Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

universal values?

The spandrels argument is a real difference. But as you say it's not a challenge to natural selection. I think Gould was fighting to get paleontology noticed in evolutionary debates.

For example if you look at the appendix of Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker, he basically rediscovers Gould's big argument - what Dawkins calls the evolution of evolvability. The two colleagues just happened to arive at their conclusions using different methods - Gould empirically, Dawkins with fiddling about with a computer simulation. I think they both just enjoyed a good argument.
 
Part of the problem is that Gould was a dishonest polemicist. Here's a succinct summary of his challenge to the neo-Darwinian synthesis. He quotes Ernst Mayr:

The term “evolutionary synthesis” was introduced by Julian
Huxley . . . to designate the general acceptance of two conclusions:
gradual evolution can be explained in terms of small
genetic changes (“mutations”) and recombination, and the
ordering of this genetic variation by natural selection; and the
observed evolutionary phenomena, particularly macroevolutionary
processes and speciation, can be explained in a manner
that is consistent with the known genetic mechanisms.

But note the last sentence Mayr talks about macroevolutionary processes being consistent with known genetic mechanism. Gould goes on to polemicise against the thesis that macroevolutionary processes are derived from known genetic mechanisms. The "pluralism" is already inherent in Mayr's statement. Gould manufactures a difference that isn't there.

So for phil. Every evolutionary biologist recognises that dropping a meteor on the earth can cause mass extinctions and that this event will have an impact on evolution. Nobody (including Gould) thinks that dropping a meteor on the earth explains how species are adapted to their environment. Their ain't no controversy here.
 
They would if they were exposed to any other.

I suppose Gould's is the best-known alternative, although that fact is disguised by his reluctance to admit that he had in fact departed from Darwinism until his final, definitive work. I think that when more people actually get around to reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory with the care and attention it deserves, the public's perception of the field will change quite dramatically.

But anybody that watches dinosaur shows on tv is unknowingly exposed to both darwinian and gouldian evolution. It's cleverly served up seamlessly and without anything noting the distinction. It's left for the viewer to choose - in case the viewer might have a question. Gould played the same game tbh, but that was so as not to piss off the authorities.
 
I think that when more people actually get around to reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory with the care and attention it deserves, the public's perception of the field will change quite dramatically.

:D It's over 1,400 pages and has sentences like this . . .

On the second branch of full efficacy for natural selection as an externalist and functionalist process, the stunning discoveries of extensive deep homologies across phyla separated by more than 500 million years (particularly the vertebrate homologs of arthropod Hox genes) - against explicit statements by architects of the Modern Synthesis (see p. 539) that such homologies could not exist in principle, in a world dominated by their conception of natural selection - forced a rebalancing or leavening of Darwinian functionalism with previously neglected, or even vilified, formalist perspectives based on the role of historical and structural constraints in channeling directions of evolutionary change, and causing the great clumpings and inhomogeneities of morphospace - phenomena that had previously been attributed almost exclusively to functionalist forces of natural selection.

. . . so it may be a while before it makes the Richard & Judy book club.
 
Now compare Gould's verbiage with these opening paragraphs by W. D. Hamilton, perhaps the most important evolutionary biologist of the 20th century alongside Fisher:

Consider four hypothetical genes in man. Suppose all are limited in their expression to the female sex and also age-limited in the following way: each gives complete immunity against some lethal disease but only for one particular year of life. Suppose the first gives immunity for the first year, the second for the fifteenth, the third for the thirtieth, and the fourth for the forty-fifth. What are the relative selective advantages of these genes?

If for further simplicity parental care is ignored and it is assumed that the menopause always comes before age 45, it is at once obvious that the fourth gene is null, whereas all the others do confer some advantage. It is also fairly obvious that the third gives less than the second. But how much less? Does the second give a maximum becasue it occurs at the age of puberty? Does the first give less than the second?

