Ideas for papers 19 Jul 2009 So I was reading through some of my colleagues’ bibliographies recently and getting mildly depressed at their productivity relative to mine, and wondering, what can I do to publish more papers? And it hit me: I need to write my papers in haiku. When I recovered from that image, I thought again. I must write something that I can use as a blog entry and convert to an actual paper. But on what? Inspiration evades me. I Have Opinions, of course, but I don’t do OpEds. So what would you like me to work up. Something you know I am interested in. Best suggestion gets an acknowledgement in the final paper. Administrative
Administrative American Chemical Society: Spammers 13 Jul 201115 Jul 2011 The ACS have informed me (see comments) that they will stop sending me these emails. This obviates the need for this post. Ever since I set up this blog I have been hit by unwanted press releases from the American Chemical Society. I spend too much time throwing their releases… Read More
Administrative Mutant genres 21 Oct 2007 This is a meme started by PZ Mackers. I will exact retribution upon him later. In the meantime, I have been tagged Read More
Administrative Coming to Berkeley 9 Feb 2013 I’ll be in Berkeley (California, in case there’s another one somewhere) from around the 9th to the 15th of March, to give a talk to the Mellon-Sawyer series Speciesism and the Future of Humanity. Anyone who wants an unemployed philosopher to give a talk to their group also, or just… Read More
John I sent you an email asking you to write something on the film _Creation_. Maybe you could examine whether a melodrama about Charles Darwin can educate people about evolution. Did the film _Shakespeare in Love_ inspire people whose only exposure to Shakespeare was the sonnets and plays they were forced to read in high school and required college English courses to read and appreciate Shakespeare? I suspect not. PS My most recent comment under “Unscientific America” is awaiting moderation. Why and may I have it back? I’d like to change the wording of the last sentence.
Veronica, I will post something on that but not having seen more than the trailer I don’t think I can say much (apart from the fact that the screenplay seems to think Darwin obsessed on religion, which he didn’t).
Did God really have a fondness for beetles or were beetle species created by over-enthusiastic entomologists? Why aren’t more philosophers interested in biology? Is it too difficult and messy compared to physics? Victor Stenger says he can prove that God (large “G”) doesn’t exist. Is he correct? Is there a difference between a scientific proof and a philosophical one? Does having a proper definition of “gene” really matter? Is there still a legitimate debate over adaptationism? Where is the boundary between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism? What does “theistic evolution” really mean? What does the average person really need to know about evolution? Is there really a place for philosophers on motorcycles? (e.g. Robert Pirsig)
On beetles, I think both options admit of an affirmative. I just spent a week with 300 philosophers who are interested in biology. Yes it is too messy for some. “Is there a difference between a scientific proof and a philosophical one? ” Yes there is. In science, a demonstration of the empirical adequacy of an explanation, and there being no other explanations on the board that do a better or more inclusive job, is a demonstration of the scientific explanation’s truthiness. In philosophy, you also have to exclude all logical possibility for any other explanation, which is rather more onerous. Genes: yes. Is there one? No. Adaptationism? Yes. Read Gavrilets. Between what and what now? These are terms invented by the theists, and which have almost not meaning. Theistic evolution means that God realised a world in which evolution by Darwinian means resulted in what God wanted. It does not mean that God intervened to make things work out. There is no average person. Educated members of the public need to know the basics, as they do all sciences. Sensible motorcyclists do not do philosophy. I ride a motorcycle. Work it out…
Personally, I still think you should do that paper on identifying the optimal approach for adapting the rules of Mornington Crescent to being played on a map of the evolutionary tree instead of a bunch of train stations. For a start, which species should be the “destination” corresponding to M.C. itself? This would be a very long and technical paper, but you are an expert in all the relevant disciplines and therefore ideally qualified to write it.
Evolution and culture Or a thorny issue. How on earth does D.N.A = Culture The use of genetics and D.N.A testing of populations in the examination of historical cultures. Is it as utterly pants as a some early med. historians suspect. My 4 a.m bed time thoughts.
The first thing that brought me to Evolving Thoughts was your post on evolution as historiography of science “A Darwinian History”. I would love to see you expand upon this idea and flesh it out into a proper paper.
One idea you’ve touched on in previous blog posts that I find intriguing (mostly because I agree with it) is the idea that religion proper is product of civilization, or conversely that the folklore and rituals of pre-agricultural peoples don’t constitute religion. (I’m probably badly mangling your thesis, but I hope you know what I mean.) To me, it’s a way to discuss religion as a social tool rather than as a vague umbrella term for “beliefs.” I suppose it’s a bit like defining species, because the closer you look at the fuzzier it gets. But that’s something I’d like to see developed formally.
A sensible answer. Careful, they’ll come for you (via Oxford Circus). This is my present research project. It will take a while before it issues in papers, but I intend it to (and a book). I am very glad someone gets the point of that argument.
I second thony’s suggestion not seen that article before but it would be rather helpful for my own methodology to see that developed further.
If you want to exploit a fruitful but little researched niche you should expand on your ideas on philosophy of classification and current systematics (phylogenetics). I am referring, for example, to the last sentence on your post about Mill on Kinds and Types, just before you wrote “More on this later…” Or your comment (#7) in response to Joe Felsenstein in this post. I can’t think of any philosopher dealing with this subject right now, nor can’t I think of any philosopher but you with the amount of knowledge about systematics to do it right. From the perspective of a scientist interested in philosophy, the little there is written these days falls into the category of: that is certainly interesting, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what phylogeneticists do. And what systematists write about philosophy of their field fall into the category: hey, Popper looks great, lets fit his ideas in by force, even if at the end there is nothing of him left but terminology.
Why the biological species concept is so prevalent, given its inadequacy or inapplicability to most living things? Why species are any less arbitrary than families? Why the PhyloCode project is ultimately doomed? Why cladistics doesn’t apply below the level of species?