|
Author
|
Topic: Darwinism as an Idol of the Theatre
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 16. June 2002 18:45
One of the chief complaints against Darwinism that many of us here at Brainstorms have is that it functions more as an ideology than as a true scientific theory. Specifically, it is often invoked in scientific papers and popular science accounts in a way that has nothing to do with the actual evidence being presented, but rather as a way to reassure the reader that the author subscribes to the faith (in spite of the seemingly miraculous biological events being described), and that everything is okay. Despite the appearance of fantastic ignorance, we really understand everything after all.
I think that Darwinism, as it is so often used in this way, is a classic case of what Francis Bacon called an "Idol of the Theatre". Here is how Bacon defines this idea:
"Finally, there are idols which have crept into human minds from the various dogmas of philosophies, and also from faulty laws of demonstrations. These I call Idols of the Theatre, because I regard all the philosophies that have been received or invented as so many stage plays creating fictitious and imaginary worlds. . . . Nor again do I mean this only in regard to universal philosophies, but also to many principles and axioms of the sciences, which have become established through tradition, credulity, and neglect." (Novum Organum, Book I, Aphorism 44. Translation by Peter Urbach and John Gibson, Open Court, 1994, pp. 55-56)
There is an excellent example of the power of Darwinism as an Idol of the Theatre in today's New York Times Magazine. In the article "Got Silk," by Lawrence Osborne, which is a description of the development of transgenic goats with the ability to secrete spider's silk in their milk, there is the following passage:
"Four hundred million years ago, [Dr. Jeffrey D. Turner] begins excitedly, spiders were doing just fine as ground hunters until one day bugs started flying. 'The spider's evolution comes out of a kind of arms race between spiders and bugs. The bugs start flying to get away from the spiders, so the spiders have to come up with a new weapon.' Most spider species died out, but a few developed a new talent, namely, spinning webs. The silk had to be both invisibile to a bug's vision and virtually indestructible. Only spiders capable of making superfine, powerful silk survived---a perfect example of evolutionary pressure" (p. 50).
Now, in the first place, none of this has anything to do with the subject of the article, or has the slightest bearing on the recombinant DNA technology used to produce the transgenic goats. Second, it is all a "Just So Story," albeit perhaps one more plausbile than most. But clearly, it is rank speculation with little evidence to support it, and certainly no operational value as a scientific theory.
But even assuming the story is true---that that is really the way things happened---the most egregious way that Darwinism is functioning here as an Idol of the Theatre is evident in the last sentence. "Only spiders capable of making superfine, powerful silk survived---a perfect example of evolution pressure." The very idea that such a statement should be blithely accepted as a genuine scientific explanation of anything is a travesty. One does not know whether to laugh or cry. That is, laugh at the stupefying inadequacy of the statement as an explanation of the power of spiders to make silk. Or cry at the gullibility of the journalist and the intellectual elites of this country in general to swallow such nonsense whole.
The story itself may be true, for all I know, but the idea that the RM/NS mechanism is an adequate explanation of the story is preposterous. Therefore, the sentence about natural selection added by the journalist can only be interpreted as a kind of religious ritual designed to reassure us all that we understand something that is in fact deeply mysterious. This is why I believe it is accurate to say that Darwinism is blocking the path of progress. We must somehow rid this Idol of the Theatre of its power to deaden our thinking about life, if we are to have any chance of ever understanding what is really going on.
Darwinians care to comment?
[ 16 June 2002, 18:59: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 16. June 2002 20:22
Although I usually enjoy James' posts and appreciate his perspective, this post seems a little out of keeping with the spirit of ISCID; at least, this has been the moderator's response in respect to similar posts which have asked questions in a way which tended to divide us along ideological or theoretical lines of some sort.
So, as someone who doesn't consider himself a "Darwinist" (but doesn’t really know what James means to imply by that term, nor who he intends to include), I am still put off by statements such as “stupefying inadequacy” of the explanation, “the idea that the RM/NS mechanism is an adequate explanation of the story is preposterous”, and especially “the sentence about natural selection added by the journalist can only be interpreted as a kind of religious ritual.”
