What does teleological mean? What are critical methods?

[Blau&Gruen]

Some heavy words that may need some explication.

Any ideas?

[Ummon]

Inherent to the view that developements are due to the purpose or design that is served by them.

A teleological view can be either:

A priori: the purpose is declared beforehand and then served. -> ID
A posteriori: the purpose arises (emerges) as part of the process. -> evolutionism

[Curtana]

In the gospel according to Richard Dawkins (aka The God Delusion) he sayeth:
Ch 3, p79, line 11. (!)


“The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God. Aquinas himself used the analogy of an arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat-seeking anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purpose better.”


He goes on to explain that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection trumps the above argument by showing how things that look designed can be generated without recourse to a designer.


And yet people continue to reel out the Teleological Argument like a bad smell.

[Ummon]

And yet he implies that survival is a teleological factor. It is, because organisms are selected so that they can survive (that is because they survive and thus they are selected as well, yet the thing goes both ways).

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Is the teleological argument the same as the design argument?

[Blau&Gruen]

And yet he implies that survival is a teleological factor. It is, because organisms are selected so that they can survive (that is because they survive and thus they are selected as well, yet the thing goes both ways).

I agree with you, if a posteriori means an explaining interpretation of a given set of informations.

[Ummon]

I agree with you, if a posteriori means an explaining interpretation of a given set of informations.

Obviously, any activity of examination on a set of informations can only be an interpretation.

A posteriori is a term referring to that which is based on experience, mainly in the empiricist tradition; a priori means that which is pure reason without reference to any experience. That is definitionally true.

Says who? You extend a definition to the whole possible spectrum of experiences and fields.

[Ummon]

As I explained, no.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Most of us can't understand those long words, Ummon.

[Blau&Gruen]

As I explained, no.

The design argument contains a teleological argument a priori. I would like to think.

[Tom Paine]

Except that you didn't and abused the terms a priori and a posteriori into the process. The teleological argument is the precise same thing as the argument from design and is necessarily a posteriori as it relies on experience of design.

[Ummon]

Well, so assume that the answer is no, because of trust in my unshakable authority.

Ozy, no. Not really.

[Tom Paine]

Ahem. Yes, and I explained why - to just say "no", is effectively to say "I cannot actually prove you wrong, but no all the same!"

[removeduser_426582376423734]

*backs out of thread*

[Tom Paine]

A posteriori is a term referring to that which is based on experience, mainly in the empiricist tradition; a priori means that which is pure reason without reference to any experience. That is definitionally true.

[Tom Paine]

No, the two are the same;

A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature.

(the latter bolding demonstrating the a posteriori nature of the argument)

[Blau&Gruen]

No, the two are the same;

(the latter bolding demonstrating the a posteriori nature of the argument)

Indeed, that is the case. Kant's ethicotheology is a reservate for a design argument in the 18th century.

[Blau&Gruen]

Now, I have made two contradictory statements. -Shh.

[Ummon]

The problem is that order (in scientific terms) is there. As in: the system has a low entropy, and the more the system produces entropy, the more it self-organizes and discharges entropy in the environement. Therefore making this whole pseudo-scientific argument moot.

IMHO, that is. :wink:

The design argument contains a teleological argument a priori. I would like to think.

The most worrying thing about the design argument is that it invokes a metaphysical cause. That is an infinite regression and/or a metaphysical origin, which cannot be scientific by default. Of course a human (or other intelligent) being can design stuff. But he(she) is a physical, falsifiable item.

[Tom Paine]

The problem is that order (in scientific terms) is there. As in: the system has a low entropy, and the more the system produces entropy, the more it self-organizes and discharges entropy in the environement. Therefore making this whole pseudo-scientific argument moot.

IMHO, that is. :wink:

The more it creates entropy the less organised it is - that is the nature of entropy - until it becomes completely degenerated to the point of uniformity.

The most worrying thing about the design argument is that it invokes a metaphysical cause. That is an infinite regression and/or a metaphysical origin, which cannot be scientific by default. Of course a human (or other intelligent) being can design stuff. But he(she) is a physical, falsifiable item.

Ah, here is the entry of the problem: Infinite regression is the cosmological argument, as is the invocation of a metaphysical cause - the teleological advocates a designer, not a cause.