So here's a neo-Thomist talking about species, and not getting it due to (i) prior metaphysical commitments, and (ii) not understanding Aristotle - dude, he never called anything a species, not in the biological sense. Eidos and genos were just ordinary words he coopted for the Metaphysics and Posterior Analytics. He used them interchangeably in the Liber Animalia, and sometimes didn't use either words for living kinds. Rule Number One: You can't do science by definitions.
Here's a furore (is that pronounced "few-roar" or "few-ror-ay"?) about whether to respond to the Expelled gaff. Nisbet and Mooney think not. Others think so. I have to agree with those who think that to ignore denialism is to empower it, framing notwithstanding. In fact, Framing itself seems to be a case of a method gone mad. Sure, understanding the nature of communication is essential to getting science out there. Sure, equating science with atheism is unnecessary and unwarranted. But when the opposers of science screw up and expose themselves as the deliberate ignoramuses and religious proselytisers they are, make a thing of it, I say. It no more harms science than pointing out the connections between Anthropogenic Global Warming denialism and big oil.
Some bastard just rear-ended my motorcycle while I was still on it. I'm annoyed; so you might as well suffer too.
- Log in to post comments
What was that guy on about? It beats me. I've read a bit of Aristotle, and I thought he was difficult reading. Now I see that the Thomists have taken it to a new level or I've gotten stupider or both.....
Did you get your gun out and give it to the guy who rammed your bike? You're in America, it's normal I presume. ;)
Sorry to hear about the bike prang.
It's been pronounced "few-roar" every time I've ever heard it.
Anyone who's interested in the Expelled thing should read what Sean Carroll has to say about it: http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/03/23/politicians-and-critics
Oops. It was you sending me that link that got me going. Sean Carroll has the right of it. Sorry Matt and Chris.
Brian, I live in Australia. We're supposed to hit people with a sheep, but I was fresh out.
I think the phrase is 'rub their nose in it'. My nature would be to do this and I agree if they are so stupid. Go ahead and rub away...lol.
Having just put my toe into the world of instant feeds... adopted google reader...and learning about twitter...and all this crazy instant world of communication. This story has amused me more than watching Have I Got News For You featuring Jeremey Clarkson.
In my totally English way ...I raise my tea cup and salute.
Hi, I'm the author of the post. I don't see your criticism. I was quite clear that form in an Aristotelian sense is not the same sense given to the word "species" by modern science. I agree that eidos and genos were ordinary words for Aristotle. In fact, I would insist on it. I honestly don't see that we are disagreeing at all.
Did your look around for a creationist? Surely that would suffice in a pinch.
I take it you're okay, which is the important thing.
Perhaps you would be interested in this that I came across recently:
"Thomas Aquinas believed that the Creator individually designed each species at the beginning of creation and that creation brought into existence unchanging essences."
(The reference is to Summa Theologiae I, 9, 2 ad 3 - on looking this up, my impression that this doesn't quite support the assertion.)
page 148
Stephen J. Pope
Human Evolution and Christian Ethics
(volume 28 in the series "New Studies in Christian Ethics")
Cambridge U. Press, 2007
Small world. I was going to send you a link to that post, John, soon as a saw it.
:)
My claim is that Aristotle's notion of essence (the "what it is to be") is indeed based on a collection of properties, and that he never meant this to be what living kinds were. But when you say that "When we speak about a dog, the meaning is clear, but the concept we have is not distinct enough to tell us the difference between dogs and wolves", you are suggesting that we already know they are distinct species. We do not. That is an empirical matter to be determined by various kinds of scientific assays. It turns out that they aren't different species, but that dogs are a subspecies of Canis lupus (or perhaps Cuon alpinus). We do not "know" anything without investigation. What you suggested is that we should assume there is a difference and shift our definitions of the term "species" until we get one that gives us the difference. This only makes sense if you assume that the infimae species and the biological species are coterminous, which nobody did, once there was a biological species conception (from 1686).
As to the fixity of species, this is also dependent upon the identification with the logical infimae species and the biological species. Since nobody (and I repeat: nobody) in natural history ever did this, fixism was not ever an issue based on Thomistic or Aristotelian principles. This is a mistake. It's a widespread mistake, but a mistake nevertheless.
Moreover, Albertus Magnus, and presumably Aquinas, both knew of the long standing trope that came via Pliny that new species were formed via hybridism, that can be found in Aristotle in several places. Albertus knew that living kinds were formed by interbreeding (and did an experiment to resolve the Barnacle Goose issue by breeding a male and female).
The comments about lines of descent being meaningless abstractions is, I think, merely confused. Lineages are real, concrete, things. It is, in fact the notion of there being a commensurate class or categorial of species that is an abstraction.
John, are you OK? You mention the accident, but don't say if you were hurt or just (American usage) pissed.
On the framing issue; I do take his point that the IDists will spin the story to suit their agenda, however it seems absurd to suggest that they be allowed to do so, no rebuttal and they win, "speak the truth and shame the devil" seems the sensible way to go.
What worries me is his apparent contempt for his fellow citizens (intelligence denied?). We are all in deep trouble if the majority of US citizens don't laugh at the craziness of this. One atheist is banned from a film claiming to call for openess, even though he is a major feature of the film, whilst some others (admittedly lesser lights) are let in.
I hope that your bike isn't too badly damaged and that you are OK.
Mr. Wilkins,
Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing. I doubt that we have a single scientific disagreement. I do not dispute that we are unable to see whether a dog is a species as opposed to a subspecies at first glance. This is a more distinct grasp of what species means, and distinction requires investigation and discourse. This doesn't mean that my initial grasp that Lassie and its offspring are the same sort of thing is wholly false or worthless in every way of consideration. Aristotle speaks about form in this way many times: man begets man, one form from another. Certainly this is speaking to "species" in some sense of the term. We are talking about sorts of natural things as revealed in lines of generation.
Your middle two paragraphs are interesting, especially your second: man is composed of soul and body and not rational and animal. There is another consideration in the more particular understanding of biology. This is true.
As to your last paragraph, I never denied that lines of descent were concrete in the way you described.
Thanks for the link. I got tons of hits of of it! I'm really strapped for time now, so I can't get involved in many debates now- but you can take the last word if you want it.
The first way in American the second in British English, it's even spelt (spelled!) without an "e" on the end in American. I have no idea how the convict sheep shaggers in Van Diemen's Land are supposed to pronounce it.
Thanks for the link, dude!
Are you okay? You might consider going to the doctor; sometimes after an accident, injuries take a while to make themselves known.
The funny part is that "But when the opposers of science screw up and expose themselves as the deliberate ignoramuses and religious proselytisers they are, make a thing of it, I say." is framing. I think it's the correct approach. I also think each case needs to be approached depending on who's involved and what the venue or action is. For instance, the idea that one shouldn't debate creationists makes snese if the creationist is an experienced debater in a stacked venue versus someone who isn't a very effective public speaker and tries to just counter all the BS the creationist says in the debate. That doesn't work well; that's why the Gish Gallop works so often.
But, for instance, PZ's recent radio debate worked quite well and was a good example of effectively doing the deed. (Ironically, part of what made it effective was PZ's framing from beginning to end. An example: An hour and a half before the show I am old that the topic of the debate has completely changed. Now, that tells me that there is an utter lack of professionalism and integrity on the creationist side. [the host interjected briefly, the PZ continued] Well, you simply don't do that. It's not something you ever do in any kind of debate is change the ground rules while you're running. Basically what that tells me is the people are unwilling to discuss the actual issues, and they'd rather play games to avoid the risk of a well-prepared critic. And so far you gotta realize I'm really unimpressed.)
If everything is framing, and it certainly looks like it from here, then there's no need to criticise those who use it, is there? And as it happens, although I disagree with Paul Myers and Richard Dawkins on a whole host of things, they are enormously effective in the ways they frame their criticisms of ID and creationism. So far, I have little reason to think either Matt or Chris are offering anything more effective.
Yes, the IDers play to the crowd. It's not them I'm concerned about, as they are already going to agree with Mathis and Stein. The issue is whether that film, or the other modes of framing they use, is likely to affect public policy. And the attacks by PZ and RD are effective at preventing that spread.
Now if you want to talk about education, then that is a whole other topic. We do need to educate the American and other liberal secular democratic nations' population about evolution. This won't be done at all by public discourse. As Matt must know, the Deficit Model - that all we need is to fill the deficit in knowledge that the populace has - is a failure. And the only solution is to educate more, not argue more. This is all about control of education - for religious agendas or for the purpose of, you know, educating.
Oh, and those who enquired after the bike - it needs to go to the shop, when I can't afford it. My neck and shoulder are giving me curry - I'm too old and fat to hit the road without consequences. Praise be for codeine.
That's an excellent description. What might have been a very good idea seems to have gone bonkers, mainly due to personal animosities.
I can't fathom the current Mooney/Nisbet position that scientists and other commentators should not comment when creationists shoot themselves in the foot. These kinds of events are exactly the kind of thing that pulls away the fake veil of credibility creationist organizations wrap around themselves. The suggestion that commentators shouldn't point it out when it happens makes no sense at all. And telling scientists they need to be silent and defer commentary to others (even when you disagree with the scientists' viewpoint(s)) is not constructive, and I fail to see what it has to do with "framing".
Ah well, c'est la vie. The framing idea had promise, but before any use can be made of it people will have to extract it from the morass of inanity it's currently mired in. (No pun intended.)
Forgive me if I'm just totally out of whack here--it has been seven years since I read Aristotle's biological works, so I'm rusty on this topic. But anyways, according to my foggy memory, he did explicitly reject the quasi-evolutionary hypotheses of Anaximenes and Empedocles, correct? I seem to remember Aristotle specifically addressing and rejecting the notion that a fish-like species could produce a human, or that animals' parts came together randomly and then only the "harmonious" ones survived. I realize that calling these ancient theories "evolution" in anything like the modern sense is wrong. But doesn't Aristotle's rejection of them, and his belief that the universe had existed basically as is from eternity, imply that "kinds" of animals are fixed? Aristotle also recognized continuity of living beings, but it wasn't a temporal continuity, but instead a continuity of co-existing forms. Even though he recognized some hybridizing, I had been under the impression that his view of biology had the various animal forms remaining pretty much constant through time.
Anyways, I could be completely wrong. Like I said, it's been years since I read this stuff.
Brian, I live in Australia. We're supposed to hit people with a sheep, but I was fresh out.
New idea has been doing interviews with your sheep since you left. Very salacious.
However, when in Rome. Get out that gun and start shootin'
Brian, I'm in Australia now. I came back (wth the jetlag and the sore neck from the bad seats etc).
Wes, Aristotle did reject the Empedoclean view, and for good reason - it was ridiculous. But it wasn't "evolutionary". That's a myth that started with Samuel Butler and was perpetuated by H. F. Osborn. The first evolutionary view proposed was by Maupertuis in 1745.
And Aristotle didn't hold that species were eternal. Here's an except:
Aristotle is not saying species are eternal. He is saying that they are the only things which could be, or come even close because generation implies decay and so living things must die.
Welcome back. I was under the impression you were doing some teaching over there. Not to worry, you've important issues to talk over with those talkative sheep.
Moonie & Nisbet's "shut up and let someone else do the talking" reminds me of the standard corporate email we would all get whenever my former employers hit the news (usually for either: A) losing MORE money or B) finding ANOTHER accounting fuck-up [Canadian readers will know who I mean]): "If approached by the media, decline comment and refer them to the PR dept". It's also the same thing lawyers tell their clients. It assumes that the target is naive and will say the wrong thing. In this case, I don't think that's true of either PZ or Dawkins.
