Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[littlebabyjesus]

Bit of a digression, but I think this quote shows how Gould's been taken the wrong way:

We do not inhabit a perfected world where natural selection ruthlessly scrutinizes all organic structures and then molds them for optimal utility. Organisms inherit a body form and a style of embryonic development; these impose constraints upon future change and adaptation. In many cases, evolutionary pathways reflect inherited patterns more than current environmental demands. These inheritances constrain, but they also provide opportunity. A potentially minor genetic change […] entails a host of complex, nonadaptive consequences. […] What “play” would evolution have if each structure were built for a restricted purpose and could be used for nothing else? How could humans learn to write if our brain had not evolved for hunting, social cohesion, or whatever, and could not transcend the adaptive boundaries of its original purpose?

All he is saying here is that evolution can and does only work with what is there. But he is merely expanding on the way we should look at natural selection, not at all suggesting that it isn't the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

 

[phildwyer]

Dwyer is surely informed, informing and provocative, whereas LL is plodding, repetitive and reactionary?

Lots to catch up on here, and plenty of misunderstandings to correct, but this is one post I can endorse wholeheartedly.

 

[phildwyer]

Do you think if someone sets out to find examples from the natural world which conveniently flatter their own interests, that they're doing science?

I think that's what all scientists do, albeit unconsciously. I don't believe in the myth of science as an objective, disinterested mode of enquiry.

 

[Pickman's model]

what i think's a bigger question, and perhaps one which deserves a thread all of its own, is how millenia of human evolution has ended up producing phildwyer

 

[gentlegreen]

I think that's what all scientists do, albeit unconsciously. I don't believe in the myth of science as an objective, disinterested mode of enquiry.

Whither peer review ?

Or do you plan to go down the AGW-deniers' route ?

 

[phildwyer]

Ok, a simple question for pd, because this is the point at which he becomes vague on this:

What is or might be another mechanism for evolution other than natural selection? Specifically, please, not hand-wavy. And I'm not asking for mechanisms by which changes in the environment can come about, such as volcanoes, comets, etc. I'm asking for mechanisms by which changes at the level of the organism can come about.

Nothing, as I've made clear many times.

With respect, I don't think you've understood my argument. My point is that changes in the environment cause natural selection, and that we don't know, at the macro-level, what causes changes in the environment.

So the telos or final cause of evolution is unknown to us, and therefore it is entirely possible that this telos is an intelligent designer. What we do know is the material cause of evolution.

As I've said before, the root of the problem is the limited notion of causality imposed upon us by the conceptual poverty of modernity.

 

[phildwyer]

That may be an explanation for the appearance of the idea. In the history of ideas, there is an interesting discussion to be had about how ideas come about and how changes in the wider society can spark new theories.

But you're badly conflating two things here and your thinking is mushy to say the least. That a new theory's appearance can be explained through social conditions has no impact whatever on the theory itself. In that sense, any idea is 'transcendental' as you would put it. So, your theory that capitalism was necessary for the theory of evolution to be formulated has no impact whatever on the rightness or not of the theory of evolution.

Yes and no.

The fact that it is part of the same process that gave rise to capitalism does not disprove Darwinism, but it does historicize it. It reveals that Darwinism is an appropriate theory for a particular phase of history--the phase of high capitalism. My argument is that that phase of history is now over, and with its end the usefulness of its ideologies is drawing to a close.

 

[phildwyer]

Whither peer review ?

Sorry I don't understand your question.

 

[Pickman's model]

Whither peer review ?

Or do you plan to go down the AGW-deniers' route ?

i think phil's got a point that 'science' isn't neutral, that scientists decide what they're going to look at, and - as is well known - war's a great advancer of science and technology.

 

[phildwyer]

This puzzles me. And I don't doubt for a second that it would have puzzled Gould, who would have vehemently disagreed with and taken exception to your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of his work.

Sorry if that's a bit blunt, but you simply don't grasp this stuff. I know you think you do. I know you're not trolling on this subject, but you have a logical block over it.

Your first paragraph regarding punctuated equilibrium is complete nonsense.

What do you even mean by 'natural selection is not the sole cause of evolution'? Do you really grasp what PE is? I'll tell you, but I'm sure you've been told before and not grasped it. It is a theory regarding the way in which natural selection has caused speciation. It is an explanation of the data - incomplete as it is - using natural selection as its mechanism for change. For instance, a comet strike does not cause evolution. It causes a change in the environment. This change in the environment may be sudden, and will change what is and is not fit to survive, but it may then take thousands or even millions of years for the full impact of that change to be seen in the changed forms of organisms, the disappearance of the dinosaurs or whatever. That's PE. Nothing more. And nothing that provides any room for any other mechanism for evolution than natural selection.

