Godfrey Smith’s book 27 Jul 2009 Peter Godfrey Smith is a leading philosopher of biology, a professor at Harvard. He has recently published an important book on the nature of evolution, Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection, in which he moves away from the gene centrism of Dawkins to a reproducer view in which objects that form populations are what is basic to evolution. Massimo Pigliucci has just posted a comment about it which summarises a lot of the reactions I had to the book: wow. Some of Peter’s comments are just obvious, once someone has said them. Massimo’s reaction is to Peter’s observation that genes are seen as paranoiac agents (hidden agents that have their own agenda). That’s one of mine, but my main one is that Peter treats populations as “the” unit of evolution. Read Pigliucci’s post, but work through the book. It’s hard work but worth it. Pigliucci is going to do a series of posts on it, too. Biology Book Evolution Philosophy Science
Education My Absent Career 2: From theolog to undergrad 6 Dec 20221 Jan 2023 Since my mother worked, I would stop at the local library on my way home. I had until she got home about an hour and a half later. So I would read books in an hour and a half, since the ones I liked were adult books and I was… Read More
Evolution Teeth and a marsupial lion 16 May 2009 Chris Nedin has another post of great interest (even if it is for a late period, the Pleistocene) which goes into my file of “the older naturalists were great observers”, as he shows how modern chemistry supports Richard Owens’ diagnosis of Thylacoleo as a carnivore, even though it is in… Read More
General Science Computers aren’t science 25 Nov 2009 As I read the science feeds for various sites, I am struck how often people are reporting on computers and computer techniques. News flash: Computers aren’t science, any more than glass blowing is chemistry or addition is physics. Computing is a mathematical technique that uses electronic shortcuts. Computation is an… Read More
Just out of curiosity, does Godfrey Smith make a distinction between the unit of selection and the unit of evolution? You refer to his book as a book on the nature of evolution but the title suggests that it is only about natural selection.
Ive held off looking at Dawkins and Dennett as I feel very uncomfortable with some of the views they express with regard to memes; particularly Dennett on folklore. I feel it’s a very limited perspective. Although as yet I have read little of his work, so my view of his approach is itself somewhat limited at the moment. This looks very intresting. I am off to grab a copy.
That’s one of mine, but my main one is that Peter treats populations are “the” unit of evolution. This would be a Platonic evolution that only exists in mathematical theory. But populations are vague at best, and in some cases (e.g. humans) there is considerable structure within populations. I would hope that “the” unit of evolution would be easily recognisable. But using populations is a bit like making “the” unit of length the distance from nose to fingertip.
Hence the scare quotes. Godfrey Smith has a very fine explanation of why he takes that tack, rather than the standard Lewontonian three conditions view. Basically a population has all the necessary conditions to undergo Darwinian evolution (which is primarily bit not entirely natural and other selection). [There. That will piss Larry off.]
I agree that a populations has all the necessary criteria for Darwinian evolution. It also has all the necessary criteria for the other, more frequent, mechanism of evolution at the population level, so why not just drop the unnecessary terms “Darwinian” and “selection”?
I am also off to head a copy. The excerpt from Pigliucci’s blog was indeed head-spinning, and on a track with some of my own thoughts about projecting intentionality lately. I’ve just read through Godfrey-Smith’s two essays on functions that you can get free from his website, and it looks like this will be a welcome extension of those. Is the book more about replicators or units of selection? Of course, the two are tied in all sorts of ways, but I’m having a hard time teasing out where the emphasis is from the previews.