for this world, despite possessing at least one beneficial belief about tigers.keith s_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

#15 Box, Neither beliefs nor systems of beliefs can be selected for (or against), because beliefs are part of cultural, not biological evolution, and are not transmitted via DNA. It's only the general ability to make valid inferences and accurate predictions that is advantageous to sufficiently intelligent beings, not whatever use individuals may make of it.Piotr_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Bob's belief that saber-tooth tigers are just warm , fuzzy and want to play still makes him far more vulnerable than Fred. As those of us who have pets know, there are times when a cat, for example, wants to play and other times where it seems less enthusiastic and has to be enticed into playing. We can envisage a time when Bob becomes concerned that the saber-tooth tiger is not chasing him as much as it used to so he goes up to it to find out what is wrong and/or to try and tease it into chasing him by offering a more tempting target. At that point Bob's life expectancy shrinks rather dramatically. Natural selection doesn't guarantee true beliefs but true beliefs about the world still give you a better chance of survival than false beliefs. Quine's adage still hits the nail right on the head:
Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praise-worthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.
Seversky_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Keith: My point is that such systems will be selected against if the untrue beliefs they produce are detrimental.
So you are suggesting that an entire system is selected for instead of individual beliefs? An entire system consisting of untrue beliefs that works every time is preferred by natural selection over an entire system which consists of true beliefs but one (fatal) untrue belief.Box_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Barry, You describe an entirely artificial situation and try to argue by generalising from it. One can easily cite any number of realistic situations in which a correct assessment of facts may help you to survive. The ability to realise and remember that big carnivores are dangerous and you'd better keep out of their way is always advantageous. A totally mistaken interpretation of their habits may or may not cause you to do the right thing by pure luck, but let's face it -- most of the time you won't be so lucky. It's the Freds of this world who earn the Darwin Awards "by self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool".Piotr_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Cognitive systems that produce untrue beliefs about saber-toothed tigers will tend to produce untrue beliefs about other things as well — and some of those other untrue beliefs will be detrimental to survival and reproduction.
Box:
You assume that there is some logically coherent underlying system at work.
Not at all. I was talking about cognitive systems that produce untrue beliefs, and logical coherence is hardly a requirement for such systems! My point is that such systems will be selected against if the untrue beliefs they produce are detrimental.keith s_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

KF:
We know for good reason that we can know, can often reason correctly, can ground reasoning and knowledge.
We also know that there are heritable differences in these capabilities and that heritable variation in these skills are likely to have resulted in differential reproductive success across human evolutionary history. Unless you want to argue that there is no heritable component to these components of intelligence, that intelligence has no bearing upon survival/reproductive success, or that knowing, reasoning and acquiring knowledge have no bearing upon the acquisition of true beliefs, it follows that evolution has bearing upon the formation of true beliefs.Reciprocating Bill_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Barry, I've shown that Pearcey's argument - if it were correct - would undermine an ID-based epistemology just as surely as it would undermine an evolutionary epistemology. If you have a viable counterargument, let's hear it.keith s_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Keith: Cognitive systems that produce untrue beliefs about saber-toothed tigers will tend to produce untrue beliefs about other things as well (...)
You assume that there is some logically coherent underlying system at work. However under materialism we can only assume a chemically coherent underlying system for our beliefs. IOW the connections between our beliefs may be coherent chemically but we cannot expect them to be coherent logically. Logic has no power in a purely material world.Box_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Since you are presumably unwilling to do that, then evolutionary epistemology is back in the game.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. I will let you figure out why. Also, for the reasons set forth by KF, your argument is unsound as well as invalid. Think harder before you post.Barry Arrington_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Box,
There are far more ‘untrue beliefs’ that keeps someone away from saber-toothed tigers than there are ‘true beliefs’.
Sure, but our ancestors faced many environmental pressures other than saber-toothed tigers. Cognitive systems that produce untrue beliefs about saber-toothed tigers will tend to produce untrue beliefs about other things as well -- and some of those other untrue beliefs will be detrimental to survival and reproduction.keith s_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

There are far more 'untrue beliefs' that keeps someone away from saber-toothed tigers than there are 'true beliefs'. "Saber-toothed tigers are dressed up warriors", "saber-toothed tigers are angry spirits of our forefathers" and so forth, all work just as well as the single truth. IOW not only is the truth impossible to select for natural selection, also false or true is not a 50-50 chance.Box_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Barry, My point is that if you are willing to reject evolutionary epistemology on the basis of Pearcey's argument, then consistency requires you to reject ID-based epistemology as well. Since you are presumably unwilling to do that, then evolutionary epistemology is back in the game. You'll need a better argument than Pearcey's (and Plantinga's, and Lewis's, and Reppert's).keith s_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

keith, the point of the OP is that natural selection selects for traits that confer survival value and not necessarily for truth. Do you have anything to add to that discussion or are you satisfied with your tu toque response?Barry Arrington_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

KS, back ways around on an attempted turnabout. We know for good reason that we can know, can often reason correctly, can ground reasoning and knowledge. So, what is a good basis for that? Blind mechanisms that give not a hoot about truth or abstract capacities are simply not credible. Design by a patently competent mind would be. Your rhetoric above sounds uncommonly like what Jefferson complained of, learning how to make the worse seem the better case through clever word tricks. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

You missed the point Bill.Barry Arrington_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Also, an ID-based epistemology fails the same "self-referential absurdity" test that Pearcey applies to evolutionary epistemology. Under an ID-based epistemology, our cognitive capacities are given to us by the designer. Are they reliable? We simply don't know. It depends on the designer. Can we verify that they are reliable? Not without relying on reason -- and assuming that our reason is reliable would be begging the question. P.S. It's interesting that like Learned Hand, I now appear to be unbanned. I wonder how long this will last.keith s_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Sorry Piotr. Truth (i.e., saying of that which is that it is and of that which is not that it is not) has no necessary connection to survival.
But the capacity to form true beliefs is likely to have a statistical connection to survival, and Fred's defective capacity for explanatory belief formation, over the long run, is likely to result in his being promptly selected out. For example, his defective explanatory belief may generalize to the notion that ST Tigers like games generally, prompting him to sit down for a round of patty-cake. Goodbye reproductive success.Reciprocating Bill_{March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply