Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview. According to evolution, our sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations – those that did not decrease our survival value and were therefore not eliminated. Some people might suppose that our sensory organs are reliable because they have survival value. But this does not follow logically. Chlorophyll has survival value in plants; but this does not imply that chlorophyll reliably informs the plant about the outside world.
49 comments
Dyslexics like me know what it's like to be fooled by our senses.
"Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview."
If you are implying that I could trust my senses in the religious world view that would be stupid. Believing in god(s) will not improve my reading.
soundcloud.com/dyz-lecticus
of course our senses are more reliable than not. they'd be of no evolutionary benefit otherwise. just because they're not PERFECTLY reliable (they're nowhere near it) doesn't mean they aren't lots better than make-believe and hallucinating. we'd have starved to death long ago if they weren't.
deer that can't see the wolves clearly get eaten more often and younger than deer that can. therefore, deer evolve good eyesight. natural selection, that.
Chlorophyll is not a sensory organ.
And you're telling me that being able to see, hear, or smell predators is not a survival value?
No, by all means accept the wholly stupid notion that because our sensory organs are the result of evolution, they must, in some manner, be faulty. Ignore your vision when you step out into traffic, ignore the smell of burning when it wakes you up in the middle of the night, ignore the screams of stop when you walk into a burning building. Please.
Because if you do, it might not create a better world, but at least it will be a more logical one.
Try living a week of your life trying to hunt wildlife while wearing earplugs and a sleeping mask, then come back.
By the way, there are in fact some built-in features that make human senses slightly unreliable, but help you survive better, such a seeing non-existent patterns, hearing noises, etc. It really pays to be over-cautious.
That's because it isn't the job of chlorophyll to provide sensory data. You might as well be complaining that we can't walk on our eyes. Those organs that ARE meant for collecting sensory data, imperfect as they are, are good enough to at least get a general idea of what's going on in reality. For more rigorous knowledge, there's science which stresses testing, math, and independent confirmation which eliminates as many biases as we are capable of eliminating. Clearly that's been reliable enough for you to trust that your computer will post your bullshit on the web and not just randomly explode in your face.
Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview.
It's much MORE reliable than a worldview where magic can change reality at a moment's notice. As Joshua 10 demonstrates, fundies can't even be sure when the Sun will rise and set.
You're right that our senses are not guaranteed to be accurate. Ask any Solipsist.
If you have a better way, by all means tell us! Note that reading the Bible involves using the eyes, and that feelings are just as unprovable as senses.
Maybe, with genetic engineering, some future humans will have chloroplasts. If we did, we could "sense" sunlight in a whole new way, and maybe consume less solid food. And, as we know from Star Trek, green people are sexy.
And that has what to do with organisms adapting to their environment?I mean if you can't understand that concept, then stop talking about evolution, you are too stupid to understand it. If you can understand it you are lying through your teeth. And making it look like you don't understand.
"Chlorophyll has survival value in plants; but this does not imply that chlorophyll reliably informs the plant about the outside world."
image
Even this tomato plant - which $cientology founder L. Ron Hubbard is 'Auditing' with an E-Meter on the subject - knows more about that ending of "The Big O" than you ever will*, even after 9001 viewings of such.
Jase, you're a louse. [/R. Dorothy Wayneright]
*- ...but then, does anyone ?! [/Mindfuck]
@Lady Evil
"Apples and oranges. Literally."
The tomato: Fruit or Vegetable, Jase?
And Oranges & Lemons - whilst radically different in size, shape & flavour - are essentially [i]mirror[/i] images of each other , thus are the same.
Is chlorophyll the fabled sixth sense? How is it used? I can smell, taste, see, hear, and touch. How do I green?
Lisle's "logic": not all things with survival value (e.g., chlorophyll) inform an organism of the outside word; therefore, nothing that informs an organism of the outside world (sensory input) has survival value.
Substitute "wheels" for "survival value" and "have pedals" for "inform an organism", and we get by the same logic: "not all things with wheels have pedals; therefore, nothing that has pedals has wheels.
The neat thing about our senses is we have several of them, and their functions sort of complement each other. It takes a minimum of mental processing (which apparently atrophied in Jason Lisle) to synthesize a good approximation of our sensory inputs.
Chlorophyll? Non sequitur much?
> Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview.
Our sensory organs work in a consistent, repeatable manner (and if not, we can easily tell there's something wrong with them). If you look at a red light, close your eyes, and look at it again, you still see a red light. If you stick your hand in chilly water for a while, then take it out, let it warm and stick it in the water again, your experience of cold is probably the same as in the first time.
In other words, it doesn't matter why our senses work the way they work, as long as they do work consistently, in order to produce consistent and reliable observations of our surroundings. Examining why they work is probably important from biological point of view, but not from the point of view of other sciences.
Of course, Jason is perfectly willing to cast doubt on our senses until he needs their input for his own views.
The argument isn't particularly new, our senses are fallible and designed by 'random' evolution, so are not epistemologically sound sources or empirical knowledge, unlike the divine, hence perfect and flawless, sources apologists like Jason would have us adopt instead.
Sources that we are only aware of via our imperfect senses... oops.
Like most apologetic sophistry, JL's argument simply boils down to special pleading. Our sources and methods are flawed for reasons that don't apply to his because they just don't even when they obviously do.
And what if what was really going on in reality was completely divorced from our everyday experiences using our senses and was forever so us always doomed to only experience a false reality with our senses in everyday life?
Then it would still be practical to go about and do everything exactly as we already are doing.
So reality doesn't actually matter besides what is instrumentally or practically real. Even our senses not always being accurate is something which is informed to us through our own senses, often with the aid of scientific instruments which were built with the help of our senses.
And if this was a fake reality but we could possibly get to it the only way would be through our senses. So no matter what we're trapped in the reality real or not that our senses give us.
Chlorophyll also does not trigger the incredibly complex nerve clusters of a functioning central cortex, something Jason clearly does not possess. Yes, thought and intelligence are the result of biological and chemical reactions in the brain, but the thoughts those reactions cause us to have have allowed our species to not only stay alive but thrive for hundreds of thousands of years.
"Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable?"
Perhaps not all of us. Some people's sensory input is often interpreted not so much as a mostly reliable version of reality adequate for survival but more as a giant-daddy emotional fantasy through which to filter the real world.
Such escapism is useful if, for example, you tend towards bigotry or self-loathing or if you enjoy brutality or if you are unable to reign-in your jerk inclinations. Of course, those deplorable tendencies tend to reinforce one another, so that if you've got one of them, you'll likely develop them all.
Perhaps that has a kind of survival value too, in a desperate, scraping-by sort of way.
According to evolution, our sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations
He's beyond ignorant... though he explains WHY he's wrong in the very same sentence!! How the fuck does someone manage to miss that??
we learn in what circumstances our senses can be relied on a nd when they are not useful. for example hearing at a rock concert is not going to tell you a bear is coming up behind you.
we know by study how our senses work in practical terms and how they can be enhanced (glasses, telescopes, microscopes etc)
while all senses contribute to understanding your surroundings to some extent and therefore have survival value not everything providing survival value is a sense. The shape of your butt for example might make you more attractive to a mate and hence get more chances to reproduce, ensuring your genes are passed on. In evolutionary terms survival is about breeding.
This is why PhD astrophysicists should stay clear of biology.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
