Salthe on Darwinism
Perplexed in Peoria
theorist and Emeritus Professor at CUNY, on the Discovery Institute's
'Dissent from Darwinism' list of signatories.
I mentioned this on another newsgroup and received this response from
someone I respect:
> I've had some contact with Salthe, and he sent me (and other people on
> his list) an interview he had with a Chinese journalist earlier this
> year. In it he states:
> 1. He does not oppose evolution, only the neo-Darwinian explanation.
> 2. He does not accept ID.
>
> Salthe outlines his critiques of evolutionary theory here:
> <http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Critique_of_Natural_Select_.pdf>
The critique is worth a look - vintage Salthe - a bit like reading
a mix of German metaphysical philosophy and French post-modernism
in translation. Here is Salthe's bottom line in his critique:
Conclusion:
Finally, then, it is my conclusion that the neoDarwinian
(Synthetic) theory of organic evolution, insofar as it is
crucially driven by the concept of natural selection, is
not suitable to be a part of Modernism's creation myth.
At a time when the world is becoming crowded, it seems
little conducive to peace to believe that competition,
which is the basis of natural selection, is the source
of all good (including ourselves), however well such a
belief might fit within our current economic system.
As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms
(as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not,
after some 60 years of development, delivered a very
convincing mechanism. It cannot explain origins, or the
actual presence of forms and behaviors. It can generally
explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as
results of historical contingency, for only one or two
traits at a time. It is limited to historical explanations,
as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are
not the result of accident preserved in genetic information.
History is the source of everything in this theory, and
that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex
material world. I think it could be said that, were there
another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one,
fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble
surviving than it does. As it is, it is the "only game
in town", largely because of the competitive activities
of the neoDarwinians themselves.
John Harshman
Seems an unfortunate way in which Salthe agrees with the creationists:
social consequences (or imagined social consequences) are reasons for
accepting or rejecting a scientific theory. I wonder whether he thinks
they are reasons for believing a theory to be true, or that falsehoods
are good if they lead to good social outcomes.
> As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms
> (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not,
> after some 60 years of development, delivered a very
> convincing mechanism. It cannot explain origins, or the
> actual presence of forms and behaviors. It can generally
> explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as
> results of historical contingency, for only one or two
> traits at a time. It is limited to historical explanations,
> as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are
> not the result of accident preserved in genetic information.
> History is the source of everything in this theory, and
> that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex
> material world. I think it could be said that, were there
> another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one,
> fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble
> surviving than it does. As it is, it is the "only game
> in town", largely because of the competitive activities
> of the neoDarwinians themselves.
I wonder what form this "other theory" might take? Salthe's musings are
quite similar here to Soren Lovtrup's. Lovtrup did advance his own
theory, which was mostly unintelligible to me, and to the extent it had
clear content, seemed scientifically useless. Does Salthe have a theory?
What reason do we have to believe that historical contingency is not the
only pattern? People keep coming up with general rules (Dollo's Law,
Cope's Rule), but none of them have seemed very profound or predictive.
What does he have?
Nic
Amazing paragraph. Beliefs ought to be a function of population
density! Why didn't I think of it before? But then, he sets out to
design "Modernism's creation myth", which sounds so old fashioned to
me. Don't we now say "contemporary magical poofing truth-variant"?
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:WXWYg.18489$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
I have to agree with Salthe that Darwinism makes a lousy creation
myth (even though my politics tends to be fairly right wing, even
'Rand'ian). But why do we even need a creation myth? Salthe
seems to be agreeing with the creationists that we ought to have
one. And many Darwinists unfortunately want to use the science
to satisfy the perceived need for an uplifting story.
But it just doesn't work. If the word evil can be applied here,
evolution is an evil process. It works by killing the young -
killing them for the parental genes and mutations which they
did nothing to acquire. It is also a chance process. We are
the result of a combination of evil and chance. Learn to live
with it. And when you have learned the lesson, next bend your
mind to somehow making something good out of our situation.
What other choice is there?
I've read a bit of Salthe, mostly because I am interested in heirarchical
systems theory and Salthe has a reputation as something of a guru.
