Comments on: Darwinism and good

By: TruePravda » What is ‘good’?

TruePravda » What is ‘good’? — Thu, 29 May 2008 02:23:34 +0000

[...] a good question — one posed by Ron H. in his comment on my recent “Darwinism and good” post: What can adequately explain why something is or isn’t good? Equivalently: What is [...]

By: Jared Bridges

Jared Bridges — Wed, 14 May 2008 02:37:55 +0000

Ron: You're right, it is vague --- out of context. I should have noted that Robinson's essay (and this particular passage) deals primarily with the social implications of Darwinism. Given that all Darwinists do not apply in practice the theory to social interactions, I should have made that more clear. My point in commenting on this particular quote was to highlight the dilemma that rises when Darwinists (there's that word again!) explain things in terms that can only exist outside their worldview.

Having said that I have a question for Jared: What can adequately explain why something is or isn’t good? Equivalently: What is good?

Yet another good question --- perhaps one that deserves its own post. Stay tuned for a treatment.

By: RonH

RonH — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:16:48 +0000

Hi Jared, KDlsom, other commenters,
First: this use of “Darwinism” is vague. It mashes a lot o things together. These things are sometimes not specified. Or, if they are their inclusion is asserted but not justified. All of which makes the term contentious. It’s a conversation killer. (I promise to ask somewhere for someone “on my side” to put away their conversation killer. Care to nominate one?)

Having said that I have a question for Jared: What can adequately explain why something is or isn’t good? Equivalently: What is good?

Ron

By: Jared Bridges

Jared Bridges — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:22:14 +0000

KDIsom: Thanks for stopping by --- you pose a good question. Perhaps I could have said it better by saying, "we can’t fully know the what without knowing the why." The fact that the air pressure difference between the bottom of a wing and the top creates lift does nothing to explain why the air that creates the lift is there in the first place. True, one could follow a pragmatic trail; "the air is there because it is trapped within the earth's atmosphere," etc., but this would still only lead to, and not answer ultimate questions. So, in short, I would disagree with you that aerodynamic theory explains flight adequately. If all you're wanting to know is the immediate cause of the airplane's ascent, it will probably suffice, but a mere description of what's happening gives only a partial picture.

By: KDIsom

KDIsom — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:28:32 +0000

“But I submit that we can’t truly know the what without knowing the why.”

I disagree.

Aerodynamic theory explains flight adequately. Why is purpose a requirement?