The Doll As Metaphor - 7

The Book

In this series I have brought up a subject that is "hidden in plain sight" to the point that even those who write books about it must strain a bit in order to explain it:

"Questions about teleology are, broadly, to do with whether a thing has a purpose or is acting for the sake of a purpose, and, if so, what that purpose is. Such questions can be raised with respect to anything: twigs, people, schools, ants' nests, ceremonies, stars, the universe as a whole, etcetera."

(Teleology, Andrew Woodfield, p.1). I am like the jurist who, in a famous court case about contracts, wrote: "I know one when I see one" (Justice Stewart’s dictum in Jacobellis v. Ohio).

Should we notice teleology when we see or hear it?

Andrew Woodfield mentioned "stars" and "the universe" in the list in his quote above.

In the previous post in this series I went over those subjects, but let's "know one" by seeing it in a lecture by an assistant professor, describing stars:

"... our Sun is really a kind of depressingly normal and unremarkable type of star ... stars evolve ... this is something ... people don't ... realize stars do. They're born they age and evolve with time and change and then eventually they die ... you can plot out how a star is going to live and die ... over the course of its life ... I'm interested in ... the weird stars that we'll be focusing on ... and looking at how they evolve ... in the first phase of its life it's fusing hydrogen into helium ... eventually the star will run out of hydrogen ... it needs to try fusing something else so it switches from fusing hydrogen to helium ... they make a brief pitstop ... stars like this are rare since their lifetimes are so short

Mystery Science Theater 3000

... Betelgeuse ... was born with maybe 15 or 20 times as much mass as the Sun ... during the course of its lifetime ... we call something like this an evolutionary track ... a glance look at how a star is going to behave during its lifetime ... how stars evolve this is an evolutionary track for a ... star but we can take a bunch of evolutionary tracks ... a good sense of what normal massive star evolution looks like ... it helps to look at what's going on inside the star right before the ... stars started out their lives ... then they moved on and ... by the time they reached the ends of their lives ... this star gets into trouble when it starts to try and fuse iron ... if you try to fuse iron ... it attempts to fuse iron this goes terribly for it ... death for a star ... another supernova doing its supernova thing ... we think that this star might now be dead ... a star that from our perspective was just pretending to explode ... like the one that produced supernova ... because it's flinging off enormous amounts of mass ... violent post death ... we're still studying in the hopes of maybe trying to explain what luminous blue variables are up to ... they will literally resist this to the extent that they're able to support themselves against gravitational collapse ... these stars will produce black holes as part of their deaths ... when they die and produce black holes ... over the course of its life ... when this star dies ...

(Video of Lecture, excerpts from the transcript). Is any star ever alive or dead, or do they exist just like the other abiotic entities?

That same question is asked about viruses: Are viruses alive ("Viruses are not living things", but, but ... "The question whether or not “viruses are alive” ... is effectively without substance").

Furthermore, that same question has been asked about DNA, so, I wrote a post "long ago" about students that did not get that right even after college classes and lectures:

"We are involved in a project to incorporate innovative assessments within a reform-based large-lecture biochemistry course for nonmajors. We not only assessed misconceptions but purposefully changed instruction throughout the semester to confront student ideas. Our research questions targeted student conceptions of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) along with understanding in what ways classroom discussions/activities influence student conceptions. Data sources included pre-/post-assessments, semi-structured interviews, and student work on exams/assessments. We found that students held misconceptions about the chemical nature of DNA, with 63 % of students claiming that DNA is alive prior to instruction. The chemical nature of DNA is an important fundamental concept in science fields. We confronted this misconception throughout the semester collecting data from several instructional interventions. Case studies of individual students revealed how various instructional strategies/assessments allowed students to construct and demonstrate the scientifically accepted understanding of the chemical nature of DNA. However, the post-assessment exposed that 40 % of students still held misconceptions about DNA, indicating the persistent nature of this misconception. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed."

(The Epigenetics of Viruses, quoting from a research paper; cf. The New Paradigm: The Physical Universe Is Mostly Machine - 2). The kind of knowledge that should give students the ability to avoid "playing with dolls" doesn't always sink in.

Another example concerning small things is set forth in a book that gets down to the "ABC's" of abiotic genetic components:

"Consider, next, teleology at the level of molecules: most prominently, in how biologists conceptualize and talk about DNA, especially to non-biologists (see Heine 2017; Moss 2003). That is, the standard characterizations of genetics lend a sense of intentional agency and even intelligent purpose to genes and the cell processes they indirectly help precipitate. Namely, DNA/genes provide information. Ostensibly, that indicates a cognizant, “informed” agent. DNA, one hears, provides the “blueprints” or “instructions” for life, implying an architect or designer who drafted the plans. Indeed, DNA has its own “language.” The language is of base pairs, typically designated with four letters (A, T, C, G): the image conveyed is thus of abstract symbols, not of physical three-dimensional shapes that constrain molecular interactions. Intention continues. The “message” of the DNA is “read” by an enzyme which “transcribes” the information, generating a “messenger” molecule, RNA. The reality of large macromolecules tumbling randomly through cellular protoplasm and occasionally encountering a complementary shape does not readily spring to mind. The “information” may then be “edited,” as though by a purposeful editor, and “carried,” as though by a purposeful courier, to the ribosome, which again “reads” the “message” and “translates,” as though by a purposeful cryptologist, its genetic “code.” The role of entropy and energy release as ineliminable causal factors are rarely mentioned. The whole causal cascade seems to depend on autonomous linguistic agents deliberately communicating to one another, not on thermodynamics." 

(Teleology’s long shadow, A. Werth & D. Allchin). It is incredible that some scientists pass on the doll lingo to some their students who may thereafter think groups of ATCG and/or U can be selfish and/or cooperative (Quanta, Scientific American).

Same with other subjects on Andrew Woodfield's list: "the universe as a whole" or "the universe as a hole et cetera".

Notice:

"atoms keep some ‘memory’ of their previous quantum mechanical origin", "intelligent molecules", "Viruses ... smart and efficient", "plants transmit their intelligence", "Amoebae ... may co-operate ... or ... may cheat ...the conscious choice to sometimes cheat and sometimes cooperate hints at intelligence, as well as a feeling of identity", "Insects ... their intellect and intelligence is not a point of discussion..."

(The Doll As Metaphor - 5, quoting an 'eastern' source: "propounded by philosopher-seer Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar"). So, is a teleological wind blowing in from the East & Far East?

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

---

The Doll As Metaphor - 6

Bigga Badda Boom

I. The Big Bang Doll

This "Doll As Metaphor" series has nothing to do with anything other than 'noise' in communication (see video below).

For example, there is no realistic scientific probability for the 'noise' of the big bang hypothesis:

"Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10¹²³ to 1.

(References: Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9) ... In practical terms, in probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ equals 'zero probability'. Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the “accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility."

(Teleological Argument and Entropy). The Big Bang hypothesis is as valid as the toy story I would be inventing if I told you that my lawnmower is selfish, my pet rock is selfish, or the atoms of the genes we are made of are selfish.

But this teleological noise is not an accident, it is the result of talking points handed down "from on high".

I mean handed down using their discipline's "encyclopedia of talking points" (The Muddling concept of teleology). 

Other scientists have elaborated on 'the noise' as well, and have come to that conclusion too (The Memes of Penrose).

In other words, the "Big Bang" hypothesis is not provable, so it is invalid.

Nevertheless, the noise is perpetuated by the fact that the 'biotic world of words' has substantially ignored the 'abiotic world of words' (If Cosmology Is "Off," How Can Biology Be "On?").

II. The Fog of War "Scientific Language"

A. Health And Virus-Wars

James Madison originated the idea of "cultural germs" being spread by cultural activity to thereby cause widespread disease until an epidemic or a pandemic results: 

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established."

(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?, quoting Madison). Of virus-wars, like nation-against-nation wars, can we extrapolate to say:

Of all the enemies to public-health, virus-war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germs of every other public-health danger. Virus-War is the parent of pathogenic armies; from these proceed health-related debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In Virus-war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds of the people, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in medical commercialism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of Virus-war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its good health in the midst of continual Virus-warfare. Those truths are well established.