The importance of questions of this kind for an evolutionary theory of senescence has been realized for some time. Most of the answers that will be given in this paper agree with the theory of Williams (1957). Although perhaps not obvious, they are so simple that it is surprising to find almost no indication that they had been realized earlier. Several writers have in effect answered the last two questions in the affirmative, which is for the one inexact and the other wrong.

From Hamilton's 1966 paper ""The Moulding of Senescence by Natural Selection".
 
Gould tries to have it both ways. In the passage Revol quotes, I'd emphasize the following:

"substantial changes, introduced during the last half of the 20th century, have built a structure so expanded beyond the original Darwinian core, and so enlarged by new principles of macroevolutionary explanation, that the full exposition, while remaining within the domain of Darwinian logic, must be construed as basically different from the canonical theory of natural selection, rather than simply extended."

Certainly that's borne out by his theory, even as far back as punk-ek. But he doesn't want to say "I am not a Darwinist" because he thought it would encourage creationists, even though it was true.
 
The first problem is that there is no notion of competative adaption to the environment in Malthus. There is a crucial aspect of natural selection which has nothing to do with Malthus and that is variation. If there is no variation across a species then there is nothing to select from.

The only thing Darwin uses Malthus for is to establish a "proof" that there is always a struggle for existence - ie. that selection takes place. Of course we can ask ourselves if we really need this proof. That there is a struggle for existence in nature is not controversial.

The main substance of Darwin's argument is not merely that natural selection exists but rather that it drives evolution. His theory explains adaption. Again this is nothing to do with Malthus. The Malthusian content of Darwin's theory is small and on a matter which is perfectly straightforward.

The influence that Malthus had personally on Darwin is another question. And yes Darwin's theory was used to reintroduce Malthusian ideas into economic and social theories - ie. social Darwinism. But as I've said social Darwinism is completly discredited now and social Darwinist looked more to Spencer than to Darwin anyway.

Where to start?

There is a concept of competitive adaptation in Malthus, he equates it with success in the marketplace. This is what Darwin uses Malthus to establish: the ubiquity of competitive adaptation. The Malthusian influence on Darwin is therefore huge.

Most important, Social Darwinism lives on under the name of sociobiology and, somewhat better disguised, as evolutionary psychology. Public policy and political programs are being designed and indeed implemented on the basis of such pseudo-sciences as we speak. Nor can Darwin himself be acquitted of responsibility for that fact.
 
Where to start?

There is a concept of competitive adaptation in Malthus, he equates it with success in the marketplace. This is what Darwin uses Malthus to establish: the ubiquity of competitive adaptation. The Malthusian influence on Darwin is therefore huge.

That's not adaption in the Darwinian sense.

To see this, for Darwin competitive adaption means the organism has adapted to its environment ie. to its benefit. With Malthus competition means the labourer's condition must deteriorate. Darwin wasn't using Malthus' theories on the market he was using Malthus' population theory.

phildwyer said:
Most important, Social Darwinism lives on under the name of sociobiology and, somewhat better disguised, as evolutionary psychology. Public policy and political programs are being designed and indeed implemented on the basis of such pseudo-sciences as we speak. Nor can Darwin himself be acquitted of responsibility for that fact.

They're completely unrelated.
 
Can you fucking read with some basic understanding, FFS?!? :rolleyes:

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read, Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work"

...the labourer's condition must deteriorate.
This IS the flip side of the same coin, which is "thrown in there" the minute you start thinking Malthus-like: on the market, typically, while someone doesn't lose the other party can't "benefit". Profiting of one party always occurs to somebody's disadvantage. Then and only then does this work. If nothing changes - it's boring! :D

Secondly, not to be able to see how social Darwinism is

1) related to the fact that "Darwinism" got its methodology from "social sciences" and that

2) the conservatism of it IS rather dangerous, plus

3) Darwin's uncritical and rather desperate "rummaging" in social sciences for 'tools' to his "mere observations" which would make him a 'household name' -

is close to criminal!!!

[Which, btw, is what you are trying to do here... mildly bewildered by the fact your typical trolling "charms" don't work any longer... :rolleyes: You then went for some "stronger stuff" to un-seat the "opponents"...]

If only you knew anything about Fichte you'd know that the "factualness" of "facts" is not in the phenomena we encounter but in the type of thinking behind the "ordering" of "facts" into an "explanation/theory", which we do, depending on many things, some of which have been mentioned here. But can you fucking fathom any of this, clever dick?!?

====================================

Oh, relax, FFS! I really don't think you're stupid [*pats the clever Knotted's head*]!!!! :D Just giving you a taste of your own medicine... a bit... here and there... :p
 
Can you fucking read with some basic understanding, FFS?!? :rolleyes:

How many times do you think I've read that snippet, considering you keep waving it in my face? If you don't understand yet, I am criticising your interpretation of that snippet. Darwin is talking about what inspired him, not what he took wholesale from Malthus. If you read Darwin's words and paid less attention to your fevered imagination you would have to agree.

gorski said:
This IS the flip side of the same coin, which is "thrown in there" the minute you start thinking Malthus-like: on the market, typically, while someone doesn't lose the other party can't "benefit". Profiting of one party always occurs to somebody's disadvantage. Then and only then does this work. If nothing changes - it's boring! :D

No, gorski. The labourer and the factory owner are not competing in the same market. This is the problem. Even if you do read the theories, you neglect the logical structure. You just point out superficial similarities.

Have you ever heard the duck argument some people sometimes trot out? You know the one - "looks quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck - must be a duck"? You know the supreme expression of vulgar empiricism? Everything has to be on the surface, in front of your eyes. One thing is another thing cos they look similar. This is your method. So don't talk about Fichte.

gorski said:
Secondly, not to be able to see how social Darwinism is

1) related to the fact that "Darwinism" got its methodology from "social sciences" and that

Methodology? That could mean anything. Stop talking jibberish. Say something precise.

gorski said:
2) the conservatism of it IS rather dangerous, plus

Conservatism? That could mean absolutely anything.

gorski said:
3) Darwin's uncritical and rather desperate "rummaging" in social sciences for 'tools' to his "mere observations" which would make him a 'household name' -

So?

gorski said:
is close to criminal!!!

Close? How close?

gorski said:
Oh, relax, FFS! I really don't think you're stupid [*pats the clever Knotted's head*]!!!! :D Just giving you a taste of your own medicine... a bit... here and there... :p

I don't mind.
 
I can't see why either economics or evolution are assumed to be a zero-sum game. Certainly not in anything I've read anyway.

Nor do I think that Darwinism has a single methodology any more than physics does.

Analogies from other disciplines are perfectly valid, as they are simply a special case of the sort of abstractions that are commonly used. Tthe important point is that modern science isn't hermetic - there is no 'as above, so below'. On the contrary it is for scientists to demonstrate that a particular abstraction is valid within a specific frame of reference, it can't be justified purely on the grounds that it is valid within another field.
 
Indeed. It would be impossible for Darwin's theory to be a version of Malthus' economic theories. Different subject matter dictates different treatment. The only place Darwin actually uses Malthus is a point about populations ie. where the subject matter is Malthus' subject matter.

As for scientific methodologies, you can even argue that scientists don't use any particular methodology even if they think they do (Feyerabend).

We can't just consider these theories as being just ideas in people's heads. Reality dictates content to some degree.
 
I apologise! You IS stoopid! :D

Since the abolition of Feudalism Capitalists and Prols ARE in the SAME MARKET!!!!

And so on and on and on... Bad boy!!! :p :D [*slaps his wrists* :D]
 
We can't just consider these theories as being just ideas in people's heads.

Some clarification and confirmation of my previous statement this is, THANX!!!:D :D :D

FL, that IS the Q! Capitalism in the early phase certainly was and the Cons/NeoLibs are certainly trying to push it on and on and on.... Social Darwinism in various guises is a great tool for them!!!
 
