Subject
Fw: VNA replies to Robert Weldon replies to VNAs Mimicry
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Weldon" <robertw@cm-labs.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (49
lines) ------------------
> > VNA: Scientists have recently discovered that there are other mechanisms
> > besides natural selection that influence evolution
> > VNA: Re: Dennet, pop philosophy tends to be
> > at least ten years behind the best work being done in the sciences.
>
> I think there is confusion between the idea of mechanism and natural
> selection. There are many mechanisms that influence rate of mutation.
There
> is a topology in design space that will influence how likely particular
> mutations are to arise. And then there are very interesting questions of
> complexity and self-organization that magnify the degree to which a
> phenotype will change, given a variation in a genotype.
>
> As Walter Fontana has put it, there is a question of the "arrival of the
> fittest" that is as interesting as the "survival of the fittest."
>
> But these things fit into the neo-darwinian synthesis. Evolution occurs
when
> you have replicators, variation and selection. The evolution that arises
> will be shaped by history, the nature of the replicators concerned, and
the
> manner in which selection is applied.
>
> I think the continuing hoopla about these questions comes from two places.
> First, statements made by researchers like Kaufmann and Gould, who promote
> their own ideas as more revolutionary than they actually are. It is hard
for
> a generalist to evaluate such claims. Cutting-edge research is not usually
> available outside of scholarly and specialist papers.To make ideas "claire
> et distincte" requires the philosophical work of understanding what is
being
> said beneath the jargon. For an example of clarification, earlier in this
> thread, the idea of "non-utilitarian mimicry" was examined and found to be
> at least complicated, if meaningful at all. This is the line of useful
work
> that Daniel Dennet has done around questions of adaption and selection. In
> particular, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the discussion on Kaufmann doesn't
> dismiss Kaufmann's work, but clarifies and relates this work to standard
> darwinism.
>
> The second source of hoopla is the idea that science, or the philosophy of
> science, or the "way that science is done" has somehow changed radically
in
> the last couple of decades. I don't want to stir up the culture wars, but
if
> there has been a revolution, it will soon be obvious to all. Meanwhile,
one
> can be excused for taking the conservative approach and getting on with
> ones' work.
>
> Finally, and on forum topic, wouldn't you agree that Vladimir Nabokov,
that
> serious amateur in so many fields, provides the example that should make
us
> all hesitate from discounting ideas that do not come from the
credentialed?
> Sometimes even from people who have "pop" inclinations?
>
>
>
>
>
From: "Robert Weldon" <robertw@cm-labs.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (49
lines) ------------------
> > VNA: Scientists have recently discovered that there are other mechanisms
> > besides natural selection that influence evolution
> > VNA: Re: Dennet, pop philosophy tends to be
> > at least ten years behind the best work being done in the sciences.
>
> I think there is confusion between the idea of mechanism and natural
> selection. There are many mechanisms that influence rate of mutation.
There
> is a topology in design space that will influence how likely particular
> mutations are to arise. And then there are very interesting questions of
> complexity and self-organization that magnify the degree to which a
> phenotype will change, given a variation in a genotype.
>
> As Walter Fontana has put it, there is a question of the "arrival of the
> fittest" that is as interesting as the "survival of the fittest."
>
> But these things fit into the neo-darwinian synthesis. Evolution occurs
when
> you have replicators, variation and selection. The evolution that arises
> will be shaped by history, the nature of the replicators concerned, and
the
> manner in which selection is applied.
>
> I think the continuing hoopla about these questions comes from two places.
> First, statements made by researchers like Kaufmann and Gould, who promote
> their own ideas as more revolutionary than they actually are. It is hard
for
> a generalist to evaluate such claims. Cutting-edge research is not usually
> available outside of scholarly and specialist papers.To make ideas "claire
> et distincte" requires the philosophical work of understanding what is
being
> said beneath the jargon. For an example of clarification, earlier in this
> thread, the idea of "non-utilitarian mimicry" was examined and found to be
> at least complicated, if meaningful at all. This is the line of useful
work
> that Daniel Dennet has done around questions of adaption and selection. In
> particular, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the discussion on Kaufmann doesn't
> dismiss Kaufmann's work, but clarifies and relates this work to standard
> darwinism.
>
> The second source of hoopla is the idea that science, or the philosophy of
> science, or the "way that science is done" has somehow changed radically
in
> the last couple of decades. I don't want to stir up the culture wars, but
if
> there has been a revolution, it will soon be obvious to all. Meanwhile,
one
> can be excused for taking the conservative approach and getting on with
> ones' work.
>
> Finally, and on forum topic, wouldn't you agree that Vladimir Nabokov,
that
> serious amateur in so many fields, provides the example that should make
us
> all hesitate from discounting ideas that do not come from the
credentialed?
> Sometimes even from people who have "pop" inclinations?
>
>
>
>
>