…and this is a 
How can I resist an opportunity to see Ruse gibbering on the stage? I'm curious to see whether he annoys or enlightens. It could go either way.
He's not going to talk about evo-devo! OK, I'm already annoyed.
Criticizes the infamous New Scientist cover, "Darwin Was Wrong"; received email from Paul Nelson (boo) claiming the edifice of darwinism is crumbling; Rudy Raff has written that evolution requires development to remain relevant. Are today's evolutionists genuinely Darwinian or not?
Plans to pick on something that was self-consciously in Darwin's thinking. Darwin became an evolutionist in 1837 while analyzing the specimens he had collected on his voyage; he became a Darwinian in 1838 when he realized the mechanism of adaptive change, natural selection.
William Whewell was a major influence. Whewell tried to define good science: identifying a true cause, which is a hypothesis that explains the evidence. Darwin doesn't see evolution at work, but the evidence is marshalled to point to the hypothesis. He's not doing the original research, but picking it up and putting it together in a new and powerful way. Fossils, biogeography, homology, embryology, etc. all were assembled to support his theory.
Did Darwin trigger a paradigm shift? Huxley didn't appreciate natural selection at all. It took the rediscovery of Mendel, popgen, etc. to bring about a major appreciation of the theory. Further revision with the synthetic theory that incorporated molecular biology.
Positively reviewed Dawkins' latest book, and Dawkins is contemptuous of eyewitness testimony, but says the theory demands respect because of the volume of evidence, which is clearly in the spirit of Darwin and Whewell.
EO Wilson's work on ants show the amazing specialization of castes in particular distributions. This is material Darwin never considered, but Wilson is using the tools of evolutionary biology to explain his hypotheses.
Pre-Cambrian was terra-incognito to Darwin; he had many ad hoc hypotheses to explain why we don't have specimens from that era. Modern explanations do a better job of fitting the pre-Cambrian into a Darwinian framework.
We know much more about human evolution, extinction, geographical distributions (plate tectonics) than Darwin did, but these are still thoroughly explained by Darwin's ideas.
Hox genes show deep homology between flies and humans, also interpreted in a Darwinian context.
Draws an analogy with the Volkswagen, which was completely different between the 40s and modern day, with no parts that are identical, and yet it is obviously linked. We will still be celebrating Darwin 100 years from now because we will still be using his ideas.
OK, not bad, not too annoying. Needed more evo-devo. Philosophers sure do talk a lot; this talk was definitely not as information-dense as the biology sessions.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 3:14 PM
We had a thread about Michael Ruse earlier this year. It was entitled: Michael Ruse: incoherent and annoying.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 3:19 PM
BTW, PZ, if there's a question and answer session, introduce yourself and remind Ruse that you called him a clueless gobshite. His reaction should be interesting.
Posted by: Brett | October 31, 2009 3:20 PM
Isn't he one of the faces of the "suck up to the Christians" crowd in the atheist community? Of course, he has been useful in the past as a witness in court cases.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 31, 2009 3:20 PM
I'm betting that it will be a fairly vacuous speech, but careful enough not to make him look too bad.
I think that he knows what he can get away with in respect to his audience.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 31, 2009 3:58 PM
If this is the same lecture he gave at ASU a few months back, I listened to it the other day. It wasn't as bad as I expected it to be, though he's no Dan Dennett when it comes to philosophers talking biology ;)
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | October 31, 2009 4:19 PM
P.Z., I'm told that Paul Nelson is AT THIS MEETING.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 4:31 PM
Stand by to repel boarders.
Posted by: hallucigenia
|
October 31, 2009 4:49 PM
'Tis,
Actually, far from calling Ruse a 'gobshite,' PZ came up to Ruse afterwards and politely told Ruse he agreed with his points--I was standing right next to them while this happened. He also posed for photos the night before with his arm around Ruse and a big smile on his face. So you'll have to do it yourself, I guess. Or you can just continue living vicariously through PZ.
From what I saw of him at the conference, PZ was very pleasant but a mostly quiet, anonymous presence. A lot more people seemed to want to talk to Ruse than to PZ--take that for what you will.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 31, 2009 4:57 PM
I should hope the speaker at a talk would get far more questions and interest than a random attendee!
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 31, 2009 5:13 PM
You sold us out PZed!!! ;)Posted by: arensb
|
October 31, 2009 5:40 PM
That should be "its", not "it's". Or, if you're quoting a mistake in Ruse's presentation, a "[sic]" would be useful.
Posted by: Susan | October 31, 2009 5:42 PM
It's "its."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 5:42 PM
We've been told more than once that PZ is a much milder, nicer person face to face than as a blogger.
Posted by: SusanvD | October 31, 2009 5:44 PM
It's "its."
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 31, 2009 5:47 PM
It's
Posted by: cognitive animal | October 31, 2009 6:19 PM
On aesthetic grounds, I must protest in the strongest possible terms against the tie and shirt which the photo posted on Jerry Coyne's website shows you to be wearing.
Posted by: BdN
|
October 31, 2009 6:44 PM
Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure you say the same thing even when you go to see a show on Broadway! ;-)
On a OT note, dear Bachmann wants to end the terrible, terrible tyranny from the White House next week.
Posted by: BdN
|
October 31, 2009 6:47 PM
http://www.newser.com/story/73015/bachmann-wants-health-care-tyranny-next-week.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 6:47 PM
cognitive animal
That tie is the crocoduck tie. There are only two in existence, one owned by Richard Dawkins and the other owned by PZ. The tie has great significance. PZ wore it when he toured Ken Ham's creation museum.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 31, 2009 7:32 PM
I'd buy one if I couldPosted by: latichever | October 31, 2009 7:39 PM
It should be noted that many if not all the great, paradigm shift ideas in science are exceedingly simple. Skinner: reinforcement increases the rate of a behavior. Einstein: e=mc2; and natural selection.
It's a misapprehension that great scientific ideas are exceedingly complex.
Occam wins again and again.
Or as Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Posted by: Chris | October 31, 2009 9:02 PM
@Tis 'Himself
I have this strange idea that PZ is in fact a Chinese Room Blogger. Ask him about his blogging activities in person and he'll give you a blank stare. :)
Posted by: Rorschach | October 31, 2009 10:07 PM
It's terra incognita.
Where can one buy a crocoduck tie??
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 10:15 PM
That's land that doesn't want to be recognized.
Posted by: BdN
|
November 1, 2009 1:25 AM
@Rorschach
You can buy one here :
http://www.zazzle.ca/crocoduck+ties
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM
|
November 1, 2009 2:44 AM
OK, not bad, not too annoying. Needed more evo-devo. Philosophers sure do talk a lot; this talk was definitely not as information-dense as the biology sessions.
The usefulness of philosophy to working scientists is not that it can substitute for the business of doing science, but in that it can help clarify what it is we do not know, and are unlikely to learn until we can think more clearly about the problem. This part of philosophy has less to do with imparting information, and more with how to best conceptualize the problems we are working on.
Ruse doesn't spend much time doing that, so his work is not much use to the working scientist. Ruse often writes pieces that are not so much philosophy as reappraisals of the influence of religion and philosophy on the development of evolutionary thought. This is of little use to those who fiddle with zebrafish embryos for a living, but it can offer insights as to how best present things like evolution to a skeptical (but poorly-informed) lay audience.
Posted by: ctgopks
|
November 1, 2009 9:25 AM
The monster ToE has been, apparently, demising itself for some time: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html, but continues to rear its monstrous head, fittingly, I might add.
Posted by: IanW | November 2, 2009 8:42 AM
It was just a Ruse to get you to go....