{"id":7608,"date":"2014-10-30T13:34:35","date_gmt":"2014-10-30T13:34:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/10\/30\/jerry-coynes-latest-outburst\/"},"modified":"2014-10-30T13:34:35","modified_gmt":"2014-10-30T13:34:35","slug":"jerry-coynes-latest-outburst","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/10\/30\/jerry-coynes-latest-outburst\/","title":{"rendered":"Jerry Coyne’s Latest Outburst re: Pope Francis, Big Bang and Evolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

It<\/a> doesn't merit a lot of attention, but I will mention two stupid moves that Jerry  Coyne makes.  Or if not stupid, then intellectually dishonest. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

First, Coyne states that "We know now that the universe could have originated from 'nothing' through purely physical processes, if you see 'nothing' as the 'quantum vacuum' of empty space."  By the same token, we now know that Jerry Coyne is a fool if you see 'fool' as equivalent in meaning to 'one who thinks that a substantive question can be answered by a semantic trick.'<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, Coyne maintains that the belief that human beings have souls "flies in the face of science."  In other words, the belief in question is logically inconsistent with natural science.  Why?  Because, "We have no evidence for souls, as biologists see our species as simply the product of naturalistic evolution from earlier species."  The reasoning is this:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1. Biologists qua biologists see the human biological species as simply the product of evolution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Biology uncovers no evidence of souls.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Biology rules out the existence of souls.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(1) is true.  (2) is a very unsurprising logical consequence of (1).  For biology, as a natural science, is confined to the study of the empirically accessible features of living things, including human animals.  It is therefore no surprise at all that biology turns up no evidence of souls, or of consciousness or self-consciousness for that matter.   By the same token, cosmology and quantum mechanics uncover no evidence that anything is alive. <\/span><\/p>\n

The move from (2) to (3), however, is a howling non sequitur<\/em>.  (In plain English, (3) does not logically follow from (2), and it is obvious that it doesn't.) Biology is simply in no position to uncover any evidence of souls that there might be, and it shows a failure to grasp what it is that biology studies to think that such evidence would be accessible to biology.<\/span><\/p>\n

To argue from (2) to (3) would be like arguing from<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

4. Mathematics uncovers no evidence that anything in nature  can be studied using complex (imaginary) numbers.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Mathematics rules out the existence of anything in nature that can be studied using complex (imaginary) numbers.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That too is a howling non sequitur<\/em>: we know that alternating current theory makes essential use of complex numbers.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the root of Coyne's foolishness is scientism, the view that the only genuine knowledge is natural-scientific knowledge. Scientism<\/a> is the epistemology of naturalism<\/a>, the view that reality is exhausted by the space-time system.  Both are philosophical views; neither is scientific.  There are powerful arguments against both.<\/span><\/p>\n

Enough beating up of a cripple for one day.  And that reminds me: Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols<\/em> refers to <\/a>Kant as a concept-cripple (Begriffskrueppel<\/em>). What would that make Coyne?  A stillborn concept-cripple?<\/span><\/p>\n

More critique of Coyne here<\/a>.   The man should stick to biology.  And the same goes for Dawkins.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It doesn't merit a lot of attention, but I will mention two stupid moves that Jerry  Coyne makes.  Or if not stupid, then intellectually dishonest.  First, Coyne states that "We know now that the universe could have originated from 'nothing' through purely physical processes, if you see 'nothing' as the 'quantum vacuum' of empty space."  … Continue reading “Jerry Coyne’s Latest Outburst re: Pope Francis, Big Bang and Evolution”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[258,245,448,219],"tags":[699,700,697,698],"class_list":["post-7608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-darwinism-and-design","category-polemics","category-science-and-religion","category-scientism","tag-big-bang","tag-evolution","tag-jerry-coyne","tag-pope-francis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}