A century ago physics faced a problem. Its two-hundred year foundation of Newtonian thought was showing signs of weakness. In the seventeenth century Newton had overthrown the physics of another great thinker, Aristotle, but now Newton’s time had come. The quantum revolution was coming, but as with most revolutionists there would be tumult.The new thinking that was emerging in physics a century ago would be rejected by those who were firmly affixed to the old Newtonian foundation, and it became clear to those such as the great Max Planck that science advances one funeral at a time.
The thought of intelligent, trained scientists clinging to their way of thought in spite of the evidence is not a happy one, but it is understandable. Movements and traditions gather their own momentum and they don’t occasionally stop to allow for graceful exit. Leaping from a moving train may cause injury and if you don’t see the cliff ahead then why jump?
But those with a keen sense do jump. They see the looming chasm and know what to do. They are the ones history will admire for their combination of knowledge, awareness and courage. They lead the way, even though the way may be unknown. Consider Stanley Salthe, author of, among other things, the 1972 Holt McDougal text Evolutionary Biology. Salthe understands that evolutionary theory is not a fact but rather an idea with substantial problems. He writes:
Moving now into consideration of details of the formal properties of the concept of natural selection, we can start very broadly by noting that it is basically a theory of, as Einstein might have remarked, higgledy-piggledy.
Salthe shows that we can transcend outmoded thinking.
Cornelius, Stanley N. Salthe is part of a largely anti-Darwinian school of thought.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of biosemioticians have been quite critical towards neo-Darwinism (e.g., Salthe 1993a; Witzany 1993). Indeed, post-Darwinism as it has developed in recent decades seems to correspond and fit much better with the needs of semiotic biology.
In conclusion, it seems to be noticeable that there has been a considerable difference between the holistic and reductionistic, or Baerian and Darwinian schools of thought in biology in the successfulness of their attempts to conjoin signs and life, or semiotics and biology. Many of the semiotic biologists (Uexküll, Salthe, Hoffmeyer, Chebanov) can be identified as belonging to the holistic, or Baerian biology.
Semiotica vol. 127(1/4), pp. 385-414 (1999).
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/bsxxfin.htm
Hey, Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYour premise is wrong.
We physicists are still firmly affixed to the old Newtonian foundation. Classical mechanics is the cornerstone of all physics. A student majoring in physics takes three courses in classical mechanics over his or her career: introductory mechanics as a freshman, Lagrangian mechanics as a sophomore or junior and then again in grad school. That foundation provides us with the apparatus of canonical variables (coordinates and momenta) as well as action. Quantum physics is impossible without these terms.
And even on pure merit, classical mechanics remains valid in its domain of applicability: velocities well below the speed of light, distances exceeding microns, and weak gravity. It has not been dethroned, it remains with us and will forever.
Evolutionary biology, same thing.
Oleg is on the money. To quote the great 'slayer' of Newton himself:
ReplyDeleteThere could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case.
- Albert Einstein
Wake me up when holistic semiotic biology cures more people of disease than reductionist biology.
ReplyDelete"The thought of intelligent, trained scientists clinging to their way of thought in spite of the evidence is not a happy one, but it is understandable."
ReplyDeleteSame same theologians and other religious believers.
Evolutionary biology, same thing.
ReplyDeleteThen what general trajectories of adaptation can be reliably predicted and observed in groups of organisms?
It seems to me that the reason that people constantly compare biology to physics is because biology is far from physics. It's not the "same thing."
"Evolutionary biology, same thing."
ReplyDeleteErnst Mayr: "Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" for explaining evolutionary events and processes.
Wake me up when holistic semiotic biology cures more people of disease than reductionist biology.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that medicine can proceed without language then you truly are asleep. We wouldn't even be able to systematically define diseases (lack of ease) or cures without it. And so on.
Perhaps one should simply agree with you in that everything you say reduces to brain events which reduce to blind and ignorant processes. Yet if so then we're left wondering why we should listen to claims of knowledge which emerge from brains that reduce to ignorance.
It seems that people who try to reduce themselves to their conception of blind and ignorant processes do not succeed, they merely displace themselves. For example: …consider the following representative statements made by leading sociobiologists. Richard Dawkins, easily the best-known spokesman for this movement, writes that 'we are…robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes,' and again that we are 'manipulated in order to assure the survival of our genes.' The same writer also says that 'the fundamental truth [is] that an organism is a tool of DNA.' (That is, of the DNA molecules which are the organism's genes.) Again, Dawkins says that 'living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA.' Similarly, E.O. Wilson, an equal or higher sociobiological authority, says that 'the individual organism is only the vehicle [of genes], part of an elaborate device to preserve and spread them….The organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA.'
I will mention in a moment some other passages in which sociobiologists imply that genes are beings of more than human intelligence and power, but that implication should be clear enough already from the passages just quoted. According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.
[...]
It must be admitted that sociobiologists sometimes say other things which are inconsistent with statements like the ones I have just quoted. Dawkins, for example, sometimes protests that he does not at all believe that genes are 'conscious, purposeful agents.' But these disclaimers are in vain. Of course genes are not conscious purposeful agents: everyone will agree with that. Where sociobiologists differe from other people is just that they also say, over and over again, things which imply that genes are conscious purposeful agents; and agents, at that, of so much intelligence and power that human beings are merely among the tools they make and use.
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove: 248-249)
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteSo, not even a word on the validity of your premise?
Just think it through. If in a hundred years Darwin's theory is buried in the same sense as Newtonian physics, biology students will be taking multiple courses on evolution. Is that the revolution that you want?
oleg:
ReplyDelete====
So, not even a word on the validity of your premise?
Just think it through. If in a hundred years Darwin's theory is buried in the same sense as Newtonian physics, biology students will be taking multiple courses on evolution. Is that the revolution that you want?
====
What I want is for people to understand evolution which, apparently, you do not.
Sure there are aspects of evolution that make good sense. But is the analogy with physics perfect? No. Was it even intended? Of course not. The point is that when science reveals a popular theory to have problems, there is the pathetic tendency for scientists to reject the science and stick with the theory.
Cornelius, you don't seem to understand how science works.
ReplyDeleteNewtonian mechanics wasn't "overthrown." It's still with us. It is a theory that has been thoroughly tested and accepted after these multiple tests. Classical mechanics is valid in its domain of applicability. It clearly isn't applicable to the microworld, so there was a need for a new theory, quantum mechanics. But quantum and classical mechanics are not enemies, they fully agree in the domain of their overlap. That's why it's silly to say that classical mechanics was "overthrown."
Likewise, evolutionary biology has withstood numerous tests it has been subjected to. If a new branch of biology develops to explain something the current theory can't, the old theory will still remain with us.
Hope this helps.
Likewise, evolutionary biology has withstood numerous tests it has been subjected to.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, there is no way to get from a study of progress in science and statements like this: A century ago physics faced a problem. Its two-hundred year foundation of Newtonian thought was showing signs of weakness. In the seventeenth century Newton had overthrown the physics of another great thinker, Aristotle, but now Newton’s time had come. to anything like this: "Biology has the same scientific standing as physics and scientific progress is inevitable." Biologists have been asserting that they are meeting the same epistemic standards as physicists for well over a century, thus the meme "It's just like gravity... or something." emerges regularly but that may only mean that biologists want to be thought of as professional scientists instead of amateur natural theologians.
If a new branch of biology develops to explain something the current theory can't, the old theory will still remain with us.
What theory? There is no highly specified or even marginally specified theory of evolution with general application. It is typically a creation myth that is added after the fact. What trajectory of adaptation does it predict? There is generally no theory. It's not even clear what evolution, whatever it may be, does not predict. Evolution, whatever it is, has been claimed to predict everything that is observed and perhaps everything that could possibly be observed. That is why evolution will remain a fact in the minds of many no matter what is observed. After all, what sort of observation would falsify it? If it is specified as predicting a tree of life, then it is falsified. So it is not specified that way. If it is specified based on the theory of natural selection then it is falsified. So it is not specified as RM/NS. And so on, until all that is left is the supposed "fact" of the existence of hypothetical goo that comports with all observations.
