Remember Suzan Mazur, the credulous reporter hyping a revolution in evolution? She’s at it again, publishing an e-book chapter by chapter on the “Altenberg 16”, this meeting that she thinks is all about radically revising evolutionary biology.
I can tell that Massimo Pigliucci — one of the 16 — is feeling a little exasperation at this nonsense, especially since some of the IDists have seized on it as vindication of their delusions about the “weakness” of evolutionary theory. He’s got an excellent post summarizing some of the motivation behind this meeting, which is actually part of a fairly routine process of occasional get-togethers by scientists with similar ideas to hash out the concepts. Here’s the actual subject of discussion at the Altenberg meeting.
The basic idea is that there have been some interesting empirical discoveries, as well as the articulation of some new concepts, subsequently to the Modern Synthesis, that one needs to explicitly integrate with the standard ideas about natural selection, common descent, population genetics and statistical genetics (nowadays known as evolutionary quantitative genetics). Some of these empirical discoveries include (but are not limited to) the existence of molecular buffering systems (like the so-called “heat shock response”) that may act as “capacitors” (i.e., facilitators) of bursts of phenotypic evolution, and the increasing evidence of the role of epigenetic (i.e., non-genetic) inheritance systems (this has nothing to do with Lamarckism, by the way). Some of the new concepts that have arisen since the MS include (but again are not limited to) the idea of “evolvability” (that different lineages have different propensities to evolve novel structures or functions), complexity theory (which opens the possibility of natural sources of organic complexity other than natural selection), and “accommodation” (a developmental process that may facilitate the coordinated appearance of complex traits in short evolutionary periods).
Now, did you see anything in the above that suggests that evolution is “a theory in crisis”? Did I say anything about intelligent designers, or the rejection of Darwinism, or any of the other nonsense that has filled the various uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous commentaries that have appeared on the web about the Altenberg meeting? Didn’t think so. If next week’s workshop succeeds, what we will achieve is taking one more step in an ongoing discussion among scientists about how our theories account for biological phenomena, and how the discovery of new phenomena is to be matched by the elaboration of new theoretical constructs. This is how science works, folks, not a sign of “crisis.”
You cannot imagine how pleased I was to see this — not because I was at all concerned about this meeting, but because I’ve been scribbling down notes for the last few weeks on the subjects I want to discuss in my keynote at GECCO 2008, and that’s practically an outline of my plans. I was going to go over some of these concepts and define them and give examples; I didn’t have molecular buffers on my list (maybe I’ll have to add it), and I was going to say a bit about conservation/canalization vs. plasticity, but at least I’m reassured that I’m on the right track.
PZ, you sucker! He’s lying! He’s one of the conspirators! Actually the leader of the cabal! That post is a classic McGuffin…we’re supposed to all feel unimaginably pleased that they won’t be ripping the Modern Synthesis to shreds when in fact that’s exactly what they’re going to do!!! David Sloan Wilson? Group selection??? Everything we think we know is going down the toilet in Vienna next week and you’re “pleased” by an elementary decoy post?
We’re toast, I tell you, TOAST!
Everything you know is wrong!
I think we’re all bozos on this bus!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to burn my copies of Futuyma (first and third editions) and prepare for the Radical New Truths the 16 will be bestowing next week.
But seriously, folks, I just made the mistake of clicking over to Mazur’s e-book, subtitled “AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY.” (Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Evolution???)
Couple of tidbits from the very first screen of text:
Jeez, this is Dembski-level horseshit. I can’t even read it, my eyes are rolling so fast.
When did we find out that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution? Nobody told me, dammit! Thanks alot guys.
Mazur is a demented fuckwit.
(There. I said it. I feel a little better now.)
I must say, though, that this particular strand of woo seems to flying off on a completely different tangent than the Dembski-Behe style of woo, so perhaps we need not fear any coherent alliance between the two.
Mazur’s political slant seems so left wing even Lysenko might be proud.
“But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.”
Where the hell did Mazur pull this from (aside from the obvious ‘out of her ass’)?
I’m keen on meeting members of these “scientific communities” that creo’s speak of all the time…
Good grief! My mouth was gaping wider & wider as I read those excerpts from Mazur’s book. Unfortunately, though, while she may not come to an ‘accommodation’ with Dembski et al, she’s still spouting the sort of sound bites that your average run-of-the-mill creationist will love. No doubt some of them will start appearing in the ‘letters to the editor’ pages in a paper near you, some time soon :-(
Everything that I have come across involving Susan Mazur suggests that something is not quite right. She’s almost too keen for there to be an alternative theory and I can’t understand why (perhaps Sven has shone some light on that).
It’s certainly not because she has any particular knowledge of the current science, so I would guess that it may be ideological, but then nothing that I have seen suggests that it is for religious reasons, either. Unless she is hiding something, that is.
This interview with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini about his new book with Jerry Fodor is another example that has been highlighted recently, as well.
I find that when arguing with creationist nutjobs, one of the problems is their total misunderstanding of what it is they are arguing against.
They tend to latch on to “survival of the fittest” and “man evolved from a monkey”, and assume that that is the theory of evolution. They think that “survival of the fittest” means that “might means right” and therefore, evolution is heartless and evil. They don’t even know what the word fittest means. Trying to explain molecular level evidence for evolution to them is then a waste of time, because they have completely misunderstood what it is that I’m trying to show them.
For the big Darwin celebrations, maybe someone show spend some time and money getting the word out about what the Modern Synthesis actually says. That way maybe we would have to have the same arguments over and over.
Thanks for that link, Damian. Fodor’s selection-bashing article in the London Review last year was so off-base that I’ve been interested in what could be in store in the book he promised therein. Here’s Mazur’s opening to that interview you linked:
Yeah, it’s uncanny! Perhaps Mazur should interview Ben Stein; she’ll be interested to learn that Darwin had no theory for gravity or thermodynamics either.
I think I’ve now read enough to write off anything else Mazur might have to say forever. She’s a nut (on this subject, at least). Guess I’ll read the rest of the interview, though, to see what else Fodor, the celebrated philosopher, doesn’t understand.
“She’s almost too keen for there to be an alternative theory and I can’t understand why”
Probably a combination of some religious or religious-based revulsion to evolution not making her feel special enough (why else would anyone be afraid of science?), and she seems to have swallowed the “social Darwinism” lie, hook line & sinker.
“Snow fell over Manhattan that day, an uncanny reminder that Darwin had no theory for how snowflakes form or for humans either.”
Or it could be some sort of clinical Darwin Derangement Syndrome. (I’m imagining that famous picture of Ben Stein peering at the Darwin statue, and someone suddenly saying “Boo!” from behind it and Stein (or Mazur) jumping three feet in the air.
Debunking Darwinism has already been done, Ms. Mazur.
Please concentrate your energies on unveiling the truth about the saucers!
OK, I read the interview–it’s not with Fodor but with his co-author Piattelli-Palmarini, who is “handling the biology” for the book (tentatively titled What Darwin Got Wrong–that’s cleverly unique–and forecast to drop in late 2009.
All I can say is that for a guy who’s handling the biology, he doesn’t seem to understand much biology. Two quotes to mull and mock:
[Right…”later species”…on the Great Chain of Being, I guess]
[See? There have to be major changes in regulatory genes, therefore selection is irrelevant.]
The e-book that PZ linked to has been removed.
Very fishy….or perhaps not. I will have to check back again to see if it reappears. At the risk of speculating unnecessarily, I wonder if there have been some complaints about it being inflammatory and rather hysterical. Hopefully so.
No, it only underwent a minor change in its regulatory gene networks.
I was searching for more info on Susan Mazur and saw that ‘Darwinia’ has a post about the e-book. Someone using the pseudonym, nemo, has this to say about the quotes that Sven reproduced upthread:
As well as this by the same person in another post:
So, I clicked on the name and found myself on this site.
It’s promoting a book called, ‘World History And The Eonic Effect’. This is what it says about the book:
Thanks very much, Susan Mazur.
Paging Dr. Sokal… Dr Sokal to the psych ER, please…
“Survival of the fittest”
You keep using that term. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:8Iut17e8RxMJ:www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SP0807/S00001.htm+http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SP0807/S00001.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz&client=firefox-a
Blessed be the google cache…
And it was removed by one of the chief editors, perhaps somewhat embarrassed at Mazur’s stupidity.
I thought that scientology moron (Blubbard) was dead, but is he reincarnated in some of these ‘eonic’ morons?
The convoluted language and the illogical reasoning seems to point in that direction, as they seem to be much the same, as shown in a sentence like this:
The eonic model can also clarify the chronic confusions of historical inevitability in revolutionary historicism.
Lots of words doing very little in that sentence, – in best scientology style!
The e-book is still there – it can be found here.
I came across it independent of PZ’s post, and was thinking whether if it was worth blogging about. Thankfully, PZ has done it for us.
shonny@20.
No, no, no! That sentence you find so incomprehensible, simply means that the confused chronicity that historical revolutionism has introduced into inevitable historicity can be clarified by the eonic model! Try to keep up!
There will be tears before bedtime…. some of the Altenberg 16 appear to be genuine scientists doing genuine science, and some have political axes to grind.
There are scientific investigations to be done on self-organisation, epigenetics and selection above the individual level, but I would be very surprised if these resulted in a wholesale ‘revolution’ of the theory of evolution.
Just as the Creationists look for the ‘god in the gaps’, it would appear that some philosophically motivated people are looking for the ‘politics in the gaps’.
Nemo. Darwiniana. Terms I have not seen outside of a troll at talk.origins. I am not sure where to rank nemo on the time-cube scale, but I would say fairly close to C. David Parsons.
I’m a fellow at the Konrad Lorenz Institute where the meeting is to take place and will be attending it next week. As Massimo Pigliucci states, these kinds of meetings take place here twice a year, so if there have been revolutions they have come every six months. Last year we had a couple of fascinating meetings on innovations and on major transitions. Normally the get-togethers occur without any notice from the broader world but this time, due to Ms. Mazur’s confused article, it seems like every nutter in the world thinks they have the right to hijack the workshop for their own purposes. I hope everything goes smoothly in the end as I have been looking forward to this particular workshop for many months.
As for Ms. Mazur I think that it is indicative of her character that having seen the confusion her article has given rise to she has decided to forge ahead and write a book.
Oh man, a Molly for Sven! For the Firesign reference if nothing else. Just be careful you don’t break the president!
Oh Nick, I am trying my best!
Obviously not good enough as it will take eons till I get it.
As windy and I have discussed a few times in these parts, (some of the things called) group selection are mathematically equivalent to (some of the things called) kin selection. For an introduction to this issue, see Lion and van Baalen (2008) and the references cited therein; I know from personal experience that trying to catch up with this field can be a frustrating and exasperating experience, and that an idea somebody hails as revolutionary now might actually have been discovered by theoretical ecologists in 1985.
DiscoveredJoys (#23):
It’s always easier to tell a story about politics and personalities than it is to understand and explain the real science. This problem grows worse when the relation between the “established orthodoxy” and the “revolutionary new idea” is mathematical in nature. Suppose I describe the evolution of a social behavior in terms of changing allele frequencies, and you come along with a description using transient trait-groups; we might both be manipulating the Price Equation, but anybody who can’t follow the algebra won’t be able to see that, and thus they’re screwed out of understanding whether your idea is really new.
This problem gets really bad with physics, but in the quantitative and algebraic exploration of evolution, it can get just as dreadful.
Anyway: those who can’t follow the science replace it with politics. Alan Sokal gives a bunch of examples, ranging from the amusing to the frightening, in Beyond the Hoax (2008).
The “Altenberg 16” is a very biased group–The group does not include any champions and defenders of “selfish genes” theories and of the role that constructing and testing gene centered and individual centered behavioral strategies has played in expanding the modern evolutionary synthesis to include sexual selection.
Carl you are missing the point. This isn’t a revolution or some kind of coup. The “16” are meeting because they share similar ideas and want to brainstorm on them. Happens all the time and in many places. My advisor is leading a session on how plasticity can lead to the evolution of novel structures at an upcoming meeting and that won;t be a revolution either. The only reason this is getting attention is because of a journalists ignorance of how the scientific community works.
One topic I’m disappointed not to see included (although all those that are, are interesting) is the handicap principle, which was largely rejected when Zahavi formulated it (though in economics a form of it can be found in Veblen in the late 19th century), but for which Grafen has since produced convincing mathematical models. Highly relevant to sexual selection, inter-species communication, and altruism.
Indeed, and therefore appropriate for a meeting on behavioral ecology. My impression is that the A16 are frying bigger fish, Evolutionary Theory writ large and not specific to anything as, well, specific as animal behavior.
Sven DiMilo@33
You don’t think sexual selection and the evolution of altruism are important to evolutionary theory? So why are group selection and niche construction theory, which are included?
I also had a look at the online book, and agree with the assessments above, in a word, crap. The A16 meeting sounds kind of interesting though. Modern evolutionary theory could be said to be undergoing a revolution – not one that discards Darwins fundamental insights, but one that is obliging a 150 year old theory to take on a massive amount of new information, perhaps not dissimilar to that undergone by physics in the early 20th century. I doubt many here would disagree that many concepts developed since Darwins time (eg genetic drift) have substantially enhanced our understanding of biological evolution. It seems likely that ideas being discussed at this meeting may further deepen our understanding.
Sure I do. But I’m not an organizer of the conference, nor one of the Sixteen. I was trying to guess at their motivations for excluding Zahavi’s handicap concepts. Group selection and niche construction are applicable, at least in theory (heh), to all kinds of traits, orgasnisms, and populations. The handicap hypotheses are specific to animal behavior. They’re not including topics intrinsic to animal morphology and physiology either (e.g. symmophosis), they’re going for very generalizable topics. At least that’s my impression.
Sven,
Hmm, yes, that’s probably it. However, you could argue that warning colouration is an example of the handicap principle, and some plants use it – “I’m so poisonous/nasty to eat I can afford to flaunt myself in front of all the herbivores around here, so don’t even think about eating me!” ;-)
The link’s not working for me, did you mean this article?
For the less spatially inclined, here’s a nice quote from Foster et al (responding to arguments challenging kin selection in the evolution of eusociality):
“Indeed, it has long been known that group selection cannot explain the strong altruism of insect workers without invoking greater between-group genetic variance than can be achieved through random assortment [refs] And which ever way you slice it, this between-group variance means that group members are related”
windy,
While you’re here, could you maybe explain quickly the study about bees that you linked to on the earlier thread? I found the abstract a bit confusing. I think I understand it (but are they calling anarchists selfish mutants? :)), but I’m not sure, and I’m interested. I’d really appreciate it, if you have the time.
SC, I’m no expert on that research either, but it seems that they uncovered genetic variation that leads to “anarchist” behavior in bees. That is, worker bees that attempt to reproduce in the presence of the queen (you may consider this a poor analogy to anarchy in humans :) Since the behavior was heritable, they were able to breed a colony with lots of “anarchist” bees. Then there’s some technical stuff about finding those genes, they originally expected to find one recessive allele but found several quantitative trait loci instead.
but are they calling anarchists selfish mutants
I haven’t read this paper, but there are some generalities I can address.
“anarchist” is a behavioral descriptor, used in contrast to the standard behavior of bees, which is typically to maximize the fitness of their mother, and in so doing, maximize the fitness of their sisters at the same time (IOW, they all work towards the same end). It’s simply a way of distinguishing the behavior; it doesn’t imply “anarchy” in the same way a human sociologist might.
Similarly, “selfish” is a descriptor attached to a specific mutation (was it actually identified in the paper?) that supposedly would be at the root of “anarchist” behavior.
don’t get too wrapped up in the terminology; biologists often utilize rather anthropomorphic terminology as novel descriptors. it doesn’t mean what is being described actually is the same thing as what the terms mean in human social dynamics.
there’s a decent enough overview on wiki of how we came to define the terms involved, and evolution of, eusociality (especially in insects).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality
reading E.O. Wilson’s “Sociobiology”, or the works of WD Hamilton, will give an excellent entry into the world of kin selection and social behavior. Wilson’s work on ants at the time was both fascinating and revolutionary.
for Hamilton, I would highly recommend:
Narrow Roads of Gene Land, The Collected Papers of W.D. Hamilton, Volume I: Evolution of Social Behavior
either is enjoyable reading, with much commentary from the authors themselves, in addition to containing many of the original insights and in the case of “Gene Land”, reproductions of the original published articles.
there was an excellent Nova special on Wilson a while back:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eowilson/
…oh and I ran across this a while back, which is another quick overview of eusociality, with pictures:
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/bio359/4_19_02.html
this one goes into common examples outside the insect realm, too.
Thanks, Ichthyic!
This was the article:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/genetics.108.087270v1
I was joking about the “egotistical mutants” thing, which would probably make more sense in context – Nick Gotts and I were discussing anarchism and windy provided it with “There is a news item in the recent Nature on the genetics of anarchy, but sadly it’s only about bees…”
I didn’t know that “anarchist” was an established term in the field, though. I thought the authors had improvised it. That’s interesting.
I saw that NOVA show (twice, actually, for some reason). To be honest, I was pretty disappointed. I thought they tried to cover too much in the short time frame, so a lot of things were treated too superficially. I would’ve liked more about the ants! Also, it seemed to paint an unfair portrait of his critics – at least, their position wasn’t given equal consideration, and they were made to look like they were driven purely by ideology, or so it seemed to me.
By the way, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this:
http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/gardner/publications/FosterXavier_2007.pdf
(Phew – It was getting late in the day and I hadn’t brought up anything to do with Kropotkin yet. Got it in there.)
This was the article:
ah, it looks like they were just testing the hypothesis that “selfish” reproduction was a recessive trait.
Their data strongly suggests it is not, which is indeed interesting, as one of the early suggestions as to the mechanism of repressing individual reproduction in eusocial societies was that it was tied to recessive gene system.
As a side note, I do recall those arguments from way back, but even then, I don’t recall it being generally accepted that it was a necessary precondition to the evolution of eusociality (not saying that is what these authors imply, just making note of it).
I thought they tried to cover too much in the short time frame, so a lot of things were treated too superficially.
unfortunately, that has to be a perpetual complaint for shows only lasting an hour or two.
I would’ve liked more about the ants!
agreed. Wilson himself wrote multiple volumes about ants, any of which one could immerse themselves in for weeks at a time.
Ants have had a few specials of their own (like the “Killer Ants” special on Animal Planet; which quickly touched on the different kinds of social behavior found in ants), thought I never really thought any of them had any real depth to them.
Also, it seemed to paint an unfair portrait of his critics – at least, their position wasn’t given equal consideration, and they were made to look like they were driven purely by ideology, or so it seemed to me.
the politics surrounding the release of Sociobiology would have taken another entire episode to cover. However, I spent a LOT of time looking at the critiques of Wilson at the time, and much of them were indeed driven mostly by ideological and human sociological concerns, and were not scientific criticisms of Wilson’s actual work itself.
consider most of it to be “criticism by implication”.
My old major prof (George Barlow), being a leading Ethologist himself at the time, was caught dead in the middle of the “sociobiology wars”, and had quite few warstories to tell of that time.
He also wrote/edited several good books on the subject himself, one of which I would recommend highly:
Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nuture
which is mostly a collection of essays and works introduced at the AAAS symposium on the subject back in 1978.
hey, evidently one can still purchase copies, cheap!
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110483348/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
By the way, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this:
I scanned it, and my eye caught this sentence:
“Even so, sociobiology does tend to neglect ecology,…”
and immediately thought to myself:
since when?
Since we are talking about Wilson, pretty much all of his initial treatise focused on ecology, and I don’t recall anyone pursuing a more isolated direction since. however, I might be biased being an organismal biologist myself.
Still, I can hardly fault anybody for encouraging more integrative studies, since I was “raised” in a situation where one hundred years of separate depts. were scrapped in favor of a more interdisciplinary approach at Berkeley (dept. of Integrative Biology).
btw, if you are interested in work on the evolution of cooperation, there was a fantastic JEB focus volume released back in 2006 which contained dozens of review articles and new research on the subject.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118631894/issue
In case that link doesn’t work, it was vol. 19, issue 5.
the politics surrounding the release of Sociobiology would have taken another entire episode to cover.
…or an entire book…
unfortunately, that has to be a perpetual complaint for shows only lasting an hour or two.
True. I just didn’t think they did anything really special with it. They didn’t tie the segments together in any kind of clever way, and it had a formulaic documentary structure and feel. (If you know anyone involved in the production, however, I’ll gladly rescind these comments and claim that I was deeply impressed.:)) I definitely have high standards, perhaps unreasonably high, for PBS – especially being here in WGBH-land. They’ve had so many programs that I thought were just stellar that my expectations may be too high. On the other hand, they still often meet or exceed them, so…
the politics surrounding the release of Sociobiology would have taken another entire episode to cover.
But it would be great, if done well. Come to think of it, a whole PBS series on the politics of science would be awesome.
Very cool!
Cool again!
..or an entire book…
one of many, along with hundreds of journal articles and endless argumentative “notes” on the subject.
frankly, I’m rather glad the “controversy” has died down a bit over the years.
It was a distraction even when I was a grad student in the late 80’s.
a whole PBS series on the politics of science would be awesome.
hmm, the problem is, you’d have to find someone really well versed on how to separate the actual scientific controversies from the purely social/political ones.
if it could the relationships between the two could be well defined while exploring the relevant issues, it would indeed be interesting.
If you are interested in the sociology of scientific endeavor, have you ever read the work of Robert Merton?
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/15787.ctl
I’m not a sociologist, so can’t comment on the overall veracity of Merton’s work or conclusions, but after having worked on these issues for over 40 years, he does at least offer much to think about.
again, wiki has a quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton
If
it couldthe relationships between the two could be well defined while exploring the relevant issues, it would indeed be interesting.that’s better.
If you are interested in the sociology of scientific endeavor, have you ever read the work of Robert Merton?
:). That’s kind of like my asking you if you were familiar with E. O. Wilson.
That’s kind of like my asking you if you were familiar with E. O. Wilson.
point taken.
I have trouble remembering who does what around here.
I do recall that MAJeff is working on completing his thesis in sociology, but that’s about it.
for the record, my education (and publications) is in behavioral ecology, focusing on fishes (and sharks), with my undergrad at UCSB and my grad at UCB; postgrad work around the Monterey Bay area with various non-profs and marine labs.
I also have basically another career in database programming, networking, IT, and computers.
oh, and I dabble in professional photography and photo-editing.
I do recall that MAJeff is working on completing his thesis in sociology, but that’s about it.
well, that’s not entirely true, I do recall a few others as well, for example Tharlactos does microbiology (and takes microphotographs of bear tissues).
still, my memory isn’t what it should be, given I’m only 43.
I have trouble remembering who does what around here.
No problem. It was sweet. Yes, I have a doctorate in sociology. I didn’t specialize formally in the sociology of science, but it’s long been an interest (as has combining it with my own areas), and I plan to revolutionize the field :). My graduate department had/has some of the best sociologists of science in the world, and, incidentally, that wikipedia page on Merton has … somewhere … a direct connection to my dissertation.
I was pretty familiar with your general background from your earlier posts (some of us pay attention), but I didn’t know about the photography. Do you combine it with your scientific work, or is it completely separate?
that wikipedia page on Merton has … somewhere … a direct connection to my dissertation.
heh, neat. I’d like to read it sometime. shoot me a copy if you have it in electronic format.
I didn’t know about the photography. Do you combine it with your scientific work, or is it completely separate?
hmm, short version or long version…
short:
It started off that way; underwater photography was a huge part of my thesis work, as I was studying ontogenetic color changes in fishes (mostly damselfishes). Turned out it wasn’t the underwater stuff (or any of the nature photography) people ended up being interested in paying for, it was some stuff I had done for a friend photographing his custom interior work (custom kitchens, cabinets, furniture, etc.).
I ended up starting a small side-business doing interior photography and websites for local contractors. Adds extra cash (always useful), the hours are very flexible, and the work is easy enough. Plus, I can do it just about anywhere.
The NOVA special made EO Wilson seem more central to the development of modern behavioral ecology (AKA sociobiology) than he actually was. He popularized it and his book was the main flashpoint, but John Maynard Smith, WD Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and several others (even Richard Dawkins) were more theoretically important.
But I guess Wilson deserves a disproportionate share of the acclaim since he was the target of the infamous letter that mentioned gas chambers and had water dumped on him.
heh, neat. I’d like to read it sometime. shoot me a copy if you have it in electronic format.
I’d be happy to, or to point you to it at ProQuest if you have access. Where would I send it?
I ended up starting a small side-business doing interior photography and websites for local contractors.
Cool yet again!
Where would I send it?
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
I look forward to it. I actually have some free time to read later this week.
The NOVA special made EO Wilson seem more central to the development of modern behavioral ecology (AKA sociobiology) than he actually was. He popularized it and his book was the main flashpoint, but John Maynard Smith, WD Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and several others (even Richard Dawkins) were more theoretically important.
the issue with Wilson was two things that I recall:
one, he did a lot of the initial experimental groundwork setting the foundations for much of what he had to say, just like Hamilton.
two, he was the first to brave the inevitable shitstorm that everyone knew would result from the (IMO incorrect) political ramifications people would inevitably read into it.
Hamilton also saw a little of that in his day (he too tried to concern himself with human behavioral evolution from time to time), but it took an actual “popular” book on the subject, and a lot of unnecessary media hype, to drive the issue to a fucking frenzy in the public eye. Come to think of it, Hamilton could rightly be said to be the one who really put the pot on the fire, and Wilson the one who brought it to a boil and made it into soup.
someone has to be the lightning rod, I agree, and I can hardly fault the media giving Wilson a bit more attention than Trivers or Hamilton, regardless of whose theoretical work was more important. Dawkins appears to be playing the role of “modern” lighting rod these days.
i wonder how the media will portray him 20 years down the road?
I look forward to it. I actually have some free time to read later this week.
Oh, you’re gonna need quite a bit of it to polish off this monster. I’ll send it in a few minutes.
Sent! Let me know if it gets stuck in the tubes.
got it. a little light reading…
;)
oh, and here’s the first article I published wrt my dissertation work:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/articles/240.htm
It’s not much, really, but at the time, nobody else was doing work in this area at all.
at least it won’t take you long to read.
;)
btw, let me know if any of the table figures are messed up; I’ve noted problems with various browsers and might need to fix a couple of them.
Ichthyic: “i wonder how the media will portray him 20 years down the road?”