I am not meaning to excuse the journalist in question for his writing - it is a common fault of popular science writing, in many fields, to gratuitously build on common stereotypes about the field, exaggerate the significance of findings, give no feel for the tentativeness of data, etc. That is not the issue.
But I do think it is unproductive to ask “Darwinists” to comment when you have already accused them as having preposterous and stultifyingly inadequate ideas.
A “kinder, gentler” approach might be better, don’t you think?
[ 16 June 2002, 22:21: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 16. June 2002 21:19
I guess James' post would gain more significance if a) he found the same type of statement in an actual scientific paper (who knows, maybe Dr. Turner prefaced his entire comment with "A plausible scenario for the evolution of web-spinning by spider is...", and it just got cut by the reporter - it happens quite often, reporters don't like qualifiers), b) he took the time to do some research about what is known scientifically about the subject before commenting on the proposed scenario, and c) cared to propose an alternative, equally or more plausible hypothesis.
[ 16 June 2002, 21:21: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 16. June 2002 22:33
Dear James,
I've come to respect your original perspective here at Brainstorms and am purposefully lenient towards you (allowing the occasional slip up) because you have earned my respect. However, this post is going in the wrong direction.
Although ISCID is home to many critics of Darwinism, my desire has been to leave undermining criticism at the door, and to encourage positive hypothesis. I acknowledge that criticism of competing hypothesis may be necessary in order to establish one theory's superiority over another. However, criticism minus a positive alternative, is frowned upon. I am requesting that you edit your post so that it fits with the spirit of Brainstorms. If you do not believe that the thread is salvagable, I will close it down in a couple days.
This is a general warning to Brainstorms participants: The moderator's nose is honed in on Darwin bashing. Brainstorms will not turn into a sophisticated place to hurl insults at Darwinians.
[ 16 June 2002, 22:38: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 17. June 2002 07:37
Evan has a point when he asks me how I should expect a Darwinian to reply in a serious and constructive spirit when I have turned up the rhetorical heat as high as I did in this post.
Well, I don't mind at all if we shut this one down and move on. But here is my question. How can we grapple with this issue---which is one of the utmost importance not only for the intellectual debate going on here at ISCID, but also for our collective intellectual and even political life in this country---in a serious way? The question at issue is not going to be solved by adducing particular empirical facts (which Charlie D. recommends) because the question at issue is precisely the way in which Darwinism is functioning in our culture as a ritual intended to show one's solidarity with a certain way of thinking---and so functioning as a substitute for evidence.
I, and many others, have already argued at length on Brainstorms about the insufficiency of RM/NS to explain complex adaptations. This was a particularly egregious example in the popular press of the way in which RM/NS is habitually ritually invoked, in spite of its gross inadequacy as a true scientific explanation. So, the issue I was interested in in this post was precisely the sociological point made by Francis Bacon about the way Idols of the Theatre function to inhibit our thinking, and the way in which Darwinism is functioning as an Idol of the Theatre in our contemporary intellectual discourse.
However, if this is not a suitable topic for Brainstorms, I understand.
[ 17 June 2002, 07:46: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 17. June 2002 10:00
quote:
James:
The question at issue is not going to be solved by adducing particular empirical facts (which Charlie D. recommends) because the question at issue is precisely the way in which Darwinism is functioning in our culture as a ritual intended to show one's solidarity with a certain way of thinking---and so functioning as a substitute for evidence.
I, and many others, have already argued at length on Brainstorms about the insufficiency of RM/NS to explain complex adaptations. This was a particularly egregious example in the popular press of the way in which RM/NS is habitually ritually invoked, in spite of its gross inadequacy as a true scientific explanation.
But how do you know if this was indeed an "egregious example" of Darwinism "functioning as a substitute for evidence", if you claim from the beginning that empirical facts are irrelevant to the point?
What if there were plenty of empirical facts supporting the evolutionary scenario proposed? And how does your and others' theoretical work at ISCID on "how RM/NS is insufficient to explain complex adaptations" have any bearing on how spider webs evolved? Or does your work prove that no matter what empirical support is uncovered in favor of a darwinian evolutionary scenario, theoretical considerations automatically supersede actual evidence?
Note that I am not claiming you are wrong about the specific case you present, just that nobody can tell, until you discuss the evidence.
Finally, I think the appropriate relationship between empirical evidence and theoretical considerations is, very much, a proper subject for Brainstorms.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 17. June 2002 10:17
James,
I agree that issue you are trying to raise is an important one. May I suggest the possibility that the question might be formulated in a more technical and less emotional sense along the following lines:
The ‘fairness of the debate’ is one of the issues underlying the Darwin versus ID discussion. I would like to start a discussion of the technical aspects of the fairness issue. Specifically, I would like to address the issue "Are the peer review standards used in evolutionary biology 1) consistent with or compatible with scientific standards, or 2) significantly biased in favor of Darwinian theory (and against competing models and theories)?" Clearly any discussion of such a potentially sensitive subject must address the factual and technical aspects of the standards (and avoid personal opinions and accusations of wrong doing).
If the moderators will permit this discussion, I will introduce for discussion a number of practices which, IMO, either are part of current peer review standards but not part of scientific standards, or part of scientific standards but not enforced as part of peer review standards.
This, IMO, is an important topic for discussion. Peer review standards determine not only what is published or not published, but also what is taught and not taught, what research is funded and not-funded, and ultimately what products are approved or not approved by regulators. If significant bias can enter, or has entered, the peer review process, such bias can potentially impact more than just the content of a few obscure scientific journals.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 17. June 2002 22:28
Charlie D.:
You seem to be equating the fact of evolution with the RM/NS mechanism as an explanation thereof. I have tried to be clear that this distinction is crucial, but perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.
All speculation about specific evolutionary paths should be tied directly to the empirical evidence. We have no quarrel at all about this.
In practice, however, much Darwinian speculation about evolution takes the form of unconstrained "Just So Stories" with very little empirical validity. This is an old complaint, of course, and by no means new with me, or even with ID theory.
Nevertheless, as I said in my original comment, I am prepared to admit for the sake of argument that an arms race between flying insects and spiders transpired just as the article says it did. Fine. I am willing to grant that provisionally. As these things go, that is a pretty plausible scenario.
But what a leap it is to go from that plausible scenario, which is presumably based on fossil evidence, to the flat-out statement that "Only spiders capable of making superfine, powerful silk survived---a perfect example of evolutionary pressure"! Don't you see how this is completely unconstrained by any facts, and in fact is a way of sysematically evading the necessity to ground our claims in some sort of evidence?
And, sure, I agree, theory is also necessary, but what kind of theory is this, really? It just says, "X happened, we believe that RM/NS explains whatever happens, therefore RM/NS explains X."
But how on earth can random changes produce the arms you need to keep up with an arms race, just when you need them? It always comes back to the same basic point that we all repeat over and over again---you simply cannot rationally explain teleologically appropriate (I dislike the term "design" because I find it question-begging) structures by invoking "chance."
What natural selection is constantly doing is ASSUMING that organisms are functionally integrated entities that are capable of moving from one functionally stable state to another. Well, to that extent, I agree with natural selection. But please, let us not delude ourselves that we have EXPLAINED anything. We have simply said, "Organisms are teleologically organized, and somehow they evolve." And that is all we have done.
In order to explain how spiders began to spin silk, it will necessary to delineate a path from the pre-silk proteins to the silk proteins, plus no doubt hundreds of other coordinated changes in collateral structures, and to show how this path can be traversed in the time spans available, just when they are needed, and not in other kinds of organisms, and not at other times, and finally---and this is crucial---WHY all of this happened just like it needed to just when it needed to. It is not enough to show that the path existed; we must show that there was a reasonable probability that the path would actually be taken. All of which presupposes a level of understanding of how living things work that is entirely lacking at present.
But simply saying, "Some of them did it, and the ones that couldn't perished," is not science. It is a simple credo, which I fear wishes to assume to mantle of authority of science.
[ 17 June 2002, 23:21: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 18. June 2002 05:39
quote:
James Barham: In practice, however, much Darwinian speculation about evolution takes the form of unconstrained "Just So Stories" with very little empirical validity. This is an old complaint, of course, and by no means new with me, or even with ID theory.
1. Since speculation by definition does not have a strong empirical support (lest it would not be speculation), it is pretty natural that also "Darwinian speculation"--whatever it is--has little empirical support.
2. If you read the scientific literature, you will find that only a tiny portion of it is devoted to so-called just so stories. Just so stories are mainly a product of the demands that face authors writing for the general public, which may lose interest or fall asleep if all qualifiers and technical reasoning are accounted for.
quote:
James Barham: But what a leap it is to go from that plausible scenario, which is presumably based on fossil evidence, to the flat-out statement that "Only spiders capable of making superfine, powerful silk survived---a perfect example of evolutionary pressure"! Don't you see how this is completely unconstrained by any facts, and in fact is a way of sysematically evading the necessity to ground our claims in some sort of evidence?
The New York Times has higher goals than restricting articles to only scientifically secure statements (they want to make money and that is done by making readers curious and interested). You are of course perfectly free to object to the standards news papers use to judge what is acceptable to write and what is not. In particular, you are of course perfectly free to argue that this particular claim should have been reworded or before it was printed. However, to use this news article in your anti-evolutionary rhetoric to cast doubt on scientists working with evolutionary theory is simply unjustified.
Here's a challenge for you: Rather than using news articles as a sources, use the scientific literature. Try to find a just so story to attack in any of the following journals:
Anatomy and Embryology,
American Naturalist,
Evolution,
Genetics,
Journal of Experimental Zoology,
Journal of Molecular Evolution,
Journal of Theoretical Biology,
Molecular Biology and Evolution, or
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
These journals cover a fairly large part of evolutionary theory, although perhaps with a bias for molecular stuff (I don't know any fully electronic paleontological journal, but you're welcome to add Journal of Paleontology, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleobiology to the list; go here). The total number of articles in their online archives is very large and they also have search engines to make it easier to find articles. If you are right that "[Darwinism] is often invoked in scientific papers and popular science accounts in a way that has nothing to do with the actual evidence being presented, but rather as a way to reassure the reader that the author subscribes to the faith" you should have no trouble finding many examples. I ask that you provide one example, and that you tell us how many articles you had to check before you found this example. This seems like a fair challenge, since it will only require very little of your time if you're right. If you're wrong, you will probably need to waste a lot of time in the online archives, but that time will still have been much more productively spent than time you use to insinuate things about the science and scientists you disagree with.
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. June 2002 09:32
Erik:
I realize that the vast majority of work in biology makes no reference to Darwinism at all---for the very good reason that it is largely irrelevant. What matters for understanding living systems is understanding how the physical and chemical processes of the cell are organized according to functional logic.
My complaint is that, to the minor extent that Darwinism is invoked at all, it is mainly as window dressing. But this scientifically minor and operationally useless doctrine then becomes blown up into a grand metaphysics or worldview in the popular press that supposedly has the authority of science behind it. This is what I mean by its being an "Idol of the Theater." Also, I might add that I think it is a little disingenuous for Darwinian scientists to disavow the image of their work that has so seized the popular imagination. If you really disagree so strongly with popular presentations of your ideas, you might consider writing a letter to the editor, or even a popular book to set things straight. I would certainly be the first to congratulate you, if you did.
My main concern is the deleterious impact of Darwinian thinking, and mechanistic and reductionist thinking generally, on our self-image as a species, and on our collective moral and political life. That is why this whole sociological issue is of concern to me, although you are right, of course, that it is not strictly relevant to the factual questions at issue. But I hold the views on the factual issues I do on other grounds, which I have tried to make clear elsewhere here on Brainstorms. If Darwinism made sense, then we would just have to accept it, no matter the consequences. But it doesn't, so we don't.
I will do some investigating to try to come up with a good example of the ritual invocation of Darwinism in a scientific article (I have often noted this phenomenon in passing, but have not kept records).
Could I challenge you as well---to come up with a discussion of natural selection that has some empirical content, and is not just invoking the mantra? And remember, I am not just talking about speculation about evolutionary scenarios, I am talking about explanations of putative evolutionary scenarios in terms of the RM/NS mechanism, that give a convincing mechanistic explanation without surreptitiously relying upon teleological factors.
