Larson on FAPP

Comments (6)

1. Larson states that “Fodor and ­Piattelli-­Palmarini’s central thesis is that random, inborn mutations chosen by a ­survival-­of-­the-­fittest mechanism cannot generate the observed diversity of species in the time that has elapsed since life began on Earth.”

   Do they actually claim anything like this? I still haven’t read FAPP’s book, so perhaps there’s some stupidity there that hasn’t emerged in any of the papers leading up to the book, nor in the lecture by Fodor that I attended a few years ago. (this is an entirely separate issue from the philosophical argument FAPP make about the explanatory deficiencies of natural selection)

2. YET ANOTHER review that (1) does not actually mention the details of FAPP’s argument, and (2) Does not attempt to refute these details.

   I have now read something on the order of a dozen reviews: one review (Block and Kitcher) addresses the arguments.

   I do not agree with FAPP, but this is a generally shameful performance by a supposedly vibrant scientific/intellectual community. If I were Fodor, I would only conclude that I must be right, since so many allegedly talented people are unable to show why my argument is wrong.

   1. Sober addresses the arguments directly, from the book. I do not think he is entirely right, but it’s something of an exaggeration to say nobody but Block and Kitcher have addressed them.

3. Have you read Elliott Sober’s critical notice of FAPP? I think it addresses at least some of the details. Its called “Selection for – what Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini got wrong” – its available on his home page. It is forthcoming in Philosophy of Science

4. I would appreciate the Sober link and the Block and Kitcher link. It appears to me that Larson may not understand what FAPP got wrong. It really is shocking to me that FAPP would argue that because the source of variation (mutation) is random, then nat. sel. is random. Nat. sel. is the opposite of random. It is also shocking that Larson did not target this miscomprehension which leads me to believe that he doesn’t see it.
   I also think that it’s simply not true that anti-evolutionist’s contention is with natural selection and not common descent. In fact, Christian anti-evolutionists stipulate the mechanism of natural selection in cases of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in insects, etc., terming it ‘micro-evolution.’ What they cannot and will never deny is that God created separately each species that exists in the Universe thereby refuting common descent.
   I could go on but I’ll spare you. Larson has missed the boat here in his review

5. Let me come to Larson’s defense here, because I think he actually has a good point.

   Paul Armstrong:

   I also think that it’s simply not true that anti-evolutionist’s contention is with natural selection and not common descent. In fact, Christian anti-evolutionists stipulate the mechanism of natural selection in cases of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in insects, etc., terming it ‘micro-evolution.’ What they cannot and will never deny is that God created separately each species that exists in the Universe thereby refuting common descent.

   I think Larson is closer to the mark than you give him credit for.

   He’s right that a considerable amount of religious objection has focused on natural selection. Natural selection was a sticking point in evolution even long after common descent was accepted–for both scientific and religious reasons. And he’s right that many modern creationists, such as Behe and Dembski, accept common descent but reject natural selection. Larson is certainly right to point this out, since FAPP try to distance themselves from creationists by asserting that creationists only deny common descent.

   YET ANOTHER review that (1) does not actually mention the details of FAPP’s argument, and (2) Does not attempt to refute these details.

   Keep in mind Larson’s area of expertise and his concerns. He’s not a scientist and he’s not a philosopher. He’s a historian who focuses largely on the religious aspect of the evolution debate. Yes, he doesn’t delve deeply into the scientific or philosophical issues in FAPP’s book, but why should he? That’s not his field.

   I read his review as basically criticizing FAPP for mischaracterizing the history of the evolution debate. I totally agree with Larson when he says

   The authors could have better served their stated cause of pointing out the diversity within evolutionary science and the breakdown of the supposedly ­hyper-­rigid ­neo-­Darwinian synthesis by stressing how far biologists have come using Darwinian methods rather than by presenting recent developments as a sharp break from the past. But if they had followed that approach, they might not have attracted much attention for their ­book.

   That’s an adequate historical objection to how FAPP are presenting the issue. As a historian, it’s not surprising that he would choose that tactic. I’d much rather he stuck to his field of expertise than traipse into philosophy, where he’s not well trained.

Comments are closed.