In article 6tb at crocus.csv.warwick.ac.uk, cuhes at csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
> In article <CrKCp7.9Ky at mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>barani at cc.purdue.edu (barani) writes:
> >"a cell becomes cancerous because it can lead to ageing..."
> >"certain genes are turned off or turned on because the future
> >generation baby can be healthy..."
> >There is an element of the authors' personal beliefs in these
> >arguments related to cause-and-effect.
>> This is a familiar cry for scientific "objectivity" of the sort that
> led to the long dark night of behaviourism in the psycholigal sciences.
> It missed the point that evolutionary processes, like mental processes
> are goal directed and can often be best analysed in terms of purpose.
I agree! Science is a lot more than objectively proven facts. Science
also comprises creative thinking, hypotheses, theories, ideas, "personal beliefs"
which affect creative thinking and help lead to hypotheses, and so on.
And evolution is quite complex, and I find it gets tiresome to keep repeating,
"the ones that were less fit were less likely to survive, so the ones
that survived were more likely to have trait X" ... it's so much easier
to say "we have eyes so that we can see", etc.