Mooney and Nisbet. Dawkins and Myers. They're beginning to sound like those cop show double acts - Starsky and Hutch, Cagney and Lacey, Turner and Hooch...wait, one of those was a dog, wasn't it? Or maybe they all were.
That aside, it seems to me that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas gave any consideration to what is, in many ways, a much more fundamental question, which is that men of a certain age should be taking up more serious pursuits - like hang-gliding - rather than describing parabolic arcs from the saddle of a motor-cycle. Not that a prang like yours has ever discouraged a True Biker. I just hope it doesn't hurt too much - both your neck and shoulder and the cost of repairs to the bike.
As far as f***ing is concerned, one has to wonder what Mooney and Hutch hope to achieve with their touching faith in human rationality. Quite plainly, the fundamentalists are unlikely to be moved by polite appeals to reason - except, perhaps, to contempt for those doing the appealing. Maybe they are hoping to enlighten the vast undifferentiated mass of non-commitalists that they hope are out there. The problem is you could ask whether those who can be persuaded by gentle appeals to reason will stay persuaded. People can be swayed by much more potent influences than logic. Outspoken assurance or certainty can appeal much more and Dyers and Mawkins have that in spades. Besides, when was the last time Nisbet and Lacey got thrown out of anything, so who has the greater entertainment value?
...and I'm English and I learnt to say 'few-roar'. So ther-ay!
Ian, you're a very naughty boy. Report to Nurse for a spanking.
Excuse my ignorance but doesn't said rear-ending bastard, or at least his car insurance, have to pay the repair bill for your bike.
On the subject of the neo-Thomist, I don't really understand why you wasted blog space on him, judging by his postings on dynamics and Newton he'll have angels pushing planets around their heavenly orbits before the month is over.
I wrote:
The first way in American the second in British English, it's even spelt (spelled!) without an "e" on the end in American. I have no idea how the convict sheep shaggers in Van Diemen's Land are supposed to pronounce it.
Ian H. Spedding FCD (BTW I'm one of those too!) wrote:
I earn part of my living teaching German businessmen English and at least once an hour whilst I am doing this I say, "the book says its so however..."
That's not (quite) the same word.
Richard Dawkins a lesser light than PZ? :-)
There was some Arab at least 500 years earlier who seems to have come very close... I have no hope of finding the reference anytime soon, though.
And it gives the impression that the target is too embarrassed to talk about the incident. Which is why PZ's famous short answer is entirely justified.
You weren't blogging on your bike when you got hit were you?!
So did it do any damage to...dun dun duhhhnnn The Frame?!
There's some Arab who came up with everything, until you look closely at what they say, and then it seems that they are saying something less impressive. The same thing is true for the Greeks. I found one guy, my mate Frederick II, who put forward something very like a selectionist account of speciation, but reading him carefully, he didn't, no matter how much I wanted him to. One cannot get an evolutionary account until you have something to contrast it to, and the fixity of species is a 16th through to 17th century invention.
My bike's Frame is fine, I hope. At least, it hasn't put me in a spin yet.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
furore
SYLLABICATION:fu-ro-re
PRONUNCIATION: fyoorori
NOUN:Chiefly British Variant of furor (sense 1, 3).
ETYMOLOGY:Italian, from Latin furor, frenzy. See furor.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Brilliant! Could you please repeat this once a month on your blog or even better put it up permanently as a flashing banner in ten centimetre high letters.
Thony C wrote:
-- "Why Can't The English?" My Fair Lady
Perspective on "furore" from a native German speaker (not that you asked for it!):
Different pronunciations connote different meaning:
furore (few-roar): connotes public unrest, anger (In German, I think, spelled "Furor")
furore (few-ror-ee): connotes public giddiness, excitement (German sp. "Furore")
I know this thread is long dead, but in case someone is lurking: is there something like this in English usage, somewhere around the world?