I was under the impression that mathematical equations themselves aren’t tested for correctness through experimentation, but rather, it’s the mathematical models describing the natural world that are tested and verified through experiments.
I am very confortable accepting the apparent versus actual distinction. Teleonomy shows “apparent” goal-directed behaviour. In teleonomy, it is about evolution. in teleology where things become purposefull, it about design.
These are excellent examples of how evolution is becoming a more complex process, with implications that are within and extend beyond just random mutation and natural selection.
In agreeement.
Yes we are, but only “apparent”.
The model was simpler before, and getting much more complex with or without claims of the Third Way. Yes, the Third Way must be substantiated with evidence if it wishes to be incorporated into evolution theory
I’m well aware of that, which is why I suggested diving deeper. You appear to be rejecting that advice. Why?
What you’ve written suggests that you’ve read far more pseudoscience than science.
That will always be the case! That’s why it’s so much fun!
If you are cryptically referring to our disdain for vitalism, it has been steadily retreating.
If you’re not a creationist, please stop offering up silly creationist canards, such as portraying science as mere retrospective interpretation.
You haven’t proposed any alternative ways other than rejecting the scientific method. Nor have you challenged any assumptions, other than straw men.
The scientific method is much more robust than debate. If you really believe that is the case in science, can you point to a single bit of scientific progress that can be attributed to arguing instead of testing hypotheses?
The scientific method, which you don’t appear to understand, does that far more efficiently.
There’s another straw man, as no one is claiming that it does. It does, however, contrary to your perspective, chug along and provide new and exciting answers every day.
Science alone is explaining more of those aspects every day, which is why I suggest going deeper into it. Debate is not.
Book suggestion: The Vital Question by Nick Lane. If you can stick with it, it will help you to see the enormous scientific progress in understanding the basis of life itself that you’ve been missing.
Then you should offer one.
I don’t have time this morning, but Wiki has a decent summary and lots of links.
There is controversy about the use of computer assisted proof by exhaustion, because it can verify a conjecture but adds no insight as to why it is true.
Unless you actually demonstrate circularity, your thoughts on the matter are meaningless.
I’m not inclined at the moment to get into a debate over the precise meaning of the term “subsumed.” But I will say I am not convinced that math and logic are, by themselves, means of gaining knowledge, as opposed to being tools that can be applied to empirical evidence to gain knowledge.
What are “moral truths”, and how do we determine them to be true?
I doubt it. If what you called “pain” was something only you experienced, and there was no evidence that anyone or anything in the universe also experienced it, how would you know it was real and not a hallucination?
So, now, let’s see if you can suggest something other than science that we both agree is used to gain knowledge of the world
Have you read it?
Nobody doubts the apparent purpose in evolution, since natural selection would provide such appearance. You seem to be going for something else, and it would be nice if you could state it clearly.
You understand that rhetorical questions are not intended for those addressed to answer, right? They’re intended to set up your answer, which you do not provide. So it appears you have nothing. If science can’t study it, then we just can’t study it, apparently.
Much is confusing there. What doe “purpose” with scare quote mean? You could mean “what appears to be purpose but has no agent”, i.e. teleonomy. So what’s the need for any additional factor? And what’s the need for teleology?