Comments on: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory blogging, chapter 3

By: razib

razib — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:51:03 +0000

toto, i mentioned him already

By: toto

toto — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:39:28 +0000

does the determinism of which you speak entail necessarily from theism? does not entail only from theism? Pierre-Simon de Laplace is famous both for his atheism/agnosticism ("I didn't need this hypothesis") and strong determinism (Laplace's demon).

By: razib

razib — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:46:43 +0000

That’s my point, historically determinism is theistic even though atheists kept it. That’s part of the “death of God” argument; XIXc atheists kept a lot of Christianity, ethically teleologically, and metaphysically, while discarding God.
well, historically almost everything has a tinge of theism since theism in the west was the enforced order. pro-slavery arguments were theistic, anti-slavery arguments were, there was christian socialism and christian lasseiz faire arguments, and so on. the bigger issue does the determinism of which you speak entail necessarily from theism? does not entail only from theism? or does it entail sufficient from theism? or does not not entail at all, and is it simply a preexistent mental bias which was justified through a theistic lens?

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:19:22 +0000

That’s my point, historically determinism is theistic even though atheists kept it. That’s part of the “death of God” argument; XIXc atheists kept a lot of Christianity, ethically teleologically, and metaphysically, while discarding God.
When I say “determinism” I usually mean predictive determinism, even though chaos and complexity describe determinist systems which are not predictable.
Too far afield, really.

By: razib

razib — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:25:10 +0000

To Gould I think that evolution is more like history than it’s like physics, and history is continuous with evolution.*
ok. but like i said, he’s not even talking about evolution as a historical science as such. so let’s not get ahead of ourselves (yes, i know the generality of gould’s views; but i’m reading this book to see what specifics he puts on the table). his point in the current chapter is just to pin-point where the ancients repeatedly went wrong to show how the moderns repeatedly go wrong.
This is getting very far afield now, but as I hinted above, historically the predictive-determinist view of the world was historically connected to theistic, teleological views of the world, coincident with the scientific revolution, in which God was a super-engineer, so that by looking at his works we can see his mind and intentions.
who disagreed with the predictive-determinist view? i know that paley influenced darwin. that’s not new. but atheists like laplace were determinists too. so who wasn’t?

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:36:51 +0000

There’s always been plenty of predictability in history, because all sorts of routines have been established and the majority of the time the routines are followed. Likewise, there are real constraints on what can happen, and these are followed. But all this together is not enough to get the kind of exact and unerring predictability you get with linear physicial systems, chemical reactions. In specific, the turning points are (by definition) what is not predictable. (If they were predictable, they would be a regular part of the system and not turning points, obvs.)
Thinking in terms of constraints rather than causes might be a way to formulate it. A process can be very rigorously constrained without the outcome being predictable. In engineering you add constraints until the point that outcomes are completely predictable or almost, and teleological and theistic thinkers think that the universe was designed that way too, with unique intended outcomes as in engineering. Advocates of indeterminism and emergence argue that, while the system is constrained, there are not enough constraints to make the outcome unique.
Saying that biological evolution is like history is to say that it includes major turning points that are not predictable. This was the dispute between Gould and Conway Morris, I think, and as far as I know that dispute is still on the table. (The argument may be about the magnitude or importance of the turning points).
Gould really is, by intent, a historian and philosopher in addition to being a biologist. For me this is not a criticism at all. In order to critique Gould, you can’t just say “Most of this isn’t biology”. The criticism is good only to the extent that Gould has the biology wrong.
To Gould I think that evolution is more like history than it’s like physics, and history is continuous with evolution.* And with “evolutionary epistomology” (Campbell) and (non predictive-determinist) evolutionary approaches to history, the history of science and thought become more relevant than for an ahistorical formal or theoretical science. So while Gould’s intellectual history hasn’t reached the discussion of path-dependence in what you’ve read, treating science historically is pretty integral to his point of view.
This is getting very far afield now, but as I hinted above, historically the predictive-determinist view of the world was historically connected to theistic, teleological views of the world, coincident with the scientific revolution, in which God was a super-engineer, so that by looking at his works we can see his mind and intentions.
* Gould’s hostility to ev psych is a weakness or inconsistency in his thinking in this respect.

By: razib

razib — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:35:37 +0000

By: D

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:39:48 +0000

Over and above the biases, I’ve found the signal to noise ratio of this man’s work dauntingly low. Thanks for reading this so I won’t have to.
Feature request: from now on, could you make it so each part of this review links to the previous one?

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:58:25 +0000

One of the philosophical claims about evolution is that it’s a historical rather than a theoretical science, in the sense that it’s deeply and irreversibly path-dependent and also unpredictable. (This was the point both of “Wonderful Life” and “Time’s Cycle, Time’s Arrow). From this point of view a historical presentation would seem more appropriate.
One of Gould’s main concerns is the significance of biology and evolution for the greater intellectual world, rather than just questions internal to biology. Of course, if his biology is wrong, then his conclusions about the greater significance will probably be wrong too. But the fact that he didn’t write a pure biology book isn’t a criticism. (Razib doesn’t write pure biology here either).
I think that Gould probably has an emergence view, with higher levels of organization not explainable in terms only of information found at the lower component levels. (Recently Philip Gintis and Stuart Kaufman recomended Morowitz’s “Emergence of Everything”, which develops this view farther than even I want.) I suspect that he is linking his reading of biology up with what he thinks about the higher levels, too. I do not think that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that, though the specifics still have to be right.

By: razib

razib — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:08:33 +0000

I think you meant *fat*. Maybe I’m wrong though.
no. fart. see the beginning. the first 2 chapters were like farts. multiple people have said they couldn’t make it past the first chapter. well, hold your nose the smell abates.

By: John Lynch

John Lynch — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:03:51 +0000

fatty meat is better than fart.
I think you meant *fat*. Maybe I’m wrong though.