I know you've been told by many people that you have misunderstood Gould's work. Badly misunderstood it. Well, I'm telling you again, fwiw. It appears that you think you've understood something that the rest of us have all missed. You have not.

I'm glad that you can understand that I'm putting forward a serious argument here. The people who don't get at least that really are showing their ignorance. And yes, we're talking past each other. And yes, I think that my training in philosophy has allowed me to grasp the implications of things like punk-ek in a way that very few scientists can--simply because their ignorance of philosophy leaves a massive gap in their education.

Gould was an obvious exception to this rule. He saw that Darwin's gradualism was the foundation of his entire theory. He saw that punk-ek destroyed gradualism. He was reluctant to admit the subversive implications of punk-ek, mainly because he didn't want to give succor to the creationists.

But in his final work, written basically on his deathbed and intended to be his legacy, he did indeed break with Darwinism. I forget whether you've read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Few of my critics have, and those who have not will never be able to grasp my argument (or rather, they won't take it seriously because they'll think its my invention, as opposed to my reading of Gould, which is what it actually is).

A question for you: why do you think the ultra-Darwinists resisted both punk-ek and the K-T event with such vehemence, if they didn't recognize them as serious threats to Darwinism as a whole?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nothing, as I've made clear many times.

Ok. Good.

With respect, I don't think you've understood my argument. My point is that changes in the environment cause natural selection, and that we don't know, at the macro-level, what causes changes in the environment.

So the telos or final cause of evolution is unknown to us, and therefore it is entirely possible that this telos is an intelligent designer. What we do know is the material cause of evolution.

As I've said before, the root of the problem is the limited notion of causality imposed upon us by the conceptual poverty of modernity.

Hmmm. Ok. But that's a leap from 'don't know' to 'could be this'. Wittgenstein's adage 'when you have nothing to say, remain silent' comes to mind. There is no reason to suppose intelligent design. It comes back to my old hobby horse that what the word 'god' really means is 'that which I do not understand'. It's actually the same logical mistake you made in your 'rational proof of god' thread: you can't work backwards from lack of understanding into understanding.

Ultimately, we're back to the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' But this question is no more valid, nor answerable, than the question 'Why would there be nothing rather than something?' If, when you pose the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' you have no way yourself of responding to the answer 'How could there not be?' then you yourself are not in a position to validly ask the question.

 

[Red Cat]

Whither peer review ?

Scientific enquiry is a social and cultural activity like any other form of knowledge production. We may agree that it produces more truthful, accurate and reliable forms of knowledge than other methods for some subjects but that doesn't mean we can transcend our selves.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But in his final work, written basically on his deathbed and intended to be his legacy, he did indeed break with Darwinism. I forget whether you've read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Few of my critics have, and those who have not will never be able to grasp my argument (or rather, they won't take it seriously because they'll think its my invention, as opposed to my reading of Gould, which is what it actually is).

A question for you: why do you think the ultra-Darwinists resisted both punk-ek and the K-T event with such vehemence, if they didn't recognize them as serious threats to Darwinism as a whole?

I have read some, but not all of it. It's a long book. But yes, I should read all of it really. It's on my shelves...

But from what I have read of Gould, which is quite a bit, I still don't quite see how he is really disagreeing with, for instance, Dawkins and Dennett. Even his ideas about group selection are, for me, simply extensions of the concept of natural selection.

As for your last question, I don't know, assuming they did. Dawkins, as an example, has for me a limited way of thinking. He's not wrong so much as blinkered, in that he focuses on the level of the gene where explanations for evolution are to be found at a higher level.

I suppose that the likes of Dawkins like to stress the 'blind' nature of natural selection, whereas the likes of Gould like to stress the constrained nature of it - the way that certain kinds of solutions to problems are likely to be found and not others; the way that one direction is more likely to be taken than another. But again to me this is simply a difference of emphasis. I certainly don't see Gould's concept of exaptation as 'anti-Darwinian'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Scientific enquiry is a social and cultural activity like any other form of knowledge production. We may agree that it produces more truthful, accurate and reliable forms of knowledge than other methods for some subjects but that doesn't mean we can transcend our selves.

Hmmm. I don't really see the value in thinking like that. Scientific ideas exist above culture - the theory of relativity is the same in any language. In that sense, science does produce transcendent truths, or at least transcendent hypotheses.

 

[8ball]

Scientific ideas exist above culture.

Another corker...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Another corker...

Deal with the rest of that sentence. Go on. What is culturally specific to the theory of relativity?

ETA:

Don't bother. I fucking hate that kind of content-free snidery. It's a shite way to engage with anyone. Fuck off.

 

[8ball]

I wasn't trying to engage with you, I gave up on that.

Not every internet fuckwit is the next Galileo, I should learn...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I wasn't trying to engage with you, I gave up on that.

You gave up without at all addressing any of my points. Good grief.

 

[Dandred]

I can feel science crumbling from beneath my feet, thanks 8ball and Dwyer......

You are truly the new beacons of light in this age of discovery..........

 

[8ball]

You gave up without at all addressing any of my points. Good grief.

I was limited to only 5 facepalms.

 

[8ball]

I can feel science crumbling from beneath my feet, thanks 8ball and Dwyer......

You are truly the new beacons of light in this age of discovery..........

Another illiterate luminary. Maybe you should stick to tomes with 5 cardboard pages documenting the adventures of a dog called Spot.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was limited to only 5 facepalms.

Well, mr 'corker', give me an example of a culture in which the theory of relativity would not be valid. If it is valid in every and any conceivable culture, then it is not culturally specific, is it? One might say that it exists above culture.

The beauty of scientific theories is that they make predictions that can be tested. The concept of experiment is certainly the product of cultural development, but the results of those experiments are not cultural artefacts. The empirical foundation of science is not a cultural artefact. It is woolly nonsense to claim otherwise.

 

[8ball]

Well, mr 'corker', give me an example of a culture in which the theory of relativity would not be valid. If it is valid in every and any conceivable culture, then it is not culturally specific, is it? One might say that it exists above culture.

Scientific ideas are culture. They don't exist above it, or outside it. Also, I think there are plenty of cultures where the theory of relativity would just be completely meaningless.

edit: though I think there may be an argument to be had when it comes to mathematical concepts

 

[Fruitloop]

i think phil's got a point that 'science' isn't neutral, that scientists decide what they're going to look at, and - as is well known - war's a great advancer of science and technology.

1 + 1 = , 1 + 2 = 3, 1 + 3 = 4, and so on for a series of proofs that would last until the end of the universe. What you're interested in is important.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Scientific ideas are culture. They don't exist above it, or outside it. Also, I think there are plenty of cultures where the theory of relativity would just be completely meaningless.

And yet they would still be living in a universe in which that theory is a powerful idea. They might not know that or understand it, but they would still be subject to the same laws of physics as everyone else.

Science is not culturally dependent. That is the beauty of it. It is a process of discovery.

 

[8ball]

And yet they would still be living in a universe in which that theory is a powerful idea. They might not know that or understand it, but they would still be subject to the same laws of physics as everyone else.

I think you're confusing the theories with 'what is' (in your writing, if not in your thinking). Apples still fell to the ground before Newton. People noticed this fact before Newton. His theory of gravity is no less an artefact of culture for it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As I said before, the beauty of science is its power of prediction. That is where its transcendence comes from, if you like. Whether or not you possess the conceptual framework necessary to understand the theories that make the predictions in no way impacts upon the rightness or wrongness of the theories.

You said that there were cultures in which the theory of relativity would be meaningless. But this isn't correct. There may be cultures in which the theory of relativity could only be made understood after a lot of other groundwork had been done first to equip the people with the conceptual framework necessary to understand it, but it wouldn't be meaningless. Its predictions would still hold true even if the members of that culture didn't know that its predictions would still hold true.

 

[8ball]

As I said before, the beauty of science is its power of prediction. That is where its transcendence comes from, if you like. Whether or not you possess the conceptual framework necessary to understand the theories that make the predictions in no way impacts upon the rightness or wrongness of the theories.

The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' is a matter of the degree to which you have found the real world corresponds to the theories about it.

In science, 'right' means nothing more than 'not proven wrong yet'.

 

[Fruitloop]

this question of making vs finding knowledge is fruitless foundationalism IMO. but then i'm a bit drunk.

 

[gentlegreen]

So there's all these fossils and silly creation myths ..

In Phil's ideal world, how would the scientists have approached the question of explaining it ?