Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <255@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 10:14:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnet.255
Posted: Mon Jul 15 10:14:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 05:52:28 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <285@phri.UUCP> <358@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 54

> 					 Dan
>  Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions
>  and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them
>  is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or
>  joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones?
>  Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later?
More subjective emotionalizing from the lips (fingers) of Dan B.
The offending word in this article is "seems".
Dan, haven't you ever owned a dog, trained a horse, watched a chimp, etc?
Permit me to be equally subjective for a moment.  I think dogs have partially
developed emotions, including love, loyalty, sorrow, etc.
The partial linguistic abilities of primates and dolphins, and the trainability
of dogs and horses indicates (to me) that biological evolution is
consistent with the development of emotions, reason, and intelligence.
They are simply products of neural networks of ever increasing complexity,
and their precursors all have selective advantages.
Since neither of us can quantify emotions, nothing is proved,
so again I entreat, please keep the subjective emotionalizing down
to a reasonable level.
> Is any naturalistic hypothesis
>  superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic?
Concerning naturalistic explanations, the answer to your question is a 
resounding "YES".  Until proven otherwise,
natural explanations *are* superior to supernatural explanations.
Any reputable scientist will tell you this.
There are several reasons for this, primarily Occum's (sp) razor.
Occum's rule of adopting theories that explain the most facts with the fewest
assumptions is a *proven* technique that leads to right answers
more often than not.
Any time you adopt a supernatural explanation, you now must postulate,
and justify the existence of supernatural forces.
Since there has never been evidence, or mechanisms for this postulate,
Occum (and I) would (and should) be biased against such theories.
In addition, history tells us that reliance on supernatural explanations
has been consistently *wrong*!!  We used god(s) to explain earthquakes,
circular orbits, weather, diseases, rainbows, volcanos, etc etc etc.
Each time, we were wrong.  It is illogical to assume that, this one time,
there is an exception to the rule.  The burden of proof is on you, not us.
This concept is called induction, and it is another cornerstone of science.
If something happens repeatedly, it is reasonable to assume, until proven
otherwise, that it will continue to occur.
The combination of Occum's razor and induction makes
natural explanations superior.
This is not subjective emotionalizing on the part of scientists,
it is just *good* science.
This will undoubtedly disturb you, but it is reality.
This points out (to me) a serious deficiency in our educational system.
We teach and stress scientific facts, without teaching
the techniques.  I have no answers, but this problem must be solved.
-- 
	Three of the most brilliant concepts are very counterintuitive:
	evolution, capitalism, and relativity.
	Despite our intuitions and biases, the evidence supports all three.
	Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad