Two new papers of mine 18 Aug 2009 Deflating genetic information – in which I argue that the only sense in which genes have “information” is the causal sense of specificity Darwin on species and heredity – in which I reprise some blog entries on this site about myths of Darwin. Both are under review, and hence neither are final or citeable. Epistemology Genetics History Metaphysics Philosophy Science Species concept Systematics
History Wilkins on radio 12 Dec 2010 Here. The actual recording is not being played until 23 January… Read More
Epistemology A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion 6 Jun 2009 Beneath the fold, I have stolen some text that lists 12 principles that make intellectual argument possible. In turn, this list was taken from Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by Edward T. Damer, which was recommended in comments by G. Felis. I have added in italics… Read More
History Fallacies on fallacies 22 Sep 2008 Many people are confused about what counts as a fallacy, including teachers of critical reasoning. Opponents of science often accuse pro-science writers of “the fallacy of authority” or “the ad hominem fallacy” when they are noted for having made silly and false claims before. I thought some words about what… Read More
How many papers are you working on at the same time? Your output is prodigious. What exactly does “under review” mean?
I usually have around four of five projects ongoing (see my “What I’m Working On” page here). However right now is rather unusual because I put a half dozen projects on hold while I finished my books. So I’m clearing the decks with all those “in the drawer” projects. Some of them date back ten years. I must revise my functions paper too. “Under review” means I submitted them to a journal, but have received no response or acceptance. “Forthcoming” means they are accepted but unpublished.
A possible correction: you propose that the term “Lamarckian” for those who think heredity is acquired by an individual organism during the parental generation and then passed on to progeny, was coined by August Weismann (1904): Bowler’s ”Evolution” p. 236 says that “neo-Lamarckism” became popular in the 1890s, and appeared with that meaning in “Darwin and after Darwin” by Romanes, from 1892. http://www.archive.org/stream/darwinandafterd04morggoog/darwinandafterd04morggoog_djvu.txt p. 12 Romanes claims to have coined “Neo-Darwinian” and “Ultra-Darwinian” for Weismann’s ideas, p. 13 he turns “to the so-called ‘Neo-Lamarckian’ school of the United States” and says “members of this school believe that much greater importance ought to be assigned to the inherited effects of use and disuse than was assigned to these agencies by Darwin.” (ocr errors corrected) p. 53 he mentions “the self-styled Neo-Lamarckians” This goes a bit against Bowler’s p. 231 statement that some early advocates of the position didn’t realise that Lamarck had pioneered the idea, and a U.S. account of Lamarck and his writings was not published until 1901. So, neo-Lamarckism with the inherited use and disuse characteristics meaning goes back to the 1890s, it may have been coined by Weismann. Not sure if dropping the “neo” is a big issue.
What we now think of as Lamarckism is what the neo-Lamarckians pushed as the alternative to Darwinian variation: acquired inheritance. This became the central interpretation at about the time Romanes wrote. Weismann wrote a bit before Romanes, and Romanes was responding to him.