Altenberg meeting next week: expect evolution to simply evolve slightly

Massimo Pigliucci -- one of the 16

PZ, you sucker! He's lying! He's one of the conspirators! Actually the leader of the cabal! That post is a classic McGuffin...we're supposed to all feel unimaginably pleased that they won't be ripping the Modern Synthesis to shreds when in fact that's exactly what they're going to do!!! David Sloan Wilson? Group selection??? Everything we think we know is going down the toilet in Vienna next week and you're "pleased" by an elementary decoy post?
We're toast, I tell you, TOAST!
Everything you know is wrong!
I think we're all bozos on this bus!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to burn my copies of Futuyma (first and third editions) and prepare for the Radical New Truths the 16 will be bestowing next week.

But seriously, folks, I just made the mistake of clicking over to Mazur's e-book, subtitled "AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY." (Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Evolution???)
Couple of tidbits from the very first screen of text:

Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory.

rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.

Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year's celebration of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species - the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago. Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits. Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?

Jeez, this is Dembski-level horseshit. I can't even read it, my eyes are rolling so fast.

When did we find out that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution? Nobody told me, dammit! Thanks alot guys.

Mazur is a demented fuckwit.

(There. I said it. I feel a little better now.)

I must say, though, that this particular strand of woo seems to flying off on a completely different tangent than the Dembski-Behe style of woo, so perhaps we need not fear any coherent alliance between the two.

Mazur's political slant seems so left wing even Lysenko might be proud.

"But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution."

Where the hell did Mazur pull this from (aside from the obvious 'out of her ass')?

I'm keen on meeting members of these "scientific communities" that creo's speak of all the time...

Good grief! My mouth was gaping wider & wider as I read those excerpts from Mazur's book. Unfortunately, though, while she may not come to an 'accommodation' with Dembski et al, she's still spouting the sort of sound bites that your average run-of-the-mill creationist will love. No doubt some of them will start appearing in the 'letters to the editor' pages in a paper near you, some time soon :-(

Everything that I have come across involving Susan Mazur suggests that something is not quite right. She's almost too keen for there to be an alternative theory and I can't understand why (perhaps Sven has shone some light on that).

It's certainly not because she has any particular knowledge of the current science, so I would guess that it may be ideological, but then nothing that I have seen suggests that it is for religious reasons, either. Unless she is hiding something, that is.

This interview with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini about his new book with Jerry Fodor is another example that has been highlighted recently, as well.

I find that when arguing with creationist nutjobs, one of the problems is their total misunderstanding of what it is they are arguing against.

rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.

They tend to latch on to "survival of the fittest" and "man evolved from a monkey", and assume that that is the theory of evolution. They think that "survival of the fittest" means that "might means right" and therefore, evolution is heartless and evil. They don't even know what the word fittest means. Trying to explain molecular level evidence for evolution to them is then a waste of time, because they have completely misunderstood what it is that I'm trying to show them.

For the big Darwin celebrations, maybe someone show spend some time and money getting the word out about what the Modern Synthesis actually says. That way maybe we would have to have the same arguments over and over.

Thanks for that link, Damian. Fodor's selection-bashing article in the London Review last year was so off-base that I've been interested in what could be in store in the book he promised therein. Here's Mazur's opening to that interview you linked:

I met celebrated philosopher Jerry Fodor for coffee on Charles Darwin's birthday earlier this year to discuss the book he's co-writing on evolution without adaptation. Snow fell over Manhattan that day, an uncanny reminder that Darwin had no theory for how snowflakes form or for humans either.

Yeah, it's uncanny! Perhaps Mazur should interview Ben Stein; she'll be interested to learn that Darwin had no theory for gravity or thermodynamics either.

I think I've now read enough to write off anything else Mazur might have to say forever. She's a nut (on this subject, at least). Guess I'll read the rest of the interview, though, to see what else Fodor, the celebrated philosopher, doesn't understand.

"She's almost too keen for there to be an alternative theory and I can't understand why"

Probably a combination of some religious or religious-based revulsion to evolution not making her feel special enough (why else would anyone be afraid of science?), and she seems to have swallowed the "social Darwinism" lie, hook line & sinker.

"Snow fell over Manhattan that day, an uncanny reminder that Darwin had no theory for how snowflakes form or for humans either."

Or it could be some sort of clinical Darwin Derangement Syndrome. (I'm imagining that famous picture of Ben Stein peering at the Darwin statue, and someone suddenly saying "Boo!" from behind it and Stein (or Mazur) jumping three feet in the air.

Debunking Darwinism has already been done, Ms. Mazur.

Please concentrate your energies on unveiling the truth about the saucers!

OK, I read the interview--it's not with Fodor but with his co-author Piattelli-Palmarini, who is "handling the biology" for the book (tentatively titled What Darwin Got Wrong--that's cleverly unique--and forecast to drop in late 2009.
All I can say is that for a guy who's handling the biology, he doesn't seem to understand much biology. Two quotes to mull and mock:

Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?

[Right..."later species"...on the Great Chain of Being, I guess]

Of course, there is natural selection all around us (just think of the flu virus, mutating and adapting every year, to our detriment) and inside us (just think of our antibodies and our synapses and the pancreas cells and the epithelial cells). The point is, however, that organisms can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is NOT the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated. For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes. Very similar (in the jargon orthologous) genes in insects and in vertebrates produce an inversion in the development of the nervous system.

[See? There have to be major changes in regulatory genes, therefore selection is irrelevant.]

The e-book that PZ linked to has been removed.

Very fishy....or perhaps not. I will have to check back again to see if it reappears. At the risk of speculating unnecessarily, I wonder if there have been some complaints about it being inflammatory and rather hysterical. Hopefully so.

Damian @ # 14: The e-book that PZ linked to has been removed.

No, it only underwent a minor change in its regulatory gene networks.

I was searching for more info on Susan Mazur and saw that 'Darwinia' has a post about the e-book. Someone using the pseudonym, nemo, has this to say about the quotes that Sven reproduced upthread:

"This is good stuff, I recommend reading this material. It's what we have been trying to get across here for a long time."

As well as this by the same person in another post:

"Massimo Pigliucci tries to cover up what's going on: Is there fundamental scientific disagreement about evolutionary theory?, discussed here: at Pharyngula

We have a considerable snapshot of 'bullshit in motion', as the nervous nellies of the Paradigm start their handwringing over the need to LIE IN THE SCHOOLS, a tactic made very difficult if people start, again, blowing the whistle on Neo-Darwinism.

First, I agree, there's not going to be a new paradigm. Bullshit will reign in the end. We need something more than an EES, we need to simply stop the Big Science evolution hype machine, and leave the public alone, confining our efforts to exposing the bullshit of successive pretenders and the ambition of the religiously obsessed to fill the vacuum.

And the public deserves an apology, more than that! Maybe a class action law suit. The reign of Darwinism while jerk off scientists compete for the glory of the game has been one of the most violent. Those who have perpetrated this need to be discredited, and trust withdrawn. They will let the side effects of evolution theories kill again as they pursue the booby prizes.

It needs to be over, and it is over, all you need to do is snap out of it.

Mr. Massimo, from now on it's murder."

So, I clicked on the name and found myself on this site.

It's promoting a book called, 'World History And The Eonic Effect'. This is what it says about the book:

"At a time when theories of evolution are under renewed controversy, discussion is hampered by the remoteness of the phenomenon of evolution, and the use of indirect inference to speculate about deep time. Adherents of Darwinism often defend dogmatic versions of the theory that have been questioned since the first reviewers of Origin of Species.
Now Darwinism is under siege from the Intelligent Design movement, threatening the school system. The attempt to hijack the debate using long discredited arguments by design tends to make Darwinists close ranks around their flawed science. The debate is deadlocked by the rigidity of both parties, evidence of fixed agendas, and metaphysical presumptions. A new approach is needed. The study of history itself holds the clue if we can find it.

We live in the first generations with enough historical data to detect a pattern of Universal History. The discovery of this pattern, the Eonic Effect, uncovers the evidence for a deep structure resembling punctuated equilibrium in world history itself. The study of history and evolution together shows us something we had missed and allows us to infer the existence of non-random evolution in the emergence of man. Darwinian theory suffers from low evidence density. The Eonic Effect is the only data we have at high evidence density of evolution as a process in real time, and this transforms our views completely.

We see the real evolution of man as the Great Transition, the human passage from evolution to history, in the chronicle of the once and future Origin of the Species, Man.

From The Preface:

The online response to the second edition and associated blog has been gratifying, amusingly so next to the wall of silence from the Darwin establishment, too far gone to grasp the falsification of its ideological idée fixe. Perhaps, as the saying goes, it's the economy, stupid. The Darwin debate is really a propaganda war, and the work of the Intelligent Design movement has crystallized the critique of Darwin's theory around the inadequacies of the design argument, betting, no doubt correctly, their public will never encounter, for example, the Kantian critiques of such. At a time of much debate between the Intelligent Design and Darwinian factions, the reader has a different perspective on the subject of human evolution, a second, or third, opinion. The perception of the eonic effect shows the way to a new understanding of universal history, and the way to a new post-darwinian liberalism (or indeed leftism) that is not disguised economic propaganda, Social Darwinist crypto-legitimation plausibly denied, or the reductionist scientism that has put secularism at risk.

We need a public philosophy that is not beset with the wrong application of theories to human action in the tragedies of an Oedipus Paradox. Metaphysical Darwinism, echoing Adam Smith and Malthus, applied beyond the limits of observation to deep time, is then reapplied to history, and this blocks our perception of something unaccounted for by reductionists: the braiding of facts and values in the dynamic of evolution. Nothing could be simpler than the strategy of pointing this out, however cumbersome the details, and there is nothing complex about the eonic effect in that regard. All we have to do is show how this braiding occurs in action, visibly so in the vista of emergent civilization. Matched with this is the confusion of the obsessive ideologists of market mechanics, indeed, even their critics, beginning with Marx. Included in the bargain are critiques of both, although Marx must be seen to have pioneered the exposure of the ideological abuse of economic theorizing. And his first negative impression of Darwin 's theory is on the record, carefully deep-sixed by his followers, who have coopted his name. Nous ne sommes pas Marxistes. At a time of threatened ecological calamity, in an age of global warming, we need an insight into the limits of the economic interpretation of history, suffered at once by the left and right.

The eonic model can also clarify the chronic confusions of historical inevitability in revolutionary historicism. This applies as well to economic laws of market dynamics. The resolution of such 'laws' is for free men to flip the off switch, first and foremost with clear thinking. In many ways a good audience for the eonic model lies in those beyond the range of Western culture subjected to the rapidly degrading Eurocentric modernist globalization further vitiated by postmodernist mis-analyses. Modernity belongs to a universal global culture and has nothing to do, as such, with the 'West', that phantom concept. Study of the eonic effect can help as a self-defense against the Eurocentrism/classical liberalism conservatizing what was once a revolutionary gesture. As to the ecological brink we face, Darwinism is surely one of the culprits here in its failure to grasp the larger dimension of natural environments, and the eonic model offers a take on global Gaian evolution, done right, that might help to broaden vision constricted by the monomania of selectionist theories. Darwinism has produced a culture unfit to survive its own bad theories, and the prospect of paradigm shift via fundamentalist resurgence doesn't seem like the answer to Kuhnian 'normal science'. At the same time the legacy of theistic historicism, bequeathed to us from the great text of the Old Testament, needs to enter a post-Kantian era, while the findings of Biblical Criticism have rendered its saga problematical. We can rescue the text for a secular age by seeing its core account as an unwitting depiction of the eonic effect in the context of the Axial Age."

Thanks very much, Susan Mazur.

Paging Dr. Sokal... Dr Sokal to the psych ER, please...

"Survival of the fittest"

You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:8Iut17e8RxMJ:www.scoop.co.nz/stori…

Blessed be the google cache...

And it was removed by one of the chief editors, perhaps somewhat embarrassed at Mazur's stupidity.

I thought that scientology moron (Blubbard) was dead, but is he reincarnated in some of these 'eonic' morons?
The convoluted language and the illogical reasoning seems to point in that direction, as they seem to be much the same, as shown in a sentence like this:

The eonic model can also clarify the chronic confusions of historical inevitability in revolutionary historicism.

Lots of words doing very little in that sentence, - in best scientology style!

The e-book is still there - it can be found here.

I came across it independent of PZ's post, and was thinking whether if it was worth blogging about. Thankfully, PZ has done it for us.

shonny@20.
No, no, no! That sentence you find so incomprehensible, simply means that the confused chronicity that historical revolutionism has introduced into inevitable historicity can be clarified by the eonic model! Try to keep up!

There will be tears before bedtime.... some of the Altenberg 16 appear to be genuine scientists doing genuine science, and some have political axes to grind.

There are scientific investigations to be done on self-organisation, epigenetics and selection above the individual level, but I would be very surprised if these resulted in a wholesale 'revolution' of the theory of evolution.

Just as the Creationists look for the 'god in the gaps', it would appear that some philosophically motivated people are looking for the 'politics in the gaps'.

Nemo. Darwiniana. Terms I have not seen outside of a troll at talk.origins. I am not sure where to rank nemo on the time-cube scale, but I would say fairly close to C. David Parsons.

I'm a fellow at the Konrad Lorenz Institute where the meeting is to take place and will be attending it next week. As Massimo Pigliucci states, these kinds of meetings take place here twice a year, so if there have been revolutions they have come every six months. Last year we had a couple of fascinating meetings on innovations and on major transitions. Normally the get-togethers occur without any notice from the broader world but this time, due to Ms. Mazur's confused article, it seems like every nutter in the world thinks they have the right to hijack the workshop for their own purposes. I hope everything goes smoothly in the end as I have been looking forward to this particular workshop for many months.

As for Ms. Mazur I think that it is indicative of her character that having seen the confusion her article has given rise to she has decided to forge ahead and write a book.

Oh man, a Molly for Sven! For the Firesign reference if nothing else. Just be careful you don't break the president!

shonny@20.
No, no, no! That sentence you find so incomprehensible, simply means that the confused chronicity that historical revolutionism has introduced into inevitable historicity can be clarified by the eonic model! Try to keep up!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 6, 2008 7:12 AM

Oh Nick, I am trying my best!
Obviously not good enough as it will take eons till I get it.