And even on pure merit, classical mechanics remains valid in its domain of applicability: velocities well below the speed of light, distances exceeding microns, and weak gravity.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that is supposedly going to remain with us of the structure of evolutionary theory? How has it been highly specified? What velocity and trajectories of adaptation have generally been predicted and verified? Where has the "theory" been specified in the language of mathematics?
Creation myths imagined after observations are made are not the epistemic equivalent of scientific theories open to falsification which have been verified based on empirical evidence.
If Oleg et al. are no longer interested in maintaining a "Biology is just like physics." meme then here is a final comment on it:
ReplyDeleteBarrow laughed and said, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you’re not really a scientist. You’re a biologist.”
For Barrow, biology is little more than a branch of natural history. “Biologists have a limited, intuitive understanding of complexity. They’re stuck with an inherited conflict from the 19th century, and are only interested in outcomes, in what wins out over others,” he adds. “But outcomes tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe.” For physicists it is the laws of nature themselves that capture and structure the universe—and put brakes on it as well.
--John Barrow wins 2006 Templeton Prize
By Julia Vitullo-Martin, cf. templeton.org
It's little wonder that biologists are so often more interested in their professional standing and thus the "biologists may as well be physicists" meme or their own consensus and so on. As Karl Kraus said of the psychoanalysts of his day, they are the disease that they purport to cure. Biologists often cite imaginary events in the past and pretend that they are the equivalent of "facts" or empirical evidence. Psychoanalysts cited dreams and Kraus's criticisms of the followers of Freud often have equal application to the followers of Darwin:
Psychology is the most powerful religion: it turns doubt into bliss. As weakness engenders not humility but arrogance, this new doctrine enjoys great earthly success and lords over all other creeds and cults.
The new science of mad-doctoring has dared to invade the mystery of genius. ….I will stand watch and personally consign these manufacturers of madness-whose cry, ‘Anything to treat?’ is now heard all over the land-into oblivion. Their teaching enlarges irresponsibility and thus diminishes the personality.
__
If mankind, with all its repulsive faults, is an organism, then the psychoanalyst is its excrement. Psychoanalysis is an occupation in whose very name “psyche” and “anus” are united. Its practitioners are divided into separate sects, each with its own Journal, each representing its own distinctive, and yet typically psychoanalytic, doctrine of destroying God, disgracing Nature, and demeaning Art.
__
Despite its deceptive terminology, psychoanalysis is not a science but a religion-the faith of a generation incapable of any other.
cf.
(Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus’s Criticism of Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, by Thomas Szasz)
Biologists have generally created an "overwhelming" illusion of knowledge based on imagining things about the past, not accurately predicting trajectories of adaptation based on a highly specified theory with general application and so on. Ironically the greatest barrier to progress in knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Perhaps it's for the best, if there was more progress in biological knowledge we would have better biological weapons as well as cures just as we have nuclear weapons as well as nuclear energy. If history is any measure whole groups of people would be at risk as a result and so on. After all, many were already at risk from the arrogance of the eugenics movement and they did not even have the biological knowledge that they thought they did. It was merely an illusion.
mynym,
ReplyDeleteHave you heard of Richard Lenski? He has been running a long-term experiment on evolution of E. coli since 1988. This is pretty good science even from a physicist's viewpoint.
How about population genetics? It's a quantitative approach to biology, including evolution.
These are just two examples.
This is pretty good science even from a physicist's viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteYou said that biology is just like physics, yet Lenski did not specify the "force" of natural selection in the language of mathematics or predict velocities and trajectories of adaptation and then verify them based on empirical evidence. Instead it would seem that just like every biologist I've ever talked to he had little or no theoretical insight and instead he simply observed outcomes. Outcomes which "...tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe." Yet this is the sort of evidence that biologists often cite as if it is the epistemic equivalent of laws, scientific theories or even a knowledge of origins. I believe one of these fellows even observed fruit flies for a time and went on to conclude that nothing in biology made sense except in the light of evolution/change. This sort of thing seems to pass as a theoretical insight of some sort among biologists. I suppose it's better than imagining things about the past and then citing your own imagination as the equivalent of evidence or engaging in "panda's thumb" natural theology, another favorite pastime among people who seem incapable of dealing with science.
At any rate, all observed change is being said to be "evolution," therefore evolution is meaningless and lacks theoretical specification. A more interesting question would be what sort of change could Lenski in theory have observed that would not be attributable to "evolution," whatever it is. Perhaps you know what sort of change would not be "evolution," whatever it is? Isn't it all the same as the theory of gravity and doesn't the theory of gravity specify one type of observation or change as opposed to others? Biologists have generally defined evolution as any and all change. If scientists were generally imbeciles they could have defined the theory of gravity as all observed changes in velocity and so on, that way other imbeciles could assert it as an undeniable truism.
How about population genetics? It's a quantitative approach to biology, including evolution.
Of course it "includes" evolution because evolution is all change. Hard to avoid including change, is it not? What wouldn't include it? That does not mean that there is a highly specified and verifiable/falsifiable "theory of evolution"/biology in the same sense that there is a theory of gravity. Ironically if there were such a theory it could undermine progressive creation myths.
These are just two examples.
Given that evolution is often defined as any change almost every biological change can be cited as an example. Yet you realize that merely noting that "evolution"/change is included in observations or fields of study has little to do with rigorously specifying a scientific theory of origins and so on, right?
Remember, you said: Evolutionary biology, same thing. [as physics]
ReplyDeleteSo I asked, then what general trajectories of adaptation can be reliably predicted and observed in groups of organisms?
Then you cite Lenski, yet apparently he did not use a supposedly singular "theory of evolution" to predict trajectories of adaptation.
Tell you what, mynym.
ReplyDeleteTake a hundred atoms, place them in an empty container, set them in motion, and try to predict their future trajectories. You can't because the system is chaotic in a very precise, technical sense of that word. A tiniest error in the calculations will grow exponentially and thwart your efforts. The most powerful computer will be helpless against chaotic dynamics.
Does that mean physics failed? No. Despite our inability to predict the exact locations of the particles (and in fact, because of it), we can make definitive statements about statistical averages such as the mean pressure exerted by the atoms on the walls of container. That's kinetic theory of gases. It can't predict individual trajectories, but it can predict the average pressure and other useful things about the system.
Likewise, it is not a problem that theory of evolution cannot predict which mutation will happen when. One can, however, make statistical predictions.
Likewise, it is not a problem that theory of evolution cannot predict which mutation will happen when. One can, however, make statistical predictions.
ReplyDeleteIt was Darwin who argued at the end of his oddly titled book "origins" that his theory of evolution was similar to physical theories and specified some sort of natural laws or "forces" by which biology could be seen to operate. I am not asking for every atom in an organism to be predicted and so on, only that these "forces" be specified theoretically and their action be verified empirically. Biologists have been saying that they have a general "theory of evolution" that is the equivalent of theory of gravity for well over a century, after all. At any rate, even if or when they actually demonstrate a knowledge of natural laws (as opposed to asserting it time and again) it may falsify many of their evolutionary creation myths. There is no reason to assume that a trajectory must be progressive and constructive when the theory of natural selection shows that preservation and destruction are more likely. You seem to feel that merely because change is called evolution that any and all observed change therefore verifies progressive hypotheses of evolution. Given that, if change is observed in population genetics it therefore verifies a progressive or Darwinian view of origins. Odd though, that Mendel himself apparently had no need of the hypothesis of "evolution" or progressive creation myths. He did not even add them as a gloss to his actual science as biologists are trained to now. On the other hand Darwinists have always added hypotheses of evolution even when they knew nothing of Mendel and population genetics. If the whole field of population genetics is linked to or verifies evolutionary creation myths (The same word "evolution" is used, after all.) then one wonders why Mendel had no need of that hypothesis?
Again, what sort of change could Lenski in theory have observed that would not be attributable to "evolution," whatever it is? It seems to me that any and all change can be called evolution and that's just what biologists do. It's all evolution for how could it not be? Yet isn't evolution subject to empirical evidence? If not then is it a scientific theory?
ReplyDelete