But mostly his writings just don't make sense to me. What little I
can comprehend about his spiel on evolution sounds like a blend
of Gould and mysticism. Lots about 'emergence'. A bit of Developmental
Systems Theory. What is it about NYC Marxist intellectuals that
makes their writings incomprehensible to people from red states?
Bobby Bryant
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> I was surprised recently to find the name of Stan Salthe, complexity
> theorist and Emeritus Professor at CUNY, on the Discovery Institute's
> 'Dissent from Darwinism' list of signatories.
>
> I mentioned this on another newsgroup and received this response from
> someone I respect:
>
>> I've had some contact with Salthe, and he sent me (and other people on
>> his list) an interview he had with a Chinese journalist earlier this
>> year. In it he states:
>> 1. He does not oppose evolution, only the neo-Darwinian explanation.
>> 2. He does not accept ID.
>>
>> Salthe outlines his critiques of evolutionary theory here:
>> <http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Critique_of_Natural_Select_.pdf>
>
> The critique is worth a look - vintage Salthe - a bit like reading
> a mix of German metaphysical philosophy and French post-modernism
> in translation. Here is Salthe's bottom line in his critique:
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Finally, then, it is my conclusion that the neoDarwinian
> (Synthetic) theory of organic evolution, insofar as it is
> crucially driven by the concept of natural selection, is
> not suitable to be a part of Modernism's creation myth.
Perhaps someone should tell him that it's not _intended_ to be a
Modernist creation myth.
> At a time when the world is becoming crowded, it seems
> little conducive to peace to believe that competition,
> which is the basis of natural selection, is the source
> of all good (including ourselves), however well such a
> belief might fit within our current economic system.
So... let's teach what you think would be good for people, rather than
what the facts support?
> As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms
> (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not,
> after some 60 years of development, delivered a very
> convincing mechanism. It cannot explain origins,
Neither can meteorology.
> or the actual presence of forms and behaviors.
I suspect it can explain both. FWIW, we geeks evolve both with simulated
evolution (though admittedly with very coarse simulations).
> It can generally
> explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as
> results of historical contingency,
Does it claim to explain anything more?
> for only one or two traits at a time.
Really?
> It is limited to historical explanations,
Well, most of evolution _is_ historical.
> as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are
> not the result of accident preserved in genetic information.
Got a competing hypothesis?
> History is the source of everything in this theory, and
> that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex
> material world.
Huh?
> I think it could be said that, were there
> another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one,
> fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble
> surviving than it does.
Well, *that* is a testable hypothesis. All you've got to do is come
up with that competing theory.
> As it is, it is the "only game
> in town", largely because of the competitive activities
> of the neoDarwinians themselves.
Ah, yes -- the Evil Conspiracy of Scientists rules the world.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> writes:
> But then, he sets out to design "Modernism's creation myth", which
> sounds so old fashioned to me.
Indeed, we should be peddling the Postmodernist creation myth, or
maybe working up a Neomodern one.
boxed__...@hotmail.com
Just as we can say man is *BOTH* evil and good, evolution is evil and
good. Evil in its hardness killing those who are unlucky, good in the
results it can produce, such as feeling, loving and caring people
giving meaning to beauty for example. First evolution was only hard,
then with the advent of social caring animals such as us, evolution
became soft as well.
I have thought much of evil and good. I have had a question; could you
do away with evil. Than depends on how you define it; if you define it
as sick individuals, then you probalby can minimize it, however if you
define it as hard decesions that have to be made, then it is not
desirable to do away with it; good is dependent on those hard
decisions.
Sometimes the best thing that can happen to an offspring of evolution
is to die; that is hard but it may be the best for the individual,
ending suffering, it may be best for the species so that suffering
traits do not spread. It is hard but necessasry for good. Than is my
opinion.
ErikW
What on earth is he babbling about? Doesn't seem to be about
evolutionary theory up to this point but about ethics?!? With his view
of evolutionary theory, NS would be the source of all evil too. So why
should we care at all?
>
> As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms
> (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not,
> after some 60 years of development, delivered a very
> convincing mechanism.
It seems from the paragraph above this one he equates evolution to
natural selection (and the title of the pdf seems to suggest that too).
If he thinks that NS alone should explain all that follows below he is
clearly not qualified to comment. NS can only act on variation and it
is certainly not the source of it. Would is pay to read the whole pdf,
i.e. is there more to this argument in there?
> It cannot explain origins, or the
> actual presence of forms and behaviors. It can generally
> explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as
> results of historical contingency, for only one or two
> traits at a time. It is limited to historical explanations,
> as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are
> not the result of accident preserved in genetic information.
An example of what he means here? Speech? Human populations getting
overweight because of poor diet? What is it that evolutionary theories
should acknowledge? Without an example this seems a very vague
statement.
> History is the source of everything in this theory, and
> that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex
> material world. I think it could be said that, were there
> another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one,
> fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble
> surviving than it does.
I get the impression that this guy isn't gonna be the one to come up
with one, at least not before he understands what he criticises.
Occidental
> If the word evil can be applied here,
> evolution is an evil process. It works by killing the young -
> killing them for the parental genes and mutations which they
> did nothing to acquire. It is also a chance process. We are
> the result of a combination of evil and chance. Learn to live
> with it. And when you have learned the lesson, next bend your
> mind to somehow making something good out of our situation.
..and then bend your mind to the problem of where the desire to "make
something good" came from, if not from evolution.
> I've read a bit of Salthe, mostly because I am interested in heirarchical
> systems theory and Salthe has a reputation as something of a guru.
> But mostly his writings just don't make sense to me. What little I
> can comprehend about his spiel on evolution sounds like a blend
> of Gould and mysticism. Lots about 'emergence'. A bit of Developmental
> Systems Theory. What is it about NYC Marxist intellectuals that
> makes their writings incomprehensible to people from red states?
They are also incomprehensible to people from blue states, but they are
too proud to admit it.
Kermit
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> I was surprised recently to find the name of Stan Salthe, complexity
> theorist and Emeritus Professor at CUNY, on the Discovery Institute's
> 'Dissent from Darwinism' list of signatories.
>
> I mentioned this on another newsgroup and received this response from
> someone I respect:
>
> > I've had some contact with Salthe, and he sent me (and other people on
> > his list) an interview he had with a Chinese journalist earlier this
> > year. In it he states:
> > 1. He does not oppose evolution, only the neo-Darwinian explanation.
> > 2. He does not accept ID.
> >
> > Salthe outlines his critiques of evolutionary theory here:
> > <http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Critique_of_Natural_Select_.pdf>
>
> The critique is worth a look - vintage Salthe - a bit like reading
> a mix of German metaphysical philosophy and French post-modernism
> in translation. Here is Salthe's bottom line in his critique:
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Finally, then, it is my conclusion that the neoDarwinian
> (Synthetic) theory of organic evolution, insofar as it is
> crucially driven by the concept of natural selection, is
> not suitable to be a part of Modernism's creation myth.
Correct. And a stupid observation. It is not sutable for fixing
automobiles, either.
> At a time when the world is becoming crowded, it seems
> little conducive to peace to believe that competition,
Irrelevant. If (!) we humans are competitive by nature, then perhaps we
should learn to express and controll it if we want peace.
> which is the basis of natural selection,
Is it? It certainly plays a role, but it's not the only game in town.
> is the source
> of all good (including ourselves),
Perhaps so, but when did an evolutionary scientist ever claim that NS
was the source of all good?
> however well such a
> belief might fit within our current economic system.
And what do economics have to do with the test of truth for a
scientific theory?
>
> As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms
> (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems),
Riiigghhtt...
> it has not,
> after some 60 years of development, delivered a very
> convincing mechanism.
All we've managed to do is produce a model that fits the facts and
makes successful predictions, yes.
> It cannot explain origins,
[...]
> or the
> actual presence of forms and behaviors.
And the refuting evidence for the claim lies in Marxist economics, I
suppose.
> It can generally
> explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as
> results of historical contingency, for only one or two
> traits at a time.
