It seems like a vague reply—since the supposed misconception is not specified.
The “Evolutionary Psychology” post makes the point that values reside in brains, while evolutionary causes lie in ancestors. So, supposedly, if I attribute goals to a petunia, I am making a category error.
This argument is very literal-minded. When biologists talk about plants having the goal of spreading their seed about, it’s intended as shorthand. Sure they /could/ say that the plant’s ancestors exhibitied differential reproductive success in seed distribution, and that explains the observed seed distribution adaptations, but it’s easier to say that the plant wants to spread its seeds about. Everyone knows what you really mean—and the interpretation that the plant has a brain and exhibits intentional thought is ridiculous.
Richard Dawkins faced a similar criticism a lot, with his “selfish” genes. The number of times he had to explain that this was intended as a metaphor was enormous.
It seems like a vague reply—since the supposed misconception is not specified.
The “Evolutionary Psychology” post makes the point that values reside in brains, while evolutionary causes lie in ancestors. So, supposedly, if I attribute goals to a petunia, I am making a category error.
This argument is very literal-minded. When biologists talk about plants having the goal of spreading their seed about, it’s intended as shorthand. Sure they /could/ say that the plant’s ancestors exhibitied differential reproductive success in seed distribution, and that explains the observed seed distribution adaptations, but it’s easier to say that the plant wants to spread its seeds about. Everyone knows what you really mean—and the interpretation that the plant has a brain and exhibits intentional thought is ridiculous.
Richard Dawkins faced a similar criticism a lot, with his “selfish” genes. The number of times he had to explain that this was intended as a metaphor was enormous.