Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA24639 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:08:58 GMT Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:05:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200011181505.HAA24490@mail23.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [209.240.220.219] From: "Scott Chase" <hemidactylus@my-deja.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: The "why" meme(s) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:06:32 +0000
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: The "why" meme(s)
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>I inadvertently deleted the message I'm responding to here, but that
>should be OK because this is not a detailed response and the subject line,
>though changed, is accurate.
>
>I don't think there's substantial disagreement about "why" in the
>evolutionary context. I'm convinced any apparent disagreement
>is basically semantic: what is the proper use of the word "why"?
>In responding to Vincent talking about "the big why questions", I took a
>hard line, saying the word could only legitimately be used about human
>actions, where asking why something occured means you wonder for what
>reason was it done. But, without taking the time to delve into the
>OED, I guess there's room for disagreement on that semantic issue. So,
>it's OK to ask why a particular feature evolved, because in doing so you
>are not committing yourself to taking the intentional or design stance
>towards evolutionary mechanisms.
>
>However, I still insist that Vincent's examples, as in "we all wonder
>why" with no context given, are illegimate, essentially meaningless.
>Not only in science is there no place for them -- that's true of modern
>Western philosophy too -- and, IMHO, anywhere else you care to mention,
>as well. Anyone who does "wonder why" at that level of abstraction needs
>to do less wondering and more serious thinking. Or stop mixing their
>wondering with their thinking, and get back to a basic sense of wonder,
>which is not only legitimate, but IMHO essential for mental health.
>
>
Yes one sense of why extends deeply into the realm of metaphysical speculation and theological implication, so I can see from where some distaste for "why" questions in general arises. There is a more scientific sense of "why" though. I had cited Mayr on an earlier post, but after brushing aside a couple cobwebs I recall that John Alcock compares "how" and "why" in his text (Alcock J. 1993. Animal Behavior: an Evolutionary Approach. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts) on the first several pages. In Alcock's text "how" connects to proximate causes where "why" connects to ultimate causes. Mayr's 1961 article "Cause and effect in biology" is one of Alcock's cited sources. On page four Alcock has a table categorizing proximate and ultimate causes. Listed under the former are genetic-developmental and sensory-motor mechanisms. The latter, ultimate causes, correspond to historical pathways and selection effects.
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Before you buy.
===============================================================
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 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 15:10:21 GMT