Evolution Quotes: Quine on evolving similarity 16 Aug 2012 A sense of comparative similarity, I remarked earlier, is one of man’s animal endowments. Insofar as it fits in with regularities of nature, so as to afford us reasonable success in our primitive inductions and expectations, it is presumably an evolutionary product of natural selection. Secondly, as remarked, one’s sense of similarity or one’s system of kinds develops and changes and even turns multiple as one matures, making perhaps for increasingly dependable prediction. And at length standards of similarity set in which are geared to theoretical science. This development is a development away from the immediate, subjective, animal sense of similarity to the remoter objectivity of a similarity determined by scientific hypotheses and posits and constructs. Things are similar in the later or theoretical sense to the degree that they are interchangeable parts of the cosmic machine revealed by science. [“Natural Kinds”, in Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, edited by Nicholas Rescher et al., 41-56, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1970; p52] Cognition Epistemology Evolution Philosophy Social evolution
Evolution Homology 16 Jun 2010 In a recent Nature, R. John Ellis, author of How Science Works, takes exception to Eugenie Scott’s review and says this about her use of “homology”: The word was invented in 1843 by anatomist Richard Owen to mean “the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and… Read More
Logic and philosophy Why do physicists hate philosophy? 15 May 201416 May 2014 Lately there has been a slew of physicists making claims like this: Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. [Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design 2011, p5] My concern here is that the philosophers believe they… Read More
Philosophy Focus on the “how”, not the “why” 12 Aug 2009 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH40zaUxTTE&hl=en&fs=1&] Read More
Er – what? Leaving the modifiers away, I was able to distill the following common sense translation from that quote: The sense of similatity is an animal heritage formed by natural selection. Nevertheless, it develops away from that apish BS towards ever more objective and scientific criteria. As I – Quine – are the farthest advanced in this respect, I’ll tell you what that is: …
Does this mean that, at animal level, we spot similarities to make sense of everyday reality and with advantage in a survival sense – like: ‘I fell and hurt my knee on a damned pavement. If I see one like it I’ll be more careful next time.’ At a theoretical and scientific level though is it more like: ‘Good heavens, I bet that asteroid coming towards me is just like the one that hit the Yuctan peninsular 65m. yrs ago – I wonder if I ought to duck.’
I should point out that merely quoting Quine isn’t automatically evidence that I agree with him. I think he’s in the right ballpark, but that we do not inherit beliefs or even similarity metrics, but dispositions to form them. Whereas in science, each generation bequeaths to the next contentful beliefs.
“I should point out that merely quoting Quine isn’t automatically evidence that I agree with him. I think he’s in the right ballpark,” My first hunch was that Quine completely left his usual territory and was hunting a jabberwocky, therefore the snark. Co s mic machine revealed by science.