Again that could mean anything gorski. Compare with my more precise statement:

Knotted said:
The labourer and the factory owner are not competing in the same market.

Do you notice how you start by trying to argue that Darwin's ideas about competition is derived from Malthus' ideas about competition (why not Smith by the way?). Then you systematically remove all talk of competition and just talk vague shit about winners and losers.
 
Some clarification and confirmation of my previous statement this is, THANX!!!:D :D :D

FL, that IS the Q! Capitalism in the early phase certainly was and the Cons/NeoLibs are certainly trying to push it on and on and on.... Social Darwinism in various guises is a great tool for them!!!

Interestingly this a neo-con theory you're espousing. "We don't need to worry about facts - we create facts on the ground."

That went well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Do you notice how you start by trying to argue that Darwin's ideas about competition is derived from Malthus' ideas about competition (why not Smith by the way?).

Boy, it gets stoopider by the minute! :D ASK DARWIN WHY NOT SMITH, YOU SILLY BILLY!!!! :D :D :D
 
But when you look at the matter closely, isn't it obvious that market transactions and ecological competition aren't theorised in the same way at all? Market exchanges need to be positive-sum because the participants incur transaction costs. Ecology can present species with strongly positive-sum situations (such as the introduction of a new species into an area, e..g. the way that longer legs are being favoured as cane-toads move across Australia - because they can more quickly reach virgin territory where food is more abundant) or negative-sum circumstances such as the winnowing of species following some kind of natural disaster.
 
Gould tries to have it both ways. In the passage Revol quotes, I'd emphasize the following:

"substantial changes, introduced during the last half of the 20th century, have built a structure so expanded beyond the original Darwinian core, and so enlarged by new principles of macroevolutionary explanation, that the full exposition, while remaining within the domain of Darwinian logic, must be construed as basically different from the canonical theory of natural selection, rather than simply extended."

Certainly that's borne out by his theory, even as far back as punk-ek. But he doesn't want to say "I am not a Darwinist" because he thought it would encourage creationists, even though it was true.

Gould was in the difficult position of trying to bring an explanation to a sensitive subject and still keep his publishing creds from being yanked by the establishment which has always been orthodox darwinist. Gould took heat from darwinists for not being darwinist. So he pandered to try to darwinize pe - which couldn't be done. Yeah he was concerned about creationists but not just them - naturalist evolutionists too that had issues with natural selection.
 
And gorski, why don't stop trying to compete with me. You could try cooperating and read that damn book. It's the least you could do - familiarise yourself with the subject matter. Because until you do you are not going to understand the conversation.
 
I tend to agree with Rorty/Putnam et al that to get embroiled in a discussion about whether scientific discoveries are made or found is to already concede the most important territory.
 
Gould was in the difficult position of trying to bring an explanation to a sensitive subject and still keep his publishing creds from being yanked by the establishment which has always been orthodox darwinist. Gould took heat from darwinists for not being darwinist. So he pandered to try to darwinize pe - which couldn't be done. Yeah he was concerned about creationists but not just them - naturalist evolutionists too that had issues with natural selection.

Same thing really: he was worried that the Darwinists would think he was giving succor to the creationists.
 
Gould was in the difficult position of trying to bring an explanation to a sensitive subject and still keep his publishing creds from being yanked by the establishment which has always been orthodox darwinist. Gould took heat from darwinists for not being darwinist. So he pandered to try to darwinize pe - which couldn't be done. Yeah he was concerned about creationists but not just them - naturalist evolutionists too that had issues with natural selection.

Really? Was it ever anything but an extention to Darwinian evolution?

Most of all, punctuationism has shown how one-sided has been the myopic focusing of paleontologists and population geneticists on the one-dimensional, transformational, upward movement of evolution. It finally brought general recognition to the insight of those who had come from taxonomy (E. Poulton, Rensch, Mayr) and had consistently stressed that the lavish production of diversity is the most important component of evolution.

What had not been realized before is how truly Darwinian speciational evolution is. It was generally recognized that regular variational evolution in the Darwinian sense takes place at the level of the individual and population, but that a similar variational evolution occurs at the level of species was generally ignored. Transformational evolution of species (phyletic gradualism) is not nearly as important in evolution as the production of a rich diversity of species and the establishment of evolutionary advance by selection among these species. In other words, speciational evolution is Darwinian evolution at a higher hierarchical level. The importance of this insight can hardly be exaggerated.

The replacement of transformational evolution (including Lamarck) in 1859 by Darwin's variational evolution necessitated a complete rethinking of the old question of gradual versus saltational. The adoption of any kind of saltational evolution before 1859 documented essentialism. Now we can have quasi-saltational evolution (on the geological time scale) by gradual population change. Consequently, all the arguments against saltational evolution made against the pre-1859 paradigm are irrelevant when applied to rapid variational evolution. I suspect that some of the non biologists contributing to this book have failed to see that after 1859 we have been in a different ballpark and must use different arguments.

Ernst Mayr on the contributions of punctionalism to evolutionary theory
 
Engels nails gorski:

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply meant to comprise all the spheres – political, juridical, philosophical, theological – belonging to society and not only to nature), the ideologist dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through an independent series of developments in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining influence on this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully digested the hardest facts.

It is above all this appearance of an independent history of state constitutions, of systems of law, of ideological conceptions in every separate domain, which dazzles most people. If Luther and Calvin “overcome” the official Catholic religion, or Hegel “overcomes” Fichte and Kant, or if the constitutional Montesquieu is indirectly “overcome” by Rousseau with his “Social Contract,” each of these events remains within the sphere of theology, philosophy or political science, represents a stage in the history of these particular spheres of thought and never passes outside the sphere of thought. And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and the finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the victory of the physiocrats and Adam Smith over the mercantilists is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere – in fact if Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed up in the crusades we should have been spared five hundred years of misery and stupidity.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously gorski, step outside your narrow worldview where everything is a product of thought and thought is a product of personal values, prejudices etc. Where does the person come from? Read Darwin.
 
If only you knew anything about Fichte you'd know that the "factualness" of "facts" is not in the phenomena we encounter but in the type of thinking behind the "ordering" of "facts" into an "explanation/theory", which we do, depending on many things, some of which have been mentioned here. But can you fucking fathom any of this, clever dick?!?

OK let's deal with this one. It's not as if I haven't dealt with it in the past, but I'll give Wittgensteinian response this time.

Part of the grammar of "fact" is "I thought it was a fact". If you think the factualness of a fact is something seperate from the fact, then you have simply forgotten or ignored this little grammatical point.

When discussing facts we discuss how we justify what we believe to be a fact. Again note the grammar - "I believe it to be a fact". When you purify a word like "fact" as being something distinct from its "factualness" then of course the "fact" simply becomes redundant.

A: Is that a fact?
B: Yes it's a fact.
A: But other "facts" that people have called "facts" ended up not being facts.

The result of sophistry like this is only an enforced impoverishment of language. There is nothing profound about it.
 
Twat: any first year student of Philosophy has to know [to pass an exam], you fool, that ideology can be a false consciousness of true Being or true consciousness of false Being.

Heh. gorski nails the wanker... as always... :cool:

Chess-mate, m8 - now fuck off!!! :p

I mean, off you go to study! :D

Bozo! :D
 
He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought.

See - Engels got ya number.

This is source of your lazy superficiality. You think you only need to investigate thoughts not theories as they work in reality. Darwin is plagued by the spirit of Malthus and passes on the Malthusian ectoplasm to the Darwinists who then infect social theory with Malthusian evil. You never stop to investigate how the theory works and how it connects with the facts. You discover everything in the realm of pure thought. Now go read the book.
 
Back
Top Bottom