The Epistemologist on Evolutionary Epistemology

Philosophical fiction comedy

 

 

The Epistemologist on Evolutionary Epistemology

William Bryant

Antioch University Seattle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Evolutionary epistemology,” the epistemologist typed, nose turned upward, “ is taken on by a noble few in the name of …” He paused, unsure of himself and said “science!? Ah, knowledge was it? Or, is it truth? Maybe justice”, he mumbled, “has something to do with the whole thing?”

“Let’s start with the basics,” he thought aloud, “what am I writing about again? Oh yes, evolutionary epistemology. Right, so what’s that?”

He began typing “Evolutionary epistemology takes a naturalistic view of epistemology which emphasizes natural selection; in that A, it is the reason why our sensation and cognitive faculties are reliable and “fit” to be the data collection and interpretation mechanisms between us and the world. And B, ‘…trial and error learning and the evolution of scientific theories are construed as selection processes (Harms M. B., 2008)’.”

“Ok”, he said to himself, “ I need to slow it down a little more so I don’t turn my brain into soup and end up writing a paper that only I scarcely understand or even remember writing.”

He followed this train of thought, “So, what is epistemology? That’s easy,” and he began typing “epistemology is the study of knowledge or the area of philosophy that is focused on the questions what is knowledge? And, how do you know?” He stopped to think and the asked himself, “Ok, so what about evolution?”

Continuing to type, quoting directly from Encarta Dictionary : English (North America) Evolution is a;

theory of development from earlier forms[in] biology the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

“Ok, I’ve got all my ducks in a row here now so I can get serious about this paper.” He said to himself, feeling like he had taken care of his light work.  But then it dawned on him, to ask one simple question before going any further with his writing.

 “How do I know if I have all my ducks in a row?” he asked himself. “Well, I see with my eyes that all my ducks are in a row just beyond my desk next to my bicycle” he said. “But how do you know your eyes are relaying accurate and reliable information to your brain, and further more how do you know that your brain is interpreting the information which it is receiving from your eyes (corrupt or not) accurately?” posing the question to himself . “Good question” he said aloud.

 “Who are you talking to daddy?” his daughter asked.

 He replied long windily “Well little one, I think I was talking to myself, but I don’t have time to think it over and be sure because I’m trying to work out the epistemic matter of these ducks you see, so why don’t you go run along and play?”.

 “Well, I would” she said “but these ducks are in the way. Oh, I almost forgot to tell you the landlord called, he said ‘the ducks have got to go or else we will be evicted’.”

“Well if my daughter and landlord are confirming the information my brain is receiving from my sensory apparatus then my ducks must be in a row. Right.” He said righteously.

“But I should take a closer look just to be sure. Let’s see here” he said, “I perceive that my ducks are in a row, also I perceive that my daughter is also perceiving the same phenomena, and both my perception and the perception of my perceived daughter are confirmed by the perception of the landlord as perceived by my daughter who I have perceived relaying this perception to me.”

“This seems perfectly clear. So, now that I “know” that all my ducks are in a row I can continue with the task at hand”. He said to himself confidently.  But then a horrible feeling came over him.

“Oh dear, this can’t work.” The epistemologist muttered, “I can only confirm my own existence ‘cogito ergo sum’, says Descartes (Newman, 1997)”, remembering Descartes own epistemic dilemma, “so all confirmation of my row of ducks occurs only from my own perspective. As the saying goes ‘I think therefore “I” am’, no conclusive evidence about these ducks though.”  He whispered thoughtfully scratching his head.

“Regroup” he said to himself, “why should I trust my perception?” He smiled “just the place to get back on topic”.

He began typing once again

“Why should I trust my perception? This is a good question, one answer which is good enough for most people is common sense, and interestingly enough this view is backed up by naturalists (Harms D. W., 2004, pp. 159-161)and Darwinian evolution. If our perception of the world was inaccurate how would we survive and reproduce?”

“OK”, he said “this seems logical”.

He typed his argument.

 “If reliable and accurate perception of the natural world is essential for human survival it follows that we do have reliable and accurate perception of nature because we are surviving in it to this day. Therefore I do have knowledge of my row of ducks. ”

“Take that, Descartes”, he shouted. “And I didn’t even have to get involved with the supernatural.”

Then he remembered that the task at hand is not to argue with long dead philosophers, but to write a critical paper on the subject of evolutionary epistemology, answering the questions; what is evolutionary epistemology? Why is evolutionary epistemology important? And. what, if any, are its implications to science and philosophy in general?

Continuing to contemplate his own argument he asks himself, “does this argument hold water against modern skeptics?” Unsure of the answer he said, “This is not going to be a walk in the park”, and then decided that a walk in the park was a nice idea. He could use some fresh air. “I’ll kill two birds with one stone and take this row of ducks”, which he was fairly certain, were indeed in a row just beyond his desk next to his bicycle, and oddly looking at him with fear in their eyes. “I’m not going to really kill any birds”, he said to them mumbling “these ducks don’t understand a word I’m saying. Or do they? How do I know? I don’t have time for anymore damn duck question!” he grunted to himself as he took the row of ducks outside to be freed at the park.     

