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
Biology Short sharp definitions 11 Aug 2010 Over on Twitter, Waterstones bookshops are running a competition to define philosophy in 100 characters. My definitions are below, but it got me thinking. Einstein, I think, said that if you can’t explain it in simple words you don’t understand it, and so I wonder if we can do this… Read More
Philosophy The philosophy of geology 15 Jul 2010 Is there one? Neither a search through the Philosopher’s Index nor Google Scholar found much within the past century. I am crowdsourcing the question. This looks like an interesting, and not badly needed, gap in the philosophy of science. There’s plenty of history of geology, and a few essays by… Read More
Evolution On the problem of the problem of evil and Darwin 15 Mar 2011 In yet another essay reprising his argument that theists can be good Darwinians (a position I concur with, incidentally), Michael Ruse makes the following comment, based on a book by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions: Where I do want… 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 “Forthcoming” means they are accepted but unpublished.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.