Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » Darwin and the reliability of our thought

Darwin and the reliability of our thought

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 98 other followers

Old Main, USU

T-shirts


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.

PHILOSOPHY BOWLING RESULTS

• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 193,575 hits

There’s a brief article here about Darwin, his loss of faith, and a general argument meant to establish that evolution defeats itself: if (according to Evolutionary Theory) all that matters about us is successful replication of our genes, then we have no reason to think that our brains are any good at coming up with true theories; and thus we have no reason to think Evolutionary Theory is true. (This argument has been raised to me by students a couple of times, so I thought this link may be of interest.)

The article doesn’t quite come around to answering the objection. The author observes, “our minds evolved to deal with commonplace reality,” and so from this one might harbor the hope that our brains track truth after all. But the next part of the sentence is “and we must doubt whether they are adequate instruments for speculating so far beyond that.” So the question is whether Evolutionary Theory is well-enough supported by observations of commonplace reality. I think it is: the brilliant thing about Darwin’s idea is how incredibly simple it is, and how extensive its explanatory reach is. This isn’t enough to prove it true, I suppose, but it is enough to defend it from Plantinga’s argument.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: