Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[bi0boy]

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.

If that's been your argument throughout this thread, then it has nothing whatever to do with the validity or otherwise of natural selection.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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'.

Yes. So what.

 

[8ball]

Yes. So what.

Try reading post 567 and then 568 - there are clues there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Try reading post 567 and then 568 - there are clues there.

Nah. I've read them. It doesn't change my position. A scientific theory isn't a good one in one culture and a bad one in another, as it is a theory about the same universe whatever the culture that is considering it. Such is the beauty of experiment, empirical data and prediction. And as far as I, you or anyone else knows, experiment, empirical data and prediction strongly suggest that the same laws of physics hold true wherever you are in the universe.

 

[8ball]

Nah. I've read them. It doesn't change my position. A scientific theory isn't a good one in one culture and a bad one in another, as it is a theory about the same universe whatever the culture that is considering it. Such is the beauty of experiment, empirical data and prediction.

My point was that scientific theories are descriptions which are framed in culture. The theories are not transcendent, they are, at best, stories which produce accurate reflections in the real world (until they don't). Like I said, I think the argument about transcendence may have a little more to it when it comes to pure maths, but while I find the argument interesting I'm kind of on the fence.

Just to head off any trips down blind alleys, that is not to say that apples fall upwards in Papua New Guinea.

I think if we were to ever run into aliens about as bright as ourselves we might find their ideas about gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics etc. to be completely different in their formulation and description, even where the 'inputs' and results of necessary predictions were to be numerically equivalent.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think if we were to ever run into aliens about as bright as ourselves we might find their ideas about gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics etc. to be completely different in their formulation and description, even where the 'inputs' and results of necessary predictions were to be numerically equivalent.

I suspect quite the reverse, the reason being that mathematics is ultimately the best way to express all of these ideas. Ultimately, I think we would be able to understand each other through the mathematics.

A scientific theory isn't merely a description of what happens. It is a theory about the mechanism by which things happen - a testable theory at that (usually - string theory isn't testable yet!).

 

[8ball]

I suspect quite the reverse, the reason being that mathematics is ultimately the best way to express all of these ideas. Ultimately, I think we would be able to understand each other through the mathematics.

I think for cultural reasons it would take a while to get our heads round each others mathematical systems, but I agree that with the physics at least that would be the best route for communicating. Maybe that's just cos I wasted a couple of hours of my life watching the execrable Contact.

When teaching and describing things like evolution, or photosynthesis, or food webs, we don't talk in pure mathematical terms, though. I expect the references would be entirely different, as would the way ideas build up on top of other ideas.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, the mathematics is transcendent, I think. However, the way that we perceive 'ourselves in the world' is entirely our own construct. Conceivably an alien being might not even split its perception up into space and time in the way that we do. Who knows? Hard to conceive of a physical being that doesn't, but then that's because we are what we are.

 

[8ball]

Well, the mathematics is transcendent, I think. However, the way that we perceive 'ourselves in the world' is entirely our own construct. Conceivably an alien being might not even split its perception up into space and time in the way that we do. Who knows? Hard to conceive of a physical being that doesn't, but then that's because we are what we are.

Well, that's kind of my point. These things all feed into how we create, teach and understand our scientific ideas.

Their equations could be entirely different in structure and content too. There's no reason to assume their theories of what happens at the level of the very small should look like our ideas about quantum mechanics. Vector spaces and wave functions might play no part in it at all.

 

[gentlegreen]

Maybe more arithmetic than maths, but your average peasant would probably not have had much use for it before taxation / enclosure ..

And then there's "anti-racist mathematics" - which was apparently about giving due credit to the cultures from whence it sprang ...

 

[8ball]

And then there's "anti-racist mathematics" - which was apparently about giving due credit to the cultures from whence it sprang ...

I never understood what that was.

I figure it's more thoroughgoing than the maths problems in my textbooks at school which would begin with something like:
"Imhotep has five apples..."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, that's kind of my point. These things all feed into how we create, teach and understand our scientific ideas.

Their equations could be entirely different in structure and content too. There's no reason to assume their theories of what happens at the level of the very small should look like our ideas about quantum mechanics. Vector spaces and wave functions might play no part in it at all.

They will have better or worse theories. That's all. General relativity is a better theory of gravity than Newton's theory of gravity. However, we can still understand what Newton's theory is, and how and where it is still useful, even if conceptually it is totally different from general relativity. I would think that any being with a more advanced scientific understanding than us would really very easily understand our scientific understanding.

And this is where I think science is different from a culture, in that you can validly talk about more or less advanced science. Relativity is an advance on Newton, for instance. To insist that science is cultural production is what Dennett would call a 'deepity': something that is either wrong or only trivially true.

Scientific production is only cultural production if you define cultural production as the sum total of human activity. So scientific activity is a subset of all activity. Scientific knowledge is only cultural knowledge if you define all knowledge as cultural. So scientific knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. That's trivially true in that it tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of science.

If what you intend to say is more than something trivial - that scientific truth is dependent on culture and varies across cultures - then that is wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe more arithmetic than maths, but your average peasant would probably not have had much use for it before taxation / enclosure ..

Your average person today has little use for quantum mechanics. So what? That same peasant may have worshipped in a church built using mathematics they did not understand. We use technology all the time whose principles we don't fully understand.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, my final post here for a bit:

Just to clear up this definition of 'natural selection'.

I do say that all evolution can be understood with this simple concept, but the concept can be applied at different levels to different reproductive units. So, it is often applied at the level of the individual organism, but then with social insects for instance, it only makes sense when applied at the level of the colony (a 'superorganism').

However, I see nothing problematic about applying the concept of natural selection at the group level, something which some readers of Gould think that he defined as something separate from natural selection. I don't think Gould was entirely consistent on this, and perhaps he did change his mind at the end of his life. If so, I think that change of mind was a mistake.

So, it is quite possible to conceive of two rival groups competing for the same land, say. Let's say that they are human groups and that they fight a war, a war that will leave one or other group totally destroyed. One group has a 'Sparta-style system in place whereby all weak children are killed and all the surviving children are trained in a harsh militaristic, anti-intellectual way. Such a group produces fearless fighters but perhaps fewer innovative thinkers. The other group does not kill off the physically weak and places as much value on the development of the intellect as the development of the body. This group contains greater genetic diversity than the other group, finding a place both for the strong and the clever.

In the war between the two groups, whichever wins will be the reproductive unit that survives and passes on its way of doing things, which in turn will affect the future genetic makeup of the people of the area. That's still natural selection. The winning group may win through an apparently outrageous piece of luck. But again, that is still natural selection, and over the course of many such occurrences, luck will become an increasingly unimportant feature.

And such levels may be operating all at the same time. There's no contradiction or problem here. It's just a richer and more complex picture than that which is sometimes presented by those who deny the validity of one or more of the levels at which selection can take place.

 

[8ball]

They will have better or worse theories. That's all. General relativity is a better theory of gravity than Newton's theory of gravity. However, we can still understand what Newton's theory is, and how and where it is still useful, even if conceptually it is totally different from general relativity. I would think that any being with a more advanced scientific understanding than us would really very easily understand our scientific understanding.

And this is where I think science is different from a culture, in that you can validly talk about more or less advanced science. Relativity is an advance on Newton, for instance. To insist that science is cultural production is what Dennett would call a 'deepity': something that is either wrong or only trivially true.

Scientific production is only cultural production if you define cultural production as the sum total of human activity. So scientific activity is a subset of all activity. Scientific knowledge is only cultural knowledge if you define all knowledge as cultural. So scientific knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. That's trivially true in that it tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of science.

If what you intend to say is more than something trivial - that scientific truth is dependent on culture and varies across cultures - then that is wrong.

That's kind of a big post containing several assertions, many of which I think are wrong-headed but I'd prefer not to dwell on. Your final question, however, needs a definition of what you mean by 'scientific truth'. Most scientists I know would consider scientific truth to be something we are searching for, but not somewhere we have arrived at. For now, we only have a tentative consensus.

Do you think it is not valid to talk about a more or less advanced culture?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not tentative, provisional. There's a difference. All scientific knowledge is provisional - subject to revision upon further study. If you prefer, substitute the phrase 'the validity (or power) of a scientific theory' for 'scientific truth'.

As to your last question, I think the only way you could say one culture is more advanced than another would be due to it having a more advanced level of scientific knowledge. But that's not really a fair way to judge, or at least it is an arbitrary way to judge - one culture with no science at all may rub along very well, while another with lots of scientific knowledge may end up destroying itself. Which is the more advanced? On balance, I prefer not to make that kind of qualitative comparison between cultures. There are simpler and more complex cultures, perhaps, but not more than that.

 

[8ball]

Not tentative, provisional. There's a difference. All scientific knowledge is provisional - subject to revision upon further study. If you prefer, substitute the phrase 'the validity (or power) of a scientific theory' for 'scientific truth'.

Provisional, tentative - no substantive difference there.

There is a big difference between predictive/explanatory power and 'truth'.
And different cultures could produce quite different theories that produce equivalent explanatory and predictive power for a given set of phenomena - that really is trivial. Again, to avoid any confusion, apples do not fall upwards in Papua New Guinea.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And different cultures could produce quite different theories that produce equivalent explanatory and predictive power for a given set of phenomena.

Hmmm. Relativity explains the precession of Mercury. Newton's laws don't.

 

[8ball]

Hmmm. Relativity explains the precession of Mercury. Newton's laws don't.

Yes, but there are an infinite number of potential theories that could explain the precession of Mercury. I think the fact that relativity doesn't work at the level of the very, very small means we've not hit on the 'right' one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, but there are an infinite number of potential theories that could explain the precession of Mercury. I think the fact that relativity doesn't work at the level of the very, very small means we've not hit on the 'right' one.

Certainly, there is a great big problem at the heart of physics. It's exciting, I think, to consider that the whole conceptual framework may have to be revamped at some point. But relativity is a better theory than Newton, and it's the best theory around at the moment. Considering that there are not two separate things called space and time, but rather that these are measurements of one thing called spacetime is an advance. It's a moot point whether or not it is even meaningful to talk about what is 'really' there - probably better to simply say that there are theories and better theories. Relativity is a better theory than Newton. That's all that really matters. More than that, it goes beyond our own perceptions, which I think is a remarkable achievement. We've started to theorise about things that we cannot directly perceive. Such is the power of mathematics - Einstein could have done nothing without the maths of Maxwell, Lorentz and others!

 

[8ball]

Certainly, there is a great big problem at the heart of physics. It's exciting, I think, to consider that the whole conceptual framework may have to be revamped at some point. But relativity is a better theory than Newton, and it's the best theory around at the moment. Considering that there are not two separate things called space and time, but rather that these are measurements of one thing called spacetime is an advance. It's a moot point whether or not it is even meaningful to talk about what is 'really' there - probably better to simply say that there are theories and better theories. Relativity is a better theory than Newton. That's all that really matters.

I agree with all of that. Though I do think there is actually something 'really' there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree with all of that. Though I do think there is actually something 'really' there.

I don't want to go all dwyerian and say that that is a proof of god! In the end, it isn't something we can talk about in a meaningful way. There is something 'really' there - our existence is proof of that - but I would say that that is all we can say.

But if this is nothing, I have to say that nothing is terribly complicated and confusing!

 

[8ball]

I don't want to go all dwyerian and say that that is a proof of god! In the end, it isn't something we can talk about in a meaningful way. There is something 'really' there - our existence is proof of that - but I would say that that is all we can say.

To echo Dwyer also, the tricky thing is that whatever is 'really there', we cannot know it directly, we only have mediated experience.

The 'there is something really there' theory is working for me better than any alternatives I've tried, though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I would describe myself as an atheist. Dwyer is firmly in the squad of god. But I actually agree with him about quite a lot of things. It's just that last jump that he gets wrong.

 

[toggle]

Well I must say that I thought it was a given that anti-capitalists would favor Gould's post-Darwinism over Dawkins's ultra-Darwinism, but this thread has proved me wrong.

it seems odd that you would expect anyone with any scientific training to choose to support or deny a theory based on it's political ramifications.

 

[gentlegreen]

A much quoted AGW straw man coined - "an inconvenient truth" ... though, given the misuse of the word "truth" by religionists, perhaps we should come up with something different ...
It's like the word "fact" as made infamous here on Urban ...

Damn the English language ...

 

[phildwyer]

Based on that quotation, it would appear that you were correct when you said

Darwinism emerged as an ideological counterpart to the early capitalist economics of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus.

Yes, Darwin was perfectly conscious of this and makes clear his debt to both Smith and Malthus on numerous occasions.

I'll try and catch up with the thread as best I can today.

 

[Red Cat]

Scientific production is only cultural production if you define cultural production as the sum total of human activity. So scientific activity is a subset of all activity. Scientific knowledge is only cultural knowledge if you define all knowledge as cultural. So scientific knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. That's trivially true in that it tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of science.

It's not trivial at all! Observing how scientists work and produce knowledge is fascinating, or at least reading accounts of it is, as I have no experience of anthropology field work. You seem to think that science studies is out to invalidate science rather than give our knowledge greater depth.

 

[gentlegreen]

Anyway .....

However our understanding of evolution came about, does it matter, it's hardly Nazi science is it ?

And was Adam Smith all bad ?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, Darwin was perfectly conscious of this and makes clear his debt to both Smith and Malthus on numerous occasions.

I'll try and catch up with the thread as best I can today.

But be that as it may, it's difficult to imagine that in the absence of reading Malthus et al, his experiences as a naturalist wouldn't have led him to the theory of evolution.