Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:09:28 -0500
From: dbbwanika-AT-netscape.net
Subject: RE: BHA: Critical Realism and Natural Sciences 


Ronny

It will really be interesting to read further into the flux
of your arguments, this one was very short.  

Besides, I do hear that almost everything (where) contains 
carbon where  does carbon come from i.e. in living things like
women and men, plants and instects, plants , microscopic ones 
too? 

A great professor of physics confided in me sometime back- and he 
argued physics unless combined or studied in combination with other subjects let us say biology or geography should not be taught as 
it is done in it's present  form!

Till this day i'm still figuring out how, I could ask him why?

special regards,

Bwanika.

----------------
ronnym-AT-stud.ntnu.no wrote:

>Bwanika (and others),
>
>I think it is very important to discriminate between chemical evolution and 
>evolutionary theory for the folloowing reasons. First: Unlike Bwanika I don't 
>see any close relationship between the two theories at all. I think the 
>ontological status of one theory is independent of the other. For all I now 
>the theory of black holes may be incorrect, the same could be said of GTR. It 
>is true that some theorist wish to collapse the theory of evolution into the 
>theory of chemical evolution (that is a theory that explain the origins of 
>the "heavy" elements but this amounts to nothing but that old spirit in the 
>bottle - reductionism, and thereby denial of emergence and novelty at the 
>level of cells). Second: I think that scientists is far more disagreeing about 
>the fundamentals of evolutionary theory than the basic facts of chemical 
>evolution. Just think about the clash of opinions between the theorists of 
>selfish genes (Dawkins, Williams and Dennett) and those theorists that think 
>that the organism is the unit of selection (Lewontin, Gould, Eldredge). Also 
>the discussion between orthodox darwinists and anti-darwinists over the role 
>of fitness and adaptation in selection.
>
>I think that biophilosophy is an extremely important topic for critical 
>realists. Don't misunderstand me, I think that natural science in general is 
>important, but given the theory of emergence I think it is extremely important 
>to show how ontological real emergence is invaluable in biology. For unlike 
>the notion of "emergence" that is in vogue right now in evolutionary theory (a 
>theory that is extremely formalist and seems to argue that the number of 
>entities alone determines emgergent levels) I think that the theory of 
>emergence that anong others Bhaskar is arguing for in DPF is above all else 
>anti-formalist and substantivist. I don't have the time to elaborate this 
>right now, but cf. the excellent book by Gerry Webster and Brian Goodwin: Form 
>and Transformation for an essentialist/critical realist perspective in 
>evolutionary biology. The latter work is also interesting in that they thank 
>both Roy Bhaskar and Rom Harr in the preface.
>
>In short; I neither believe that there are any close connection between 
>chemical evolution and Darwins theory of evolution nor that the latter is 
>objectively correct.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Ronny S. Myhre
>
>Quoting dbbwanika-AT-netscape.net:
>
>> Listers!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am trying to understand the link between Hawking's black holes, or rather
>> the implosion and explosion of stars (death and creation) as an explanation
>> of the beginning of the cosmos and it's link to the Darwinian evolution
>> theory.
>> 
>> Rejecting one of the above theories, it appears to me will debunk the other,
>> since the base argument is focused on material complexity and subsequent
>> evolution. I've also read that evolution theory is rejected in some quarters,
>> while on the one hand   quantum physics arguable applauded.
>> 
>> Extending the argument further, would it imply that the geo-processes or
>> material existence is a process-in-product hence implying on Bhaskarian
>> level, humans   in regard to  social, psychological and bio-processes are 
>> products in process?
>> 
>> It appears to me, the above processes establishes the process kind to which i
>> could imagine human beings come out as a finale in highly humane social
>> beings? The question can also be put differently.
>> 
>> 
>> Bwanika. 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bwanika
>> 
>> url: http://www.uganda.co.ug
>> e-mail: dbbwanika-AT-netscape.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience
>> the convenience of buying online with Shop-AT-Netscape!
>> http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>> 
>> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
>> http://webmail.netscape.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
-- 






















____________



Bwanika

url: http://www.uganda.co.ug
e-mail: dbbwanika-AT-netscape.net












__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop-AT-Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---