Hello Bertvan,
I believe a lot of blood sweat and tears are being shed over what
amounts to a pun, a play on words.
As I've warned before, one has to pay careful attention to the
meaning of words and particularly their technical meanings as
opposed to everyday meanings. If you want to discuss randomness
from a scientific point of view, then you need a precise objective
definition of the term random. Suppose someone wants to insist
that evolution is random. Before going on one has to define
precisely what is meant by random. So we'll introduce the technical
meaning for random which comes from algorithmic information
theory. This is a nice definition in that it is independent of the
process whereby something came about (stochastic, deterministic).
It depends only on structure. If something has a pattern then it
is not random. So, clearly, evolution is not random.
OK, I have an idea that when you say random you mean without
purpose. But herein lies the whole problem. Purpose cannot
be objectively measured. There are some who will try to tell
you that the exclusion of purpose from science is arbitrary
and _ad hoc_. Such a person is, IMHO, ignorant of the history
of science. So, how to deal with a fundamentalist who claims
that evolution reveals a world without purpose? This type of
person usually prides themselves for basing their conclusions
upon reason and science. So why not hit them where it really
hurts by showing that their view is unscientific? Ask how it
is they will measure purpose. What are its units? How will
you calibrate your purposemeter in a world without purpose?
This is just the knifeedge of methodological naturalism
slicing off superfluous and meaningless claims.
OK, but your likely to encounter a more subtle argument.
Someone will say that they are going to assume that purpose
doesn't exist. "I'm going to describe the physical phenomena
of evolution assuming that purpose doesn't exist." They
are very successful in their description and then claim that
their success provides support for the original assumption.
How to deal with this argument? Well, the argument is flawed
because the assumption is unnecessary. It has nothing to
do with the success they achieved. To see this, ask yourself
how you assume something doesn't exist when you can't even
define (objectively) what it is. You can say you assume it,
but the assumption is without meaning because you don't really
know what it is you are assuming.
So, what the successful approach really amounts to is the
following: "I'm going to describe the physical process of
evolution without reference to purpose." This makes things
much clearer does it not?
Can you describe a purposeful process without reference to
purpose? Yes. A great example is information theory. Information
theory cannot measure the meaning (purpose etc.) of a message.
What it does is measure the amount of information in a message
without any reference to its meaning. It is irrelevant whether
the message has some purpose or not. Now, would it make any
sense, in view of this, to claim that messages have no meaning
or purpose? Note that I can also fool myself as above. I can say
"I'm going to measure the amount of information in this message
assuming it has no meaning." I'll get the same thing. So I
say, "since I got the same thing, this justifies my assumption
that the message has no meaning." Hopefully this example points
out the absurdity of such an argument.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"I'm tryin' to think, but nuthins happenin'"
-- Curly