[ 18 June 2002, 10:03: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. June 2002 09:58
Erik:
Here is a nice little example of what I am talking about that happened to lie readily to hand:
In a very interesting experimental report in Science [should read "Nature"--JB] from a couple of years ago (T. Nakagaki et al., "Maze-solving by an Amoeboid Organism," 2000, 407: 470), a team of researchers reports their finding that the plasmodium form of the slime mold Physarum polycephalum has the ability to "solve" a maze engraved on an agar plate by spontaneously withdrawing from dead-end paths, thus reducing its occupation of the space to the shortest path between the entrance and the exit. It does this because its normal feeding behavior involves changing its shape to link together various food sources within its reach in a least-effort way (food sources on the plate were placed outside the entrance and exit to the maze).
Now, in their conclusion, Nakagaki et al. write as follows:
"To maximize its foraging efficiency, and therefore its chances of survival, the plasmodium changes its shape in the maze to form one thick tube covering the shortest distance between the food sources."
I submit that the clause, "and therefore its chances of survival," serves no valid scientific purpose in this passage, but is in fact a mere ritual incantation to keep at bay the uncomfortable implications of their finding.
Note that I do not wish to seem harsh with regard to Nakagaki et al. themselves. I think their paper is a beautiful and important piece of work. They are just bending to the protocols of their profession, in which these obeisances have to be made.
But isn't it obvious that the offending clause is perfectly useless from a scientific point of view? Surely, it is the rational efficiency of the plasmodium that explains its survival, not the other way around. So why put that in at all? Just so that everything seems above board, I think. But this does not help matters at all from a scientific point of view; on the contrary, it only serves to obscure the nature of the real difficulty, which is how to understand the rational agency of life in general.
[ 19 June 2002, 19:43: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 18. June 2002 14:39
I think that James is wrong. The comment is certainly not very exciting. But it has content and is defensible. It is just a way of putting the implications of the paper in context.
(1) Some organisms are fitter than others.
(2) Maximising foraging efficiency is (from obvious theoretical considerations) one way that organisms might be fitter than others.
(3) These organisms have been shown to have reasonably elaborate mechanisms that seem to have positive implications for foraging efficiency.
From (1) (2) and (3) we might reasonably conclude that the demonstrated ability might have positive consequences for organism fitness, which might help to explain why they possess them.
There is no just so story here. Just drawing the readers attention to plausible implications of their work.
P.S.
I should point out that the great majority of organisms do not maximise foraging efficiency - they instead put a lot of resources into avoiding predators.
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 18. June 2002 14:47
Note that the argument I spell out above works whether Natural selection is given as the reason that organisms have traits that maximise fitness, or some other mechanism (e.g. design).
Nagylaki et al.`s comments as well as being scientifically correct and worth stating, should be totally inocuous even to opponents of Darwinism.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. June 2002 18:07
fish:
Your argument in support of Nakagaki et al.'s inclusion of the allusion to natural selection in their report, turns on the following statement you make in your conclusion:
"From (1) (2) and (3) we might reasonably conclude that the demonstrated ability might have positive consequences for organism fitness, which might help to explain why they possess them."
Obviously, we must assume that the foraging efficiency is GOOD for the organism (if that is what you mean by "positive consequences for organism fitness"). Teleological value is (or ought to be) the null hypothesis for all biological functions (see the discussion on the vestigial organs thread).
But how do you get from the statement that "the demonstrated ability might have positive consequences for organism fitness," to the statement "which might help explain why they possess them"?
If the teleological good of a trait is what constitutes "organism fitness" (which I agree with), how can you then turn around and use "organism fitness" to explain why organisms possess traits that are good for them? This is arguing in circles.
Your argument in favor of throwing in allusions to natural selection out of context amounts to the affirmation that natural selection can explain the functional value of traits, which I deny (because the causation must go the other way, from successful function to differential reproduction). But let's say that we agree to disagree about that. Still, what is the point of throwing in the allusion to natural selection in this PARTICULAR paper?
Wouldn't Nakagaki et al.'s statement about natural selection be just as relevant (or irrelevant) in any other paper whatsoever? I think it would. Thus, there is no point to including it here in this particular paper, other than to demonstrate the authors' fealty to the doctrine.
[ 18 June 2002, 18:26: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. June 2002 18:29
Ignore this. I made a mistake, and couldn't figure out to undo it!
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic