A quote: On philosophers and evolution 23 Mar 2010 Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually, as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology. [Monod, Jacques L. 1975. On the molecular theory of evolution. In Problems of scientific revolution: Progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences, edited by R. Harré. Oxford: Oxford University Press:11-24.] But note Michael Ruse’s review excoriating Monod’s own ability to understand the debates… it seems that nobody lacks a mote in their eye in this respect. I much prefer David Hull’s one-liner: “Evolutionary theory seems so easy almost anyone can misunderstand it”, but I can’t find the source. If anyone knows where that comes from, I’d appreciate the cite. Belated hat tip to Larry Moran. Evolution History Philosophy Science
Book New edited species book 19 Oct 202119 Oct 2021 So, what have I been doing for the Covid Lockdown. Many things. This is one of them. The CRC Press link is here, but I’ll give the table of contents below. The beautiful cover art is by Scott Partridge, an artist in North Carolina. It is entitled Abyssal Zone. Table… Read More
Epistemology 3QD Philosophy prize 4 Sep 2010 The 3QuarksDaily website is running its second Prize in Philosophy which has a convenient wrap up of some good philosophy posts. Most of them, though, are your usual deep ethics, metaphysics and epistemology, which is too deep for the likes of me. Still, you may find them worth reading and… Read More
Well, I find you attributing this quote to Hull as early as 2000. But I’m now pretty sure that no original source is going to turn up via a Google search….although Hull did say something similar to this (but not so catchy) in a review of a book by Sober in BioScience in 2009: “No other scientific theory put forward is so easy to misunderstand…”
It’s “Evolutionary theory seems so easy that almost anyone can misunderstand it,” and it appears in Hull’s review of Gary Cziko’s Without Miracles, Nature 377(6549):494.
It’s “Evolutionary theory seems so easy that almost anyone can misunderstand it,” and it appears in Hull’s 1995 review of Gary Cziko’s Without Miracles, Nature 377(6549):494.
Hmmm … back in 1974, a scientist named Jacques Monod says that lots of people, including philosophers, misunderstand evolution. In 1977, a philosopher named Michael Ruse says that Jacques Monod doesn’t understand philosophy and Ruse continues to demonstrate his ignorance of evolutionary theory for at least another 33 years. I think he missed the point.
There are too many to count … Here’s one that I just re-read. Wright’s theory is not very Darwinian. Natural selection does not play an overwhelming role. Genetic drift is a key player in Wright’s world. However, … drift soon fell right out of fashion, thanks to discoveries that showed that many features formerly considered just random are in fact under the tight control of selection (Lewontin et al. 1981). Today no one would want to say that drift (at the physical level) is a major direct player, although, in America particularly, there has always been a lingering fondness for it.Michael Ruse, Darwin and Its Discontents p. 150 Contrast this statement with the fact that all evolutionary biology textbooks devote a chapter to random genetic drift documenting its effects on evolution.
Hi Larry, It seems that you’re not familiar with the controversy between Fisher and Wright wrt the role of drift X selection. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do your homework before you criticize Ruse.
Actually Ruse argues that Monod doesn’t understand the history of the debates when he appeals to history. And as far as I can tell you think Ruse is ignorant because he disagrees with you, but agrees with other scientists who think evolution proceeds differently than you do… he may be wrong, but I do not think he is ignorant.
Really? You don’t think he’s ignorant for saying. “Today no one would want to say that drift (at the physical level) is a major direct player …” Can you find me any evolution textbook that agrees with Michael Ruse’s ideas about evolution? James, the fight between Fisher and Wright took place in the last century. Try and keep up.
Larry, The context of the quotation is an explicit discussion about the different views of Wright and Fisher. If you really think this is a controversy that was settled a century ago, you’re definitely not familiar with the literature in Evolutionary Biology. Notice that the text is not saying that drift is not important or that it doesn’t happen. If you read the actual text, he’s talking about the influence of drift in driving populations across fitness minima in subdivided populations. The actual text is exactly within mainstream evolutionary biology. Now stop beating the strawman. Just because Ruse doesn’t agree with you about the relationship between science and religion does not mean that he’s wrong about everything else.
Ruse has written a great deal about evolutionary theory and I’ve read most of it. I’ve also heard him speak on the subject on four different occasions within the last four years. I think I know what he means. Ruse wrote a book in 2000 called “The Evolution Wars.” Any reasonable person would expect this to be a serious discussion about the ongoing disputes within evolutionary theory. If that’s what you expect then you’ll be sorely disappointed. There are three pages that mention random genetic drift. Two of them (123-124) cover Sewall Wright’s ideas that date back to the 1930s. The third page (135) mentions Wright again and contains a brief synopsis of Dobzhansky’s view on the causes of variation within populations (classical theory vs shifting balance. That’s it. As far as Ruse is concerned, the role of random genetic drift vs selection has nothing else to do with the modern evolution wars. That’s the position that Ruse takes in “Darwinism and Its Discontents.” This is a book that “… presents an ardent defense of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution against its many critics by one of the leading experts on this subject.” There are only four pages dealing with random genetic drift (148-151) and the focus there is on Wright’s views from the last century. That’s it. Ruse can’t even explain the positions of his critics, let alone understand them.
I agree Ruse is a selection booster. But he is well aware of the views of others – he simply gives them no credence, just as other scientists and philosophers do in reverse (why, some of them seem to think evolution is entirely a matter of accident!). Your fallacy of reasoning here is that you are assuming that because he does not think the same things about evolution as you do that he is uninformed. I am sure that he might think the same about you in some respects. Ruse has made a choice about what he thinks evolution is, and he has written enough in other contexts to make it clear that he “gets” what drift is about – he just doesn’t think that it matters. This is not ignorance but a position. Of course you would not say, I am sure, that because somebody thinks that things are different to what you think they are, that they are by definition ignorant, I would hope…
John, I don’t agree with you. Ruse has never demonstrated the he “gets” random genetic drift and he has never demonstrated that he gets punctuated equilibria, to mention just two of the things he doesn’t get. I know the difference between someone who disagrees with me and someone who is ignorant of the subject. There are plenty of scientists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne who have different opinions but still understand the scientific part of the controversy. Do you really think that someone who understands the scientific controversies about evolutionary theory could write an entire book about the subject and only devote a few pages to random genetic drift?
Yes, if they thought that other approaches were otiose. Consider how some scientists have treated, for example, epigenetics, or junk DNA.
Yes, if they thought that other approaches were otiose. Consider how some scientists have treated, for example, epigenetics, or junk DNA. Point taken. There are many scientists who do not understand these controversies and they pretty much ignore the arguments of the other side. On the other hand, there are experts on both sides of those arguments who are well-versed on the problems and able to explain the controversies even though they take a strong position in favor of one side or the other. The latter group qualify as experts. The former, not so much. I believe that in order to proclaim that you are an expert you have to be capable of arguing the other side of a dispute. Ruse can’t do this because, in addition to not understanding the science, he has dismissed most of his opponents as Marxists, or new atheists, or otherwise compromised.
At the risk of judgment based on a quote taken out of context, OK, you convinced me. That is a pretty inept passage.
Yes, it is sorely out of context. You can read it yourself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=QstHjzwY8loC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Darwin+and+Its+Discontents&ei=zwiqS-zHIoK-zATZkZiFDg&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Wright%E2%80%99s%20theory%20is%20not%20very%20Darwinian&f=false
Thank you for that link. Yes, taken in context, I think Ruse has a good grasp on the concepts of selection and drift. I do not however agree that ‘drift..fell…out of fashion.’ Drift plays a major role in small populations, especially endangered populations.
This reminds me of the classic refrain by physicist Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”
It does seem to ring some bells with regard to people and the rules they use that have come up of late. But that may just be my bias Ive been doing a lot of 17th cen. style bird watching of late. Never come across Feynman before. An amusing man I suspect.