As windy and I have discussed a few times in these parts, (some of the things called) group selection are mathematically equivalent to (some of the things called) kin selection. For an introduction to this issue, see Lion and van Baalen (2008) and the references cited therein; I know from personal experience that trying to catch up with this field can be a frustrating and exasperating experience, and that an idea somebody hails as revolutionary now might actually have been discovered by theoretical ecologists in 1985.

DiscoveredJoys (#23):

Just as the Creationists look for the 'god in the gaps', it would appear that some philosophically motivated people are looking for the 'politics in the gaps'.

It's always easier to tell a story about politics and personalities than it is to understand and explain the real science. This problem grows worse when the relation between the "established orthodoxy" and the "revolutionary new idea" is mathematical in nature. Suppose I describe the evolution of a social behavior in terms of changing allele frequencies, and you come along with a description using transient trait-groups; we might both be manipulating the Price Equation, but anybody who can't follow the algebra won't be able to see that, and thus they're screwed out of understanding whether your idea is really new.

This problem gets really bad with physics, but in the quantitative and algebraic exploration of evolution, it can get just as dreadful.

Anyway: those who can't follow the science replace it with politics. Alan Sokal gives a bunch of examples, ranging from the amusing to the frightening, in Beyond the Hoax (2008).

The "Altenberg 16" is a very biased group--The group does not include any champions and defenders of "selfish genes" theories and of the role that constructing and testing gene centered and individual centered behavioral strategies has played in expanding the modern evolutionary synthesis to include sexual selection.

Carl you are missing the point. This isn't a revolution or some kind of coup. The "16" are meeting because they share similar ideas and want to brainstorm on them. Happens all the time and in many places. My advisor is leading a session on how plasticity can lead to the evolution of novel structures at an upcoming meeting and that won;t be a revolution either. The only reason this is getting attention is because of a journalists ignorance of how the scientific community works.

One topic I'm disappointed not to see included (although all those that are, are interesting) is the handicap principle, which was largely rejected when Zahavi formulated it (though in economics a form of it can be found in Veblen in the late 19th century), but for which Grafen has since produced convincing mathematical models. Highly relevant to sexual selection, inter-species communication, and altruism.

Highly relevant to sexual selection, inter-species communication, and altruism.

Indeed, and therefore appropriate for a meeting on behavioral ecology. My impression is that the A16 are frying bigger fish, Evolutionary Theory writ large and not specific to anything as, well, specific as animal behavior.

Sven DiMilo@33

You don't think sexual selection and the evolution of altruism are important to evolutionary theory? So why are group selection and niche construction theory, which are included?

I also had a look at the online book, and agree with the assessments above, in a word, crap. The A16 meeting sounds kind of interesting though. Modern evolutionary theory could be said to be undergoing a revolution - not one that discards Darwins fundamental insights, but one that is obliging a 150 year old theory to take on a massive amount of new information, perhaps not dissimilar to that undergone by physics in the early 20th century. I doubt many here would disagree that many concepts developed since Darwins time (eg genetic drift) have substantially enhanced our understanding of biological evolution. It seems likely that ideas being discussed at this meeting may further deepen our understanding.

You don't think sexual selection and the evolution of altruism are important to evolutionary theory?

Sure I do. But I'm not an organizer of the conference, nor one of the Sixteen. I was trying to guess at their motivations for excluding Zahavi's handicap concepts. Group selection and niche construction are applicable, at least in theory (heh), to all kinds of traits, orgasnisms, and populations. The handicap hypotheses are specific to animal behavior. They're not including topics intrinsic to animal morphology and physiology either (e.g. symmophosis), they're going for very generalizable topics. At least that's my impression.

Sven,

Hmm, yes, that's probably it. However, you could argue that warning colouration is an example of the handicap principle, and some plants use it - "I'm so poisonous/nasty to eat I can afford to flaunt myself in front of all the herbivores around here, so don't even think about eating me!" ;-)

As windy and I have discussed a few times in these parts, (some of the things called) group selection are mathematically equivalent to (some of the things called) kin selection. For an introduction to this issue, see Lion and van Baalen (2008) and the references cited therein

The link's not working for me, did you mean this article?

For the less spatially inclined, here's a nice quote from Foster et al (responding to arguments challenging kin selection in the evolution of eusociality):

"Indeed, it has long been known that group selection cannot explain the strong altruism of insect workers without invoking greater between-group genetic variance than can be achieved through random assortment [refs] And which ever way you slice it, this between-group variance means that group members are related"

windy,

While you're here, could you maybe explain quickly the study about bees that you linked to on the earlier thread? I found the abstract a bit confusing. I think I understand it (but are they calling anarchists selfish mutants? :)), but I'm not sure, and I'm interested. I'd really appreciate it, if you have the time.

SC, I'm no expert on that research either, but it seems that they uncovered genetic variation that leads to "anarchist" behavior in bees. That is, worker bees that attempt to reproduce in the presence of the queen (you may consider this a poor analogy to anarchy in humans :) Since the behavior was heritable, they were able to breed a colony with lots of "anarchist" bees. Then there's some technical stuff about finding those genes, they originally expected to find one recessive allele but found several quantitative trait loci instead.

but are they calling anarchists selfish mutants

I haven't read this paper, but there are some generalities I can address.

"anarchist" is a behavioral descriptor, used in contrast to the standard behavior of bees, which is typically to maximize the fitness of their mother, and in so doing, maximize the fitness of their sisters at the same time (IOW, they all work towards the same end). It's simply a way of distinguishing the behavior; it doesn't imply "anarchy" in the same way a human sociologist might.

Similarly, "selfish" is a descriptor attached to a specific mutation (was it actually identified in the paper?) that supposedly would be at the root of "anarchist" behavior.

don't get too wrapped up in the terminology; biologists often utilize rather anthropomorphic terminology as novel descriptors. it doesn't mean what is being described actually is the same thing as what the terms mean in human social dynamics.

there's a decent enough overview on wiki of how we came to define the terms involved, and evolution of, eusociality (especially in insects).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality

reading E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology", or the works of WD Hamilton, will give an excellent entry into the world of kin selection and social behavior. Wilson's work on ants at the time was both fascinating and revolutionary.

for Hamilton, I would highly recommend:

Narrow Roads of Gene Land, The Collected Papers of W.D. Hamilton, Volume I: Evolution of Social Behavior

either is enjoyable reading, with much commentary from the authors themselves, in addition to containing many of the original insights and in the case of "Gene Land", reproductions of the original published articles.

there was an excellent Nova special on Wilson a while back:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eowilson/

...oh and I ran across this a while back, which is another quick overview of eusociality, with pictures:

http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/bio359/4_19_02.html

this one goes into common examples outside the insect realm, too.

Thanks, Ichthyic!

This was the article:

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/genetics.108.087270v1

I was joking about the "egotistical mutants" thing, which would probably make more sense in context - Nick Gotts and I were discussing anarchism and windy provided it with "There is a news item in the recent Nature on the genetics of anarchy, but sadly it's only about bees..."

I didn't know that "anarchist" was an established term in the field, though. I thought the authors had improvised it. That's interesting.

I saw that NOVA show (twice, actually, for some reason). To be honest, I was pretty disappointed. I thought they tried to cover too much in the short time frame, so a lot of things were treated too superficially. I would've liked more about the ants! Also, it seemed to paint an unfair portrait of his critics - at least, their position wasn't given equal consideration, and they were made to look like they were driven purely by ideology, or so it seemed to me.

By the way, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this:

http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/gardner/publications/Foster…

(Phew - It was getting late in the day and I hadn't brought up anything to do with Kropotkin yet. Got it in there.)

This was the article:

ah, it looks like they were just testing the hypothesis that "selfish" reproduction was a recessive trait.

Their data strongly suggests it is not, which is indeed interesting, as one of the early suggestions as to the mechanism of repressing individual reproduction in eusocial societies was that it was tied to recessive gene system.

As a side note, I do recall those arguments from way back, but even then, I don't recall it being generally accepted that it was a necessary precondition to the evolution of eusociality (not saying that is what these authors imply, just making note of it).

I thought they tried to cover too much in the short time frame, so a lot of things were treated too superficially.

unfortunately, that has to be a perpetual complaint for shows only lasting an hour or two.

I would've liked more about the ants!

agreed. Wilson himself wrote multiple volumes about ants, any of which one could immerse themselves in for weeks at a time.

Ants have had a few specials of their own (like the "Killer Ants" special on Animal Planet; which quickly touched on the different kinds of social behavior found in ants), thought I never really thought any of them had any real depth to them.

Also, it seemed to paint an unfair portrait of his critics - at least, their position wasn't given equal consideration, and they were made to look like they were driven purely by ideology, or so it seemed to me.

the politics surrounding the release of Sociobiology would have taken another entire episode to cover. However, I spent a LOT of time looking at the critiques of Wilson at the time, and much of them were indeed driven mostly by ideological and human sociological concerns, and were not scientific criticisms of Wilson's actual work itself.

consider most of it to be "criticism by implication".

My old major prof (George Barlow), being a leading Ethologist himself at the time, was caught dead in the middle of the "sociobiology wars", and had quite few warstories to tell of that time.

He also wrote/edited several good books on the subject himself, one of which I would recommend highly:

Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nuture

which is mostly a collection of essays and works introduced at the AAAS symposium on the subject back in 1978.

hey, evidently one can still purchase copies, cheap!

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110483348/abstract?CRETRY=1&…

By the way, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this:

I scanned it, and my eye caught this sentence:

"Even so, sociobiology does tend to neglect ecology,..."

and immediately thought to myself:

since when?

Since we are talking about Wilson, pretty much all of his initial treatise focused on ecology, and I don't recall anyone pursuing a more isolated direction since. however, I might be biased being an organismal biologist myself.

Still, I can hardly fault anybody for encouraging more integrative studies, since I was "raised" in a situation where one hundred years of separate depts. were scrapped in favor of a more interdisciplinary approach at Berkeley (dept. of Integrative Biology).

btw, if you are interested in work on the evolution of cooperation, there was a fantastic JEB focus volume released back in 2006 which contained dozens of review articles and new research on the subject.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118631894/issue

In case that link doesn't work, it was vol. 19, issue 5.

the politics surrounding the release of Sociobiology would have taken another entire episode to cover.

...or an entire book...

unfortunately, that has to be a perpetual complaint for shows only lasting an hour or two.

True. I just didn't think they did anything really special with it. They didn't tie the segments together in any kind of clever way, and it had a formulaic documentary structure and feel. (If you know anyone involved in the production, however, I'll gladly rescind these comments and claim that I was deeply impressed.:)) I definitely have high standards, perhaps unreasonably high, for PBS - especially being here in WGBH-land. They've had so many programs that I thought were just stellar that my expectations may be too high. On the other hand, they still often meet or exceed them, so...

the politics surrounding the release of Sociobiology would have taken another entire episode to cover.

But it would be great, if done well. Come to think of it, a whole PBS series on the politics of science would be awesome.

btw, if you are interested in work on the evolution of cooperation, there was a fantastic JEB focus volume released back in 2006 which contained dozens of review articles and new research on the subject.

Very cool!

...or an entire book...

Cool again!

..or an entire book...

one of many, along with hundreds of journal articles and endless argumentative "notes" on the subject.

frankly, I'm rather glad the "controversy" has died down a bit over the years.

It was a distraction even when I was a grad student in the late 80's.

a whole PBS series on the politics of science would be awesome.

hmm, the problem is, you'd have to find someone really well versed on how to separate the actual scientific controversies from the purely social/political ones.

if it could the relationships between the two could be well defined while exploring the relevant issues, it would indeed be interesting.

If you are interested in the sociology of scientific endeavor, have you ever read the work of Robert Merton?

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/15787.ctl

I'm not a sociologist, so can't comment on the overall veracity of Merton's work or conclusions, but after having worked on these issues for over 40 years, he does at least offer much to think about.

again, wiki has a quick overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton

If it could the relationships between the two could be well defined while exploring the relevant issues, it would indeed be interesting.

that's better.

If you are interested in the sociology of scientific endeavor, have you ever read the work of Robert Merton?

:). That's kind of like my asking you if you were familiar with E. O. Wilson.

That's kind of like my asking you if you were familiar with E. O. Wilson.

point taken.

I have trouble remembering who does what around here.

I do recall that MAJeff is working on completing his thesis in sociology, but that's about it.

for the record, my education (and publications) is in behavioral ecology, focusing on fishes (and sharks), with my undergrad at UCSB and my grad at UCB; postgrad work around the Monterey Bay area with various non-profs and marine labs.

I also have basically another career in database programming, networking, IT, and computers.

oh, and I dabble in professional photography and photo-editing.

I do recall that MAJeff is working on completing his thesis in sociology, but that's about it.

well, that's not entirely true, I do recall a few others as well, for example Tharlactos does microbiology (and takes microphotographs of bear tissues).

still, my memory isn't what it should be, given I'm only 43.

I have trouble remembering who does what around here.

No problem. It was sweet. Yes, I have a doctorate in sociology. I didn't specialize formally in the sociology of science, but it's long been an interest (as has combining it with my own areas), and I plan to revolutionize the field :). My graduate department had/has some of the best sociologists of science in the world, and, incidentally, that wikipedia page on Merton has ... somewhere ... a direct connection to my dissertation.

I was pretty familiar with your general background from your earlier posts (some of us pay attention), but I didn't know about the photography. Do you combine it with your scientific work, or is it completely separate?

that wikipedia page on Merton has ... somewhere ... a direct connection to my dissertation.

heh, neat. I'd like to read it sometime. shoot me a copy if you have it in electronic format.

I didn't know about the photography. Do you combine it with your scientific work, or is it completely separate?

hmm, short version or long version...

short:

It started off that way; underwater photography was a huge part of my thesis work, as I was studying ontogenetic color changes in fishes (mostly damselfishes). Turned out it wasn't the underwater stuff (or any of the nature photography) people ended up being interested in paying for, it was some stuff I had done for a friend photographing his custom interior work (custom kitchens, cabinets, furniture, etc.).

I ended up starting a small side-business doing interior photography and websites for local contractors. Adds extra cash (always useful), the hours are very flexible, and the work is easy enough. Plus, I can do it just about anywhere.

The NOVA special made EO Wilson seem more central to the development of modern behavioral ecology (AKA sociobiology) than he actually was. He popularized it and his book was the main flashpoint, but John Maynard Smith, WD Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and several others (even Richard Dawkins) were more theoretically important.

But I guess Wilson deserves a disproportionate share of the acclaim since he was the target of the infamous letter that mentioned gas chambers and had water dumped on him.

heh, neat. I'd like to read it sometime. shoot me a copy if you have it in electronic format.

I'd be happy to, or to point you to it at ProQuest if you have access. Where would I send it?

I ended up starting a small side-business doing interior photography and websites for local contractors.

Cool yet again!

Where would I send it?

fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom

I look forward to it. I actually have some free time to read later this week.

The NOVA special made EO Wilson seem more central to the development of modern behavioral ecology (AKA sociobiology) than he actually was. He popularized it and his book was the main flashpoint, but John Maynard Smith, WD Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and several others (even Richard Dawkins) were more theoretically important.

the issue with Wilson was two things that I recall:

one, he did a lot of the initial experimental groundwork setting the foundations for much of what he had to say, just like Hamilton.

two, he was the first to brave the inevitable shitstorm that everyone knew would result from the (IMO incorrect) political ramifications people would inevitably read into it.
Hamilton also saw a little of that in his day (he too tried to concern himself with human behavioral evolution from time to time), but it took an actual "popular" book on the subject, and a lot of unnecessary media hype, to drive the issue to a fucking frenzy in the public eye. Come to think of it, Hamilton could rightly be said to be the one who really put the pot on the fire, and Wilson the one who brought it to a boil and made it into soup.

someone has to be the lightning rod, I agree, and I can hardly fault the media giving Wilson a bit more attention than Trivers or Hamilton, regardless of whose theoretical work was more important. Dawkins appears to be playing the role of "modern" lighting rod these days.

i wonder how the media will portray him 20 years down the road?

I look forward to it. I actually have some free time to read later this week.

Oh, you're gonna need quite a bit of it to polish off this monster. I'll send it in a few minutes.

Sent! Let me know if it gets stuck in the tubes.

got it. a little light reading...

;)

oh, and here's the first article I published wrt my dissertation work:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/articles/240.htm

It's not much, really, but at the time, nobody else was doing work in this area at all.

at least it won't take you long to read.

;)

btw, let me know if any of the table figures are messed up; I've noted problems with various browsers and might need to fix a couple of them.

Ichthyic: "i wonder how the media will portray him 20 years down the road?"

As a more strident Carl Sagan? His reputation within liberal arts academic and progressive circles has already improved considerably in the last decade or so, from being the Emmanuel Goldstein-like embodiment of reactionary biodeterminism (unfairly, on both counts) to dauntless champion of freethought and reason against the fundamentalist onslaught. This is for two reasons: 1) Dawkins' anti-theistic advocacy began in the mid-90s (God as thought virus) and accelerated immediately after 9/11, 2) the most potent adversary of mainstream science is now sectors of the political right (global warming, ID) rather than left wing postmodernism. However, there is still not insignificant left wing enmity towards Dawkins (e.g. Chris Hedges).

The 'extended synthesis' or 'developmental synthesis' will only be viable if it assimilates the contributions of the Hamilton/Trivers lineage of evolutionary ecology rather than deriding them. (Fortunately, it's increasingly just aging relics like Lewontin who still do that.)

Aside: Hamilton tarnished himself late in life by endorsing Richard Lynn.

at least it won't take you long to read.

Yup, seems like a pretty even exchange ;).

Thanks. I've printed it out, and will read it now.

By the way, "damselfishes" has to be one of the greatest words ever. I'd work with them just to be able to say it all the time.

As a more strident Carl Sagan?

but he doesn't have that fun nasally overtone to imitate, and where is the "billions and billions of stars" catchphrase to emulate?

Yeah, I can see what you mean. I think it will depend a lot on what happens to the anti-theism movement over the next few years, as to how Dawkins' foray into the politics of religion will be viewed.

the most potent adversary of mainstream science is now sectors of the political right (global warming, ID)

...and yet, I have the feeling we have seen the peak on that front. Even Bush has done much capitulation (ideologically) over the last year.

You?

However, there is still not insignificant left wing enmity towards Dawkins (e.g. Chris Hedges).

again, I think the strength of that front will depend on whether the anti-theism movement gains legs of its own, and moves beyond Dawkins. if not, it will become an endless string of "i told you sos" coming from the likes of Hedges (hopefully not Mooney, though). Either way, I think Dawkins himself will mostly shrug off criticism leveled at him from that direction; seems to be how he's been handling it so far, anwyay.

My personal opinion is also that Dawkins has already accomplished moving the Overton Window. Critique from the left, or from the endless courtiers at this point is irrelevant for that reason alone.

The 'extended synthesis' or 'developmental synthesis' will only be viable if it assimilates the contributions of the Hamilton/Trivers lineage of evolutionary ecology rather than deriding them. (Fortunately, it's increasingly just aging relics like Lewontin who still do that.)

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

Aside: Hamilton tarnished himself late in life by endorsing Richard Lynn.

meh, I've noticed that when we get over the age of 60 or so, all of us tend to abandon at least part of our previously sound reasoning prowess, some to a greater extent than others.

