how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth... (page 4)

NewYork44M

I consider truth a journey, not a destination.

JWdaughter

Always seek truth, knowing that perfect, absolute truth will escape your grasp. In the meantime, be grateful for the good in your life and generous with kindness, time or money if you have any.

let me give you some of the history re this thread in a nutshell if I can. I'm still researching Nick Lane and William Martin's hypotheses. And find that it must be emphasized that what they are investigating is still in the hypotheses stage. So here I disagree that they have established their view as FACT as they do not claim this at all. This has motivated my research and in asking how do we navigate our desire for absolute truth.

What I am trying to convey is that scientists know that the desire for absolute truth is very strong, according to Kurt Richardson anyway, but he suggests that what scientists opt for is a substantial realism instead of saying there is absolute truth. what I am saying is that it is not only us lay ones who have a problem with desiring absolute truth. So for us lay ones reading their work the first thing to do is to pay attention to what they are saying about their explanations, what stage is it at? for example. for myself I find Richardson's suggestion that the aim for substantial realism instead of claiming absolute reality/absolute truth for our ideas very attractive as this is what scientists aim for too but settle for substantial realism as an ongoing process.

Dawkins is a biologist committed to studying how life originates from simple cells while in chemistry cells are an emergent property of modularity. so I guess in a sense chemistry questions some of the assumptions that biologists make because saying that cells are an emergent property questions the absoluteness of the boundaries that biologists adopt. ruby

re your question re above

What I meant was that the boundaries between the many subjects in the hard sciences come under pressure and also exert pressure on tendencies towards absolute truth (and indeed such optimism that there is absolute truth was evident and that science could provide it) during the mid to late 20th century. But now there is more cross fertilization between the different disciplines of the hard sciences and tendencies towards absolute truth are held in check by aims for substantial realism. I think that for us such an aim could be very useful and could be an effective way of overcoming the slide into relativity as well.

Kurt Richardson's arguments are here

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328704001855 access via open university uk but the abstract is informative too.

Ruby456

aha re your question

But here I don't. For one thing, cells are things, they not properties. I have never read any biologist--or anybody--say cells (things) are emergent properties of modularity (a property of a larger system).

need coffee first!!!!!

newyork44m, jwdaughter thanks for crystallizing what I am trying to say so succinctly

Xanthippe

So how are you navigating in your desire for absolute truth Ruby? Odd turn of phrase. Are you encountering many obstacles that you have to navigate around? If so perhaps you can say what they are.

Ruby456

aha

regarding the origin of life biologists like Richard Dawkins are committed to genetics first as explanatory tools while biochemists are committed to metabolism first explanations (Fry, 2011). I tend to favour the latter like Martin and Lane do. thats all I'm saying. Also boundary making and the questioning of the absolutness of boundaries does not mean that biologists are absolutists but that any tendencies are checked by the process of having to cross boundaries and remake them but at the same time knowing that such divisions can be arbitrary.

regarding this

Dawkins is a biologist committed to studying how life originates from simple cells while in chemistry cells are an emergent property of modularity. so I guess in a sense chemistry questions some of the assumptions that biologists make because saying that cells are an emergent property questions the absoluteness of the boundaries that biologists adopt. ruby

would saying it like this help - if yes thanks for making me clarify this

Dawkins is a biologist committed to studying how life originates from simple cells while in chemistry cells are an emergent ~~property~~ product of modularity. so I guess in a sense chemistry questions some of the assumptions that biologists make because saying that cells are an emergent ~~property~~ product questions the absoluteness of the boundaries that biologists adopt. ruby

Ruby456

xanth

I tend to want to keep open to different perspectives

cofty

regarding the origin of life biologists like Richard Dawkins are committed to genetics first as explanatory tools

Where has Dawkins shown a commitment to "genetics first" in regards to origin of life?

while biochemists are committed to metabolism first explanations

What do you base that on?

I tend to favour the latter like Martin and Lane do.

Once again you are misrepresenting Nick Lane on a very important point of his book. One of the most important insights he presents is that the metabolism first - replication first debate is a false dichotomy.

Ruby456

no I'm not misrepresenting Lane - as he follows a metabolism first route (within a stable geochemical environment) and then replication.

cofty

He specifically states that 'metabolism first' versus 'replication first' is "a barren debate".

His entire book is a resolution to this false dichotomy.

If you don't get that you might as well have not opened the book.

how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...

Share this