"There can be only one!"
- Sean Connery in "The Highlander"
> It is limited to historical explanations,
> as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are
> not the result of accident preserved in genetic information.
It will acknowledge other sources of variation when the evidence for it
shows up.
> History is the source of everything in this theory, and
> that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex
> material world.
Well, that makes sense.
> I think it could be said that, were there
> another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one,
> fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble
> surviving than it does. As it is, it is the "only game
> in town", largely because of the competitive activities
> of the neoDarwinians themselves.
The conspiracy revealed.
I would have thought that "complexity theory" was a rational
application of mathematics to the real world. But *if this idiot has a
good reputation in the field, then it obviously is some postmodern crap
masquerading as science.
Kermit
Dunc Harris
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > I was surprised recently to find the name of Stan Salthe, complexity
> > theorist and Emeritus Professor at CUNY, on the Discovery Institute's
> > 'Dissent from Darwinism' list of signatories.
>
>
> Seems an unfortunate way in which Salthe agrees with the creationists:
> social consequences (or imagined social consequences) are reasons for
> accepting or rejecting a scientific theory. I wonder whether he thinks
> they are reasons for believing a theory to be true, or that falsehoods
> are good if they lead to good social outcomes.
(snip more)
Actually, the mixing of moral/political/philosophical views with
science are occasionally held, albeit in a milder manner by scientists.
Consider the views of Marxist Dick Lewontin on sociobiology and then
compare them to similarly left-leaning John Maynard Smith, who shall
have to speak through his terrier Richard Dawkins (JMS was far too nice
to call Lewontin an idiot).
In essence then, nobody is really a "pure scientist", everyone has
philosophical preconceptions. However, there is a continuum from
"almost pure scientists" through to people like Dick Lewontin, Francis
Collins (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm ) and Stan
Salthe to the Phil Johnson position (see
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html ),
beyond which it is not worth considering.
Dunc
Perplexed in Peoria
"Dunc Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161159611....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
While I agree with the general thrust of your posting, I think that
any attempt to place individual scientists on a spectrum running
from 'pure' to 'philosophically compromised' is problematic.
Lewontin, for example, would claim that the model-building sociobiology
of Wilson is hopelessly compromised by philosophical baggage, whereas
Lewontin's own research (on different subjects, to be sure) is scientifically
pure and driven by a search for mechanism.
The extent to which a scientist brings philosophical considerations into
his discourse may depend upon the subject he is addressing.
Alexander
On Oct 17, 2:38 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> I was surprised recently to find the name of Stan Salthe, complexity
> theorist and Emeritus Professor at CUNY, on the Discovery Institute's
> 'Dissent from Darwinism' list of signatories.
Can't think why. The 'dissent' document has been so carefully drafted
as to excise any mention of ID so that they could go around scooping up
anyone who remotely feels that they are:
'...skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life.'
and that ...
'Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged.'
Well bugger me - not the most controversial of statements. Nothing
there at all about ID, creationism or alternatives though - which is
why you might find various scientists on the list who are not
associated with ID or creationism at all.
It's another weasel word document from DI designed to feed a legitmate
sounding statement - they are even careful not to claim that the
document 'supports' ID except in the most oblique ways ... just that
discussion of the 'controversy' is necessary ... all the while giving a
nudge and a wink to their supporters as they all know what
'controversy' DI are really supporting,
Essentially the list contains the usual suspects from the happy la-la
land that is the DI Dreamworks factory and acme quote mine and some
politcally naive but well meaning scientists who got sucked under the
PR machine as it rolled over them.
I feel sorry for Salthe and others who may have been blinded by the
bright lights as what they signed up for was not what they were
expecting - but really ... you'd expect smart people like this to read
the small print.
Sadly for DI these days the connection between the 'Dissent From
Darwinism' and ID is so closely connected the only way they'll get more
scientists on board is if they support ID in the first place. Oh ...
or the scientific community gets its communal memory wiped by a MIB
flashy thing after Dover and a surrogate reality embedded.
Mind you - having read some ID blogs recently I have a feeling that's
already happened to the ID apparatchiks.