Dear Stan, lists - But Stan commits the same mistake of trying to purge one universal by means of another - this time "culture" is the new universal assumed to be more real than "evolution" … In Stan's argument, "cultures" are assumed to be real and to determine minds of different individuals … (which I believe is not simply another universal with realist pretense, but a false such universal, but that is another issue). Everytime somebody tries to give a nominalist reduction of some universal assumed to be real - they invariably invoke OTHER universals which THEY assume to be real. So they remain realists.
Best F Den 18/01/2015 kl. 21.21 skrev Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>: Frederik writes: Dear Stan, lists - I am making no claims as to trends etc. - I am making the very simple case that evolution is a real process. S: Well, as our culture is the only one to elicit belief in the reality of biological evolution, this would mean that we alone, of all human cultures, have discovered this truth about the world! On the contrary, a nominalist can assert that evolution actually exists, outside of minds educated in our culture, only in texts and other embodiments in the communication media of our culture. It is a belief that has considerable evidence marshaled from several sciences in its support. Taking it to be ‘real’ in the realist sense does no harm to the concept, and is helpful to those studying evidence for it. Then, Edwina writes: I think Stan was referring to the very definition of 'what is evolution'. The neoDarwinians have a very simple (simplistic?) definition which rejects any notion of there being 'potentialities', 'probabilities' or 'possibilities' . There's the status quo genes; there's natural selection; and that's it. S: There are two neoDarwinian views of evolution. In the Fisherian view, it is progressive change in gene frequencies of an evolving population. In the Wright-Dobzhansky view it is the continuation in existence of a population despite various environmental changes that threaten it with extinction. STAN On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: Stan and Frederik: I think that you both are talking about different issues. It's not whether or not evolution is a 'real process', or even about the notion of 'realism' vs 'nominalism' (whether one uses the scholastic or non-scholastic definition of those two terms). I think Stan was referring to the very definition of 'what is evolution'. The neoDarwinians have a very simple (simplistic?) definition which rejects any notion of there being 'potentialities', 'probabilities' or 'possibilities' . There's the status quo genes; there's natural selection; and that's it. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Frederik Stjernfelt<mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk> To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> ; Peirce Discussion Forum (PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)<mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 1:20 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7955] Natural Propositions: Dear Stan, lists - I am making no claims as to trends etc. - I am making the very simple case that evolution is a real process. And I am adding that attempts to make nominalist reconstructions of the concept evolution do not fail to introduce other universals taken for real, such as, in Stan's account, the notions of "generation", "fossil", "construct", etc. Best F Den 18/01/2015 kl. 16.43 skrev Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>: Frederick -- Your assertion that the results of selections at different levels might be taken to show real tendencies transgresses the neoDarwinian perspective on selection (and, of course, they own the concept at present!), which is that there are no real trends across generations. All selection pressures would be generated from moment to moment according to bearing conditions. Thus, for example, suppose we observe in the fossil record an increase in the length of rhinoceros horns over many generations, or over sequences of species in the fossil record. A neoDarwinian would NOT claim that there was a trend toward larger horns. Such a trend observed after the fact would be held to be a nominallst construct. STAN ________________________________ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