After returning from the park, the epistemologist sat down by the wood stove in his rocking chair. “Mother” he called “would you be so kind as to fetch me a cup of tea?” After some sarcastic mumbling “ya lazy … good for nothing…he thinks he’s a philosopher…” she brought out his tea gave it to him, and sat in her chair with her own cup.

“So”, she asked “how’s your paper coming along?”

He sipped his tea, before speaking “Well, while I was walking in the park I remembered something I read by Michael Bradie, something to the effect that just because a trait is present it does not follow that it was selected for via natural selection (Bradie, 1989, p. 408)”.

“So”, she said, “what do you think?”

 “Well, Bradie makes a good point, as he said, ‘we can conclude that ... [existing traits are not] …a selective disadvantage for those organisms which possess and utilize them, but that is a far cry from concluding that they are adaptations that are the result of selection.’. And he is right in that evolutionary epistemologists are wrong in assuming ‘natural selection … [as]… the model for cognitive development (1989)’.”  He said quoting directly from a big blue book.

She looked at him smiled and said, “But, if there is enough evidence that shows that those traits are in fact essential to survival or if a trait say, the ability to communicate meaningful information with intention, can be reduced to its evolutionarily most primitive (Harms D. W., 2004, pp. 200-202) form and found to be universally adaptive we could have a foundation for a biological theory of knowledge which may lead to confirmation of the natural selection of cognitive development.”

He thought deeply for a moment before replying, “there is a problem with that though. You see meaning as we understand it is found in the relationships between subject and predicate and since human beings are the only animals with the ability to form sentences, how are we to find meaning in the communications of primitive life forms?”   

Her rebuttal was quick as she was getting emotionally worked up “Don’t you find it absolutely ridiculous to look at meaning and knowledge ‘…anthropocentrically, attempting to subsume animal signals into the human framework rather than the other way around (Harms D. W., 2004).’? Isn’t the primitive content found in the communication of all life forms essentially meaningful? It’s even found in the signals of cell communication (Jean-Francois Brunet, 1995).”       

Laughing he said, “Well, yes and if it can be shown that this “primitive content” is the evolutionary seed of what we understand as meaningful communication which intern implies knowledge we’d have a biological starting point for studying how the human conceptions of meaning ,knowledge and our language abilities may have actually evolved.”

“Oh, but there’s more,” she grinned. “It is plain to see that when cells send signals that the behavior of the receiver is the insension of the signal, and the sender is the primitive form of justification  (Harms D. W., 2004, p. 201). The appropriate behaviors being selected for (Jean-Francois Brunet, 1995) become normative; we not only have a basis for justified belief but the evolutionary seeds of normative ethics (Harms D. W., 2004, p. 191).”

He paused to reflect, “That’s all well and good” he said seriously “but to do this correctly and defensibly, ‘evolutionary epistemology needs mathematics instead of metaphors (Harms D. W., 2004, p. 186)’, and I for one am not qualified for the task.”

“With that noted, you should go ahead with your paper using metaphors as it is the best you can offer at this time and hopefully you can provoke the mathematically inclined into action,” she replied encouragingly before going off to bed.

The epistemologist began typing the conclusion of his paper.

“The importance of a unified theory of knowledge is strangely understated in philosophic and scientific communities. The wonderful influence of Darwin on modern science has done well in unifying most all of natural study. Biology, geology and psychology are all now guided in many respects by evolutionary theory.  But if the very foundations, the “knowledge”, these sciences are based on have no fundamental justification for belief what do the findings of science mean? If there is no discernable matter of fact then there really is no science and we might as well flush it all straight away and just go back to debating which religion is the right religion (an exaggeration). But I believe that if a widely accepted evolutionary justification for knowledge becomes a reality (that is to say a biological justification of our own common sense) the salvation of science from the grasp of relativism can occur. This is the importance of evolutionary epistemology and the legacy of Darwin.

The implications of Darwinism on natural philosophy and science are extensive and nearly unfathomable. Its usefulness as a tool of epistemology has been great but evolutionary epistemology faces great challenges if it will ever become THE epistemology. But if there is ever to be a universal theory of knowledge and method of finding it, it must fit with the whole of our understanding of nature which is at this point in time Darwinian. Therefore, the only epistemology that has any chance of become universally accepted in the scientific community is evolutionary epistemology.”

He saved and printed the paper.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Bradie, M. (1989). Evolutionary epistemology as naturalized epistemology, Chapter 11, of Issues in evolutionary epistemology. Albany : State university of New York Press.

Encarta Dictionary : English (North America). (n.d.).

Harms, D. W. (2004). Information and Meaning in Evolutionary Processes. Cambridge University Press.

Harms, M. B. (2008, January 4). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy / Evolutionary Episemology . Retrieved July 18, 2010, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/

Jean-Francois Brunet, P. F. (Director). (1995). Death by design [Motion Picture].

Newman, L. (1997, December 3). Descartes' Epistemology. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/