As a more strident Carl Sagan? His reputation within liberal arts academic and progressive circles has already improved considerably in the last decade or so, from being the Emmanuel Goldstein-like embodiment of reactionary biodeterminism (unfairly, on both counts) to dauntless champion of freethought and reason against the fundamentalist onslaught. This is for two reasons: 1) Dawkins’ anti-theistic advocacy began in the mid-90s (God as thought virus) and accelerated immediately after 9/11, 2) the most potent adversary of mainstream science is now sectors of the political right (global warming, ID) rather than left wing postmodernism. However, there is still not insignificant left wing enmity towards Dawkins (e.g. Chris Hedges).
The ‘extended synthesis’ or ‘developmental synthesis’ will only be viable if it assimilates the contributions of the Hamilton/Trivers lineage of evolutionary ecology rather than deriding them. (Fortunately, it’s increasingly just aging relics like Lewontin who still do that.)
Aside: Hamilton tarnished himself late in life by endorsing Richard Lynn.
at least it won’t take you long to read.
Yup, seems like a pretty even exchange ;).
Thanks. I’ve printed it out, and will read it now.
By the way, “damselfishes” has to be one of the greatest words ever. I’d work with them just to be able to say it all the time.
As a more strident Carl Sagan?
but he doesn’t have that fun nasally overtone to imitate, and where is the “billions and billions of stars” catchphrase to emulate?
Yeah, I can see what you mean. I think it will depend a lot on what happens to the anti-theism movement over the next few years, as to how Dawkins’ foray into the politics of religion will be viewed.
the most potent adversary of mainstream science is now sectors of the political right (global warming, ID)
…and yet, I have the feeling we have seen the peak on that front. Even Bush has done much capitulation (ideologically) over the last year.
You?
However, there is still not insignificant left wing enmity towards Dawkins (e.g. Chris Hedges).
again, I think the strength of that front will depend on whether the anti-theism movement gains legs of its own, and moves beyond Dawkins. if not, it will become an endless string of “i told you sos” coming from the likes of Hedges (hopefully not Mooney, though). Either way, I think Dawkins himself will mostly shrug off criticism leveled at him from that direction; seems to be how he’s been handling it so far, anwyay.
My personal opinion is also that Dawkins has already accomplished moving the Overton Window. Critique from the left, or from the endless courtiers at this point is irrelevant for that reason alone.
The ‘extended synthesis’ or ‘developmental synthesis’ will only be viable if it assimilates the contributions of the Hamilton/Trivers lineage of evolutionary ecology rather than deriding them. (Fortunately, it’s increasingly just aging relics like Lewontin who still do that.)
I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with you more.
Aside: Hamilton tarnished himself late in life by endorsing Richard Lynn.
meh, I’ve noticed that when we get over the age of 60 or so, all of us tend to abandon at least part of our previously sound reasoning prowess, some to a greater extent than others.
I noticed it in Hamilton, Watson, Wilson, and even my own major prof., Barlow, as well as my own father, for that matter.
gets even worse when you hit 80 (my pop now spouts inanities on an almost daily basis).
another reason NOT to vote McCain.
Makes me worry about getting old, considering my memory is already fading and I’m only 43.
If I make it to 80, you’ll probably hear me bellowing about how all the mexican immigrants in the 90’s took the jobs of hardworking biologists such as myself.
I’m rolling my eyes at myself even thinking about it.
I just hope I have someone around to give me a good slap upside the head.
By the way, “damselfishes” has to be one of the greatest words ever. I’d work with them just to be able to say it all the time.
well, I have to admit to never thinking about that as a reason for working with them.
I was too busy thinking about where most of them live:
http://moorea.berkeley.edu/
yes, that was where I did a lot of my thesis work.
:)
(though that paper I posted for you was actually done on Catalina Island, off of Southern California – er, not that Catalina Ilsand wasn’t a paradise, either.)
Ichthyic: “…and yet, I have the feeling we have seen the peak on that front.”
I agree. One watershed moment: a 2007 National Review cover story had the message that it is time for conservatives to accept the reality of global warming.
“If I make it to 80, you’ll probably hear me bellowing about how all the mexican immigrants in the 90’s took the jobs of hardworking biologists such as myself.”
No – it was the goobacks from the future, remember? They took yer job!
yes, that was where I did a lot of my thesis work.
though that paper I posted for you was actually done on Catalina Island
And you have no idea how much I hate you now. “Tropical Research.” The picture. On top of working outside, with animals, in the ocean, where it’s warm. I worked in a bunch of friggin’ archives. Hmm, maybe natural scientists are smarter than social scientists…
No – it was the goobacks from the future, remember? They took yer job!
bloody timecist.
:p
“everybody! back in the pile!”
