[ Post a Response | Tao Speaks ]
Posted by Jaime on 1/25/2008, 10:11 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science"
65.27.43.X
This is exactly the right way to approach this!
: "Into 1981 British biologist Rupert
: Sheldrake published A New Science of Life.
: The book argued that genes alone were not
: enough to account for life’s intricate
: patterns of form and behaviour. There must
: be, Sheldrake suggested, some sort of
: form-giving field..
Here is where science comes in: He says there "must be" a form-giving field? Why must there? What is dependent upon it, that fails to occur in the absence of such? What is his evidence for the asertion? A mere "argument from design" is a logical fallacy. "We don't know why there is thunder so it must be the gods playing skittles."
In other words, it is not enough to argue that "genes aren't enough." It is necessary to demonstrate some specific feature that is not a phenotype. Sheldrake (as cited) has not done this, and wonders that he is not taken seriously...
Wayward,
-J
| 47 |
"The Tao is basically utterly open. Utter openeness has no substance. It ends in endlessness, begins in beginninglessnes".
-Li Daoqun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmaster: zentao00@yahoo.com Donations help to support, upgrade and expand the Tao Speaks! community..