(Apologies To James Madison, altered virus version). A virus-war is a commercial enterprise of the pharmaceutical industry based on a propaganda system that misrepresents viruses.

One of the founding fathers was germ-aware hundreds of years ago!

B. Exceptional Priests

In a cultural 'priestdom' the high priests can be priests of science, or priests of religion, because the Greek word 'presbyteros' ('priest') simply means 'elder' or 'senior'.

The priest who hypothesized The Big Bang was literally a priest, but in addition to that, was a 'presbyteros' of science (Georges Lemaître).

A "priest", "elder", or "senior" can easily be applied to technocracy:

"Technocracy itself is an immortality ideology that, although it is coupled with materialism, has as part of its makeup an element of the magical and a belief that new tools and innovations provide solutions to both the small day-to-day problems of life and the larger problems of human happiness and mortality. Technology is entrancing, and, functionally, technologists become creators of magic and the wizards of today, claiming the same authority over technology that doctors claim over human health or shamans over the cursed. This has always been so, going back to ancestral peoples who learned to use fire, tools, wind, and wheels. Even in subsistence societies, technology has a greater impact on a variety of sociological variables than do supernatural or religious beliefs (Nolan and Lenski 1996)."
...
[I repeat]"Even in subsistence societies, technology has a greater impact on a variety of sociological variables than do supernatural or religious beliefs (Nolan and Lenski 1996)."

(The Machine Religion). The nomenclature of the culture of the priest who hypothesized the big bang is of the same "language family" and nomenclature of the culture of the current commercialized scientific community.

C. Exceptional Language In An Ecclesiastical-Priestdom

The big bang 'presbyteros' (Lemaître), spoke and wrote in a 'presbyteros language' which the laity did not understand (Use of Latin in the Roman Catholic Church, Ecclesiastical Latin, The Day the Mass Changed, How it Happened and Why).

That form of 'communication' spilled over into the 'presbyteros language' realm of the science of the day too.

D. Exceptional Language In A Technocratic-Priestdom

Eventually the communication became intense, like the time when scientific teaching was severely imposed upon  by ecclesiastical teaching (Galileo vs. the Pope).

That tension waxed and waned from time to time, but the language of the scientific realm still remains mysterious to the scientific laity.

Upon occasion the scientific laity persuaded some of those of the scientific 'presbyteros' that there were various anomalies of doctrine, so efforts toward better ways of communication emerged from time to time:

"Since at least the 17th century (and mostly because of Newton), natural scientists have stopped using formal or final causes to explain natural phenomena ... except in biology. This was first pointed out by Colin Pittendrigh (Pittendrigh, C. S. Behavior and Evolution) (ed. by A. Rose and G. G. Simpson), Yale University Press, 1958), who coined the term "teleonomy" to refer to the kind of teleological phenomena observed in biological processes."

(On The Origin of Genieology - 2). The language of the scientific 'presbyteros' is still with us (It's All Greek To Me), but to a lesser degree:

"Scientific names are used to describe various species of organisms in a way that is universal so that scientists around the globe can readily identify the same animal. This is called binomial nomenclature, and many of the scientific names are derived from the Latin name of the organism. The scientific name is broken down into the genus name, which comes first, followed by the specific species name.

...

Modern binomial nomenclature was adopted by Swedish physician and botanist Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century. The reason for the proposition of the two-part name was to create a code that more readily identified specific species without the use of long descriptors that could be prone to subjectivity."

(The Importance of Scientific Names for Organisms). The power to name things is not all it is cracked up to be (Why do scientists use Latin when they name organisms?, "Scientists started using Latin back in the Middle Ages"). 

The reason 'Middle Ages' scientific 'presbyteros speak' is the same today as it was then is because the scientific 'presbyteros' can (if they couldn't they wouldn't).

E. Power Corrupts

As with most if not all exposures to power, there is the ever-present danger of corruption (The Germ Theory - of Government, The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).

Even the high priests of science can become rebels without a cause (I repeat):

Forget the selfish gene — the evolution of life is driven by the selfish ribosome - See more at: http://astrobio.net/topic/origins/origin-and-evolution-of-life/forget-selfish-gene-evolution-life-driven-selfish-ribosome/#sthash.SrgMitqe.dpuf

"Since at least the 17th century (and mostly because of Newton), natural scientists have stopped using formal or final causes to explain natural phenomena ... except in biology. This was first pointed out by Colin Pittendrigh (Pittendrigh, C. S. Behavior and Evolution) (ed. by A. Rose and G. G. Simpson), Yale University Press, 1958), who coined the term "teleonomy" to refer to the kind of teleological phenomena observed in biological processes."

(On The Origin of Genieology - 2). So, it comes down to a question "what is a scientific name?" and a priestly answer: "A name used by scientists", to wit:

"A high point of my career, and faith in science, was a cosmology workshop I bulled my way into in 1990, when I was a staff writer for Scientific American. Thirty leading physicists gathered in a rustic resort in northern Sweden to swap ideas about how our universe was born. If Stephen Hawking was the id of the meeting, a joker with cosmic swagger, Martin Rees, cool and elegant, was the superego, as befitting a future president of the Royal Society. Personalities aside, Hawking and Rees had much in common. Born in 1942, both became professors at the University of Cambridge, where Newton once taught, and both contributed to our modern understanding of the big bang, black holes, galaxies and other cosmic matters.

One afternoon the workshop participants traveled to a local church to hear a concert. As they marched down the center aisle of the packed church, led by Hawking in his wheelchair, the parishioners stood and applauded. The symbolism thrilled me. These churchgoers seemed to acknowledge that science was displacing religion as the source of answers to the deepest mysteries, like why we exist.

...

"Hawking and Rees recognize science’s declining status. They deplore widespread doubts about global warming, nuclear power, vaccines, genetically-modified foods and evolution. They call for better science education to lure more young people into science and to counter public ignorance. “The low esteem in which science and scientists are held is having serious consequences,” Hawking complains.

They fail to mention that science’s wounds are at least partially self-inflicted. In 2005 statistician John Ioannidis presented evidence that "most published research findings are false". That is, the findings cannot be replicated by follow-up research. Other scholars confirmed the work of Ioannidis, leading to the so-called replication crisis. The crisis is especially severe in fields with high financial stakes, such as oncology and psychopharmacology."

(The Twilight of Science's High Priests). And of course, on to Reductionism and Retraction Watch.

III. The Viral Dolls

The way this applies to viruses was brought up in The Doll As Metaphor - 3 (cf.  The Doll As Metaphor, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Today's commercial 'science presbyteros' attribute intelligent cognition to viruses when they say viruses do this, that, and the other (such as "taking over the complex machinery of a cell"). [big pharma makes a dangerous enemy of all viruses that only big pharma can protect us from]

Such statements are like young children interacting with abiotic dolls (Quantum Biology - 9 @ "II.The Origin of Ubiquitous Brought To You By Firesign Theatre").

Can a better nomenclature emerge from this (Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death)?

IV. Closing Comments

Scientific studies have shown that commercialism in universities and other research venues warp research in the direction of commercial interests:

"Proponents of university-industry collaborations and commercialized academic science point to the benefits of economic growth and the promise of new university revenue to support research as they downplay concerns about effects on the university’s traditional role of providing non-proprietary and basic research. However, critics contend that if those benefits come at the expense of the public-interest emphasis of academic science, the long-term capacity of the university to provide those benefits may be diminished. Our analysis of a survey of plant and animal biotechnology scientists at U.S. universities indicates that the critics’ concerns are valid.
...
We therefore conclude that our models confirm insights from numerous qualitative studies that describe how scientists wrestle with and develop new strategies to remain true to their core values while, at the same time, meeting the expectations of their funders and parameters and incentives of university structures (e.g. Welsh et al., 2008; Lam, 2010)."

(Commercial Science).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

---