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104259/
And you have no idea how much I hate you now. “Tropical Research.” The picture. On top of working outside, with animals, in the ocean, where it’s warm.
Did I tell you about the local Tahitian dance troupe that would visit us at the station, and practice dancing and drumming on the station lawn every afternoon, while we quaffed beers and ate coconuts?
Oh, wait, that’s not helping, is it?
What about telling you about the times I spent hiking to the tops of the mountains behind the station to check out the wild orchids growing in the trees?
no?
Hmm, maybe knowing that there were lots of mosquitos spreading 3 different forms of Dengue fever AND malaria would help?
nasty, nasty stuff.
actually, I managed to avoid it, but a couple of other grad students didn’t. they don’t call it “bonebreaker fever” for nothing; it actually does feel like your bones are breaking to a lot of people – and if you get really lucky and contract all three variants at the same time, you land yourself in the hospital for an extended stay of two weeks or more (with a not insignificant chance of mortality).
Or maybe the incredibly poisonous stonefish and cone snails that were seemingly everywhere might turn you off? Or the reef sharks that were ubiquitous, or tiger sharks that were rare, but around?
Me? I got a sinus infection that kept me out of the water for a couple of days in the couple of months I spent there.
poor me.
Hmm, maybe natural scientists are smarter than social scientists…
come now, surely you’re not forgetting about Margaret Mead?
or don’t you know anybody who “came of age in Samoa”?
;)
Bastard.
Cruel bastard.
That does help a bit. I’m not proud.
Bastard.
Where are you now?
btw, personal experience suggests BOTH Mead and Freeman were correct about sexual norms in Polynesia.
even on Moorea, you can find fascinating juxtapositions of groups living essentially exactly the way they did 200 years ago or more, with groups that have embraced their own forms of xianity.
both groups have no problems getting along with each other, but it’s quite clear that if Mead interviewed with the traditionalists, and Freeman the xians, you would end up with EXACTLY the kind of conclusions each made.
It truly was a bizarre, magnificent, montage of a culture.
Where are you now?
the last place you probably would expect:
In the middle of the desert SW.
long story.
New Zealand is the next stop, though.
New Zealand is the next stop, though.
How exciting! I’ve never been, but it sounds lovely. I’m jealous. (I keep looking for ads for jobs there. Nothing ever appears.)
come now, surely you’re not forgetting about Margaret Mead?
Study actual people? Living ones? Perish the thought :).
Signing off. Buenas noches!
Guten Nacht!
may dreams of gentle tropical breezes and calm, aqua-blue waters dance through your head.
Seconded.
Again, really very sweet you are, Ichthyic :).
Not to beat a dead horse, but as I was falling asleep last night I remembered the part of the NOVA episode that I disliked the most. They film Wilson in Haiti (or just over the border in the DR – I can’t recall). He talks to some ultrapoor people living on the edge of survival, and actually asks them if they’re aware that their actions are environmentally damaging. I mean, really. While they make it explicit that these people are victims, they make the causes of their plight seem abstract (I think he calls them “environmental refugees” – it would be more accurate to call them “World Bank refugees” or “refugees of neoliberalism” or “brutal US policy refugees”) and has nothing to say about the efforts of Haitians themselves to change their situation and help the environment. I’m starting to think that no one should be allowed to talk about Haiti on TV without interviewing either Paul Farmer or Randall Robinson or both. I’m sure he means well, but that segment set me off.
SC@82. No doubt Wilson and the TV crew had flown there and were staying in the best hotels! He just hasn’t got a clue, politically – I don’t think it was courage that led him to “brave the storm” that followed his painfully naive “Sociobiology” – he just didn’t see it coming.
For anyone who is interested:
a) The arithmetic in Darwinism does not work, therefore there has to be a change.
b) The flaw in the theory is simple. It assumes no direction to evolution. However for any species a direction to evolution arises whenever its environment changes substantially and it is failing while there is, in the same environment, a thriving organism. The difference between the effectiveness of the genetically encoded mechanisms in the two species provides a temporary local direction to evolution for the failing species. Under these conditions “fittest” amounts to an ability to acquire and incorporate genetic material from the successful species. Read up on acquired antibiotic resistance for an example. ALthough this process occupies only a few millionths of the history of a line of descent it is sufficiently much faster to dominate.
Now try to explain this to a Darwinist.
Or maybe Salthe’s. it is funny who people like Mazur puick as ‘experts’ – a demented old cranky malcontent and a couple of anti-Darwinists as experts on ‘Darwinism.’ I also liked how she forcefully implied that because the gene is no longer central (according to her precious mavericks) that this spells trouble for evolution.
Amazing…