Re: A review of "The Selfish Meme"

From: Scott Chase (osteopilus@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu 02 Jun 2005 - 04:10:37 GMT

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "Re: A review of "The Selfish Meme""

    --- John Wilkins <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote:

    >
    > On 02/06/2005, at 3:47 AM, Dace wrote:
    >
    > >> From: John Wilkins <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>
    > >>
    > >> A species is just some handy tag we assign to
    > organisms to help
    > >> communication between scientists. I have some
    > sympathy for it,
    > >> although I reject it.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Certainly the boundaries between species are
    > fuzzy. Darwin noted
    > > this in
    > > support of evolution. After all, if the species
    > had come about
    > > through
    > > special creation, the boundaries between them
    > would be well-defined
    > > and
    > > absolute. But that doesn't mean such boundaries
    > are merely conceptual
    > > conveniences. We are not, after all, bats or
    > worms or moonflowers.
    > >
    > > I think you're stuck in a false dilemma. The
    > concept of species is
    > > not a
    > > choice between absolute or nothing, realist or
    > nominalist. If
    > > there's one
    > > thing that distinguishes life from nonlife it's
    > the property of
    > > vagueness or
    > > fuzziness. There are no hard and fast
    > distinctions in biology of
    > > any kind,
    > > not just in regard to species. Everything bleeds
    > into everything
    > > else.
    > > Every cell type in the body is just a modification
    > of an original
    > > type,
    > > every pattern of leaf or bone a modification of a
    > basic form. Yet
    > > each
    > > class still retains its identity. Without a sense
    > of vagueness, of
    > > ambiguity and overlap, of sameness coexisting with
    > difference,
    > > there's no
    > > real comprehension of life. The fetish among
    > biologists for
    > > exactitude,
    > > which was inherited from the physical sciences, is
    > a major
    > > roadblock in the
    > > development of an appropriate theoretical model
    > for the life sciences.
    >
    > You are mislocating the blame, and at the same time
    > doing a
    > historical injustice.
    >
    > Essentialism is due to the logic of Aristotelian
    > categories and
    > taxonomy. It was rarely employed by actual science,
    > though, until the
    > 19th century. Darwin was one of the people who
    > enabled the so-called
    > Strickland Rules for taxonomy. The modern fetish
    > against essentialism
    > is due to Popper's works, and the modern fetish
    > *for* it is due to
    > non-biologically informed philosophers such as
    > Putnam and Kripke.
    >
    > But the categorial, or taxonomic, classification
    > that existed prior
    > to this in, for instance, John Ray, Caspar Bauhin
    > and Conrad Gesner
    > (and some latecomer name Linne), is merely a
    > diagnostic essentialism.
    > They all knew that organisms varied, but they needed
    > a character or
    > more that would enable a medico to identify the same
    > plant, or a
    > field observer to identify the same bird. This was
    > harmless.
    >
    > The notion that evolution requires either a denial
    > of the reality of
    > species, or that the concept means species are in
    > principle
    > indefineable is due not to Darwin (who had not
    > trouble being a
    > taxonomic essentialist) but to Lamarck, and in
    > particular Lyell's and
    > Cuvier's reactions to Lamarck. *That* was when
    > species were insisted
    > upon being sharply demarcated. But for the entirety
    > of prior western
    > history of biology - and believe me I've looked -
    > species were never
    > expected to be sharply demarcated.
    >
    > The claim that species shade from one to another was
    > due to the
    > Aristotle-derived great chain of being. All Lamarck
    > did with it was
    > make it a temporal sequence.
    >
    Are you damning Lamarck with faint praise or praising him with faint damnation? Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference :-) Temporal sequence was a praiseworthy thing I hope, great chain be damned.

    So Aristotle gave us essentialism? Then did his predecessor Plato bequeath idealism? Did the morphological idealists lean more towards Platonic Ideas than Aristotlean Essences?

    Where did Darwin get Unity of Type and Conditions of Existence from? Did these stem from some grand debate over Structure vs. Function or something?

    __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 02 Jun 2005 - 04:25:04 GMT