FWIW, Nagel is the chap who wrote that famous essay, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" back in 1974:
http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Robin, when you mentioned this book recently to Curtis, you noted that Nagel was an "avowed atheist." People who find his rejection of materialist neo-Darwinism upsetting will no doubt try to ignore or obscure this inconvenient fact and paint him as a believer. By the same token, though, the Creationist/Intelligent Design faction will most likely also try to obscure his atheism so they can appropriate his conclusions. Should be interesting to watch. This is fascinating stuff; thanks for posting the quotes. It's refreshing to read that "...the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense"--although it will surely scandalize the science-minded. I'm guessing that your thinking about "first-person ontology" resonates with Nagel's thesis, no? I hope you'll say more about all this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE IS > ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel > > The argument from the failure of psychophysical reductionism is a > philosophical one, but I believe there are independent empirical reasons to > be skeptical about the truth of reductionism in biology. Physico-chemical > reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any resistance to it is > regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect. But for a long > time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms > came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the > evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical > basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable > the standard historical account becomes . . . it seems to me that, as it is > usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the > product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in > the face of common sense. > > I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the > reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life. It is > prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a > sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural > selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response, not in favor of a > fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative > that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples. What is > lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a > nonnegligible probability of being true. There are two questions. First, > given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is > the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into > existence spontaneously on the earth, solely through the operation of the > laws of physics and chemistry? The second question is about the sources of > variation in the evolutionary process that was set into motion once life > began: In the available geological time since the first life forms appeared > on the earth, what is the likelihood that, as a result of physical accident, > a sequence of viable genetic mutations should have occurred that was > sufficient to permit natural selection to produce the organisms that actually > exist? > > . . . the questions concern highly specific events over a long historical > period in the distant past, the available evidence is very indirect, and > general assumptions have to play an important part. My skepticism is not > based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is > just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the > consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require > us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. This is especially true > with regard to the origin of life. > > The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our > possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible now > than it was in Aristotle's day. That it has produced you, and me, and the > rest of us is the most astonishing thing about it. . . . I realize that such > doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost > everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the > reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else > would not be science. > > . . . certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as > non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world . . . > > As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the > dogmatic scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of > probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect > to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural > selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical > systems capable of such evolution. > > . . . It is no longer legitimate simply to imagine a sequence of gradually > evolving phenotypes, as if their appearance through mutations in the DNA were > un-problematic--as Richard Dawkins does for the evolution of the eye. With > regard to the origin of life, the problem is much harder, since the option of > natural selection as an explanation is not available, And the coming into > existence of the genetic code--an arbitrary mapping of nucleotide sequences > into amino acids, together with mechanisms that can read the code and carry > out its instructions--seems particularly resistant to being revealed as > probable given physical laws alone. > > . . . Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the > prevailing doctrine--that the appearance of life from dead matter and its > evolution through accidental and natural selection to its present forms has > involved nothing but the operation of physical law--cannot be regarded as > unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather > than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis. >
