Sqeers,

Thank you for your effort at explaining your position. I see, it is not diametrically opposed to mine, and I agree with much of what you wrote.

However, I think Sokal and Bricmont (and I in my recent posts) did not react to Kant or his critics - after all we are not philosophers and you are right that this is a philosophical debate that has been going on for ages - but to social constructivists, deconstructionists, postmodernists etc, using pieces of mathematics and physics, (that they demonstrably do not understand), in support of their criticism of world-views shared by those who are professionals in these fields.

It is not just a mistake what they make: If you say “Melbourne is the capital of Australia” you make a mistake. If you say “John Howard is the capital of Australia” you do not understand what you are talking about. I think the “errors” of Latour, Lyotard et al are of the second kind. As for Derrida, Sokal and Bricmont state in their book, “although the quotation from Derrida contained in Sokal’s parody is rather amusing, it is a one-shot abuse; since there is no systematic misuse of (or indeed attention to) science in Derrida’s work, there is no chapter on Derrida in this book” (p.8).

>>Reality is "objective" to the extent that it objectifies the human condition, how can we know if we objectify it?<<
How would e.g. a physicist “objectify the human condition”? I can understand when he/she assumes the existence of “objective reality” as the source of phenomena he/she tries to explain and make forecasts about. This is not the same as to pretend that he/she knows this reality, ignoring the limitations given by his/her "being only a human observer embedded in a social, cultural environment". So in this sense I agree with you.

I can “investigate” your posts (“deconstruct” your text, if you like) without KNOWING you at all. However it would be rather pointless if I did not ASSUME that you existed. (ctd)

Philo, you are determined to misunderstand.

You asked about where new genes "come from". You have been told they evolve from (far) lesser sequences.

You restate, emphasising you think it is too hard to get enough "new" genes to separate a species. You have been informed of species separated by a simple change in chromosome number (and negligible alteration of the genes), still so closely related they *almost* mate successfully, and *do* produce a zygote. Horses and donkeys diverged so recently that they have not yet accumulated sufficient alterations to not hybridise. Not so long ago, one was a (barely) diseased subgroup of the other, more fertile within subgroup than out. Mules just by being possible show how very nearly identical they still are.

Since you need to, go look up sympatric and allopatric speciation.

Rusty

Shadow Minister,
Since you have comprehensive knowledge of the source of new genetic material perhaps you could give the source of the genes found in humans not found in monkeys, since that is a recent evolutionary development. Is this merely theoretical or is it demonstratable?

Since I only have intermediate school education, you could give in plain language where possible sources of the new genes could come from. Do you only accept others theoretic views or have you seen them demonstrated?

(ctd)
>>perceive ideology as the opacity that prevents us from appreciating the world as it is, beneath cultural rationalising<<
Whatever you mean by “cultural rationalising” (isn't rational thinking supposed to be, by definition, beyond diversity of cultures?), I again have to agree that you cannot know “the world as it is” (Kantian “Ding an sich"?).

>> So I don't take a definitive stand on truth or reality. I simply don't know <<
That sounds like the classical agnostic position, at least when here “truth and reality” refers to what I called case (2) in my previous post.

>>(I) don't believe in belief.<<
I already reacted to this before. Taken verbatim, this sounds to me as if you said “I am not speaking” or wrote “I am not writing”. One has to have some basic assumptions to start with, e.g. the acceptance (belief in) the rules of logic, or those I listed before.

>>The fact that I comply with the constraints of reality doesn't mean I "believe" in it, just that I'm obliged to observe those limitations.<<
You can “believe” (or not) e.g. in God, because such belief has something to do with faith, a state of mind. However, I think most scientists do not “believe in” physical reality independent of their observations, they just tacitly assume its existence, including the constraints and limitations (of cultural or whatever nature) that they have to “comply with” when trying to understand it, explain its manifestations in the mind of the observer and thinker.

Anyhow, let me thank you again for providing incentives for a perusal of what I actually believe about reality, physical or beyond.

Philo,

Rusty has already done this in as simple a fashion as possible. Secondly, humans share a common ancestor to apes, and did not evolve from them.

Considering that humans share about 99% of the genes of these simians, this is strong evidence that there is a common ancestor. If we and the apes were independently created there would be no need for so many common genes.

Shadow Minister: "Rusty has already done this in as simple a fashion as possible."

You gotta be kidding me. Rusty wrote like an expert who has no appreciation for the depth of his expertise, no inkling if you like for the gulf in understanding that exists between him and Philo.

Despite that, I have trouble believing Philo doesn't know the answer to his own question. It isn't like is same answer isn't given every time it is asked. And unlike Rusty's answer it is given in very simple terms that a 5 year old could understand.

If he claims he doesn't know the answer, it isn't because he hasn't been told or doesn't understand. At best it is because he doesn't like the answer he was given and goes looking for a better one. I'd lay odds that isn't it though. To me it looks more like a case of spouting bullsh1t from the pulpit.