Even more FAPPery 8 May 2010 Richard Lewontin reviews FAPP in the New York Review of Books. It is a much more moderate review than many of the other reviews we have linked to. He ends up suggesting that biologists should not speculate on the origins of traits when such speculation is idle. However, like FAPP, he fails to tell us when that is, and is not. Douglas Futuyma on the other hand is much more dismissive in Science, and suggests that being experts in one field doesn’t make them competent in another. I am still wondering what we lose if we abandon the “selection for/selection of” distinction. If we do this, then FAPP’s concern resolves down to: “you can’t get intentionality out of the principle of NS”, which is rather like “you can’t get colour distributions out of a sorting process”; true but trivial. Evolution Philosophy Science EvolutionPhilosophy
Philosophy On ontology and metaphysics: substance abuse 31 May 2008 I have for a long time now been very dissatisfied with the metaphysical categories bequeathed to us from Aristotle via a multitude of commentators and philosophers ranging from Boethius to Ockham to Locke to Hume to Kant. It seems to me that they are based on a prescientific notion of… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design But ID is not based on religion, no, not at all, fer shure 11 Nov 200922 Jun 2018 From here – Leading intelligent design advocate speaks at BCF Tuesday, 03 November 2009 08:55 Students were on the edge of their seats recently as leading Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski spoke in the R. G. Lee Chapel at the Baptist College of Florida in Graceville. Known for his comprehensive… Read More
Please explain how FAPP’s concern would resolve down to: “you can’t get intentionality out of the principle of NS”.