I noticed it in Hamilton, Watson, Wilson, and even my own major prof., Barlow, as well as my own father, for that matter.

gets even worse when you hit 80 (my pop now spouts inanities on an almost daily basis).

another reason NOT to vote McCain.

Makes me worry about getting old, considering my memory is already fading and I'm only 43.

If I make it to 80, you'll probably hear me bellowing about how all the mexican immigrants in the 90's took the jobs of hardworking biologists such as myself.

I'm rolling my eyes at myself even thinking about it.

I just hope I have someone around to give me a good slap upside the head.

By the way, "damselfishes" has to be one of the greatest words ever. I'd work with them just to be able to say it all the time.

well, I have to admit to never thinking about that as a reason for working with them.

I was too busy thinking about where most of them live:

http://moorea.berkeley.edu/

yes, that was where I did a lot of my thesis work.

:)

(though that paper I posted for you was actually done on Catalina Island, off of Southern California - er, not that Catalina Ilsand wasn't a paradise, either.)

Ichthyic: "...and yet, I have the feeling we have seen the peak on that front."

I agree. One watershed moment: a 2007 National Review cover story had the message that it is time for conservatives to accept the reality of global warming.

"If I make it to 80, you'll probably hear me bellowing about how all the mexican immigrants in the 90's took the jobs of hardworking biologists such as myself."

No - it was the goobacks from the future, remember? They took yer job!

yes, that was where I did a lot of my thesis work.

though that paper I posted for you was actually done on Catalina Island

And you have no idea how much I hate you now. "Tropical Research." The picture. On top of working outside, with animals, in the ocean, where it's warm. I worked in a bunch of friggin' archives. Hmm, maybe natural scientists are smarter than social scientists...

No - it was the goobacks from the future, remember? They took yer job!

bloody timecist.

:p

"everybody! back in the pile!"

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104259/

And you have no idea how much I hate you now. "Tropical Research." The picture. On top of working outside, with animals, in the ocean, where it's warm.

Did I tell you about the local Tahitian dance troupe that would visit us at the station, and practice dancing and drumming on the station lawn every afternoon, while we quaffed beers and ate coconuts?

Oh, wait, that's not helping, is it?

What about telling you about the times I spent hiking to the tops of the mountains behind the station to check out the wild orchids growing in the trees?

no?

Hmm, maybe knowing that there were lots of mosquitos spreading 3 different forms of Dengue fever AND malaria would help?

nasty, nasty stuff.

actually, I managed to avoid it, but a couple of other grad students didn't. they don't call it "bonebreaker fever" for nothing; it actually does feel like your bones are breaking to a lot of people - and if you get really lucky and contract all three variants at the same time, you land yourself in the hospital for an extended stay of two weeks or more (with a not insignificant chance of mortality).

Or maybe the incredibly poisonous stonefish and cone snails that were seemingly everywhere might turn you off? Or the reef sharks that were ubiquitous, or tiger sharks that were rare, but around?

Me? I got a sinus infection that kept me out of the water for a couple of days in the couple of months I spent there.

poor me.

Hmm, maybe natural scientists are smarter than social scientists...

come now, surely you're not forgetting about Margaret Mead?

or don't you know anybody who "came of age in Samoa"?

;)

Did I tell you about...?

Bastard.

What about...?

Cruel bastard.

Hmm, maybe knowing that...?

That does help a bit. I'm not proud.

poor me.

Bastard.

Where are you now?

btw, personal experience suggests BOTH Mead and Freeman were correct about sexual norms in Polynesia.

even on Moorea, you can find fascinating juxtapositions of groups living essentially exactly the way they did 200 years ago or more, with groups that have embraced their own forms of xianity.

both groups have no problems getting along with each other, but it's quite clear that if Mead interviewed with the traditionalists, and Freeman the xians, you would end up with EXACTLY the kind of conclusions each made.

It truly was a bizarre, magnificent, montage of a culture.

Where are you now?

the last place you probably would expect:
In the middle of the desert SW.

long story.

New Zealand is the next stop, though.

New Zealand is the next stop, though.

How exciting! I've never been, but it sounds lovely. I'm jealous. (I keep looking for ads for jobs there. Nothing ever appears.)

come now, surely you're not forgetting about Margaret Mead?

Study actual people? Living ones? Perish the thought :).

Signing off. Buenas noches!

Guten Nacht!

may dreams of gentle tropical breezes and calm, aqua-blue waters dance through your head.

The 'extended synthesis' or 'developmental synthesis' will only be viable if it assimilates the contributions of the Hamilton/Trivers lineage of evolutionary ecology rather than deriding them. (Fortunately, it's increasingly just aging relics like Lewontin who still do that.)

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

Seconded.

may dreams of gentle tropical breezes and calm, aqua-blue waters dance through your head.

Again, really very sweet you are, Ichthyic :).

Not to beat a dead horse, but as I was falling asleep last night I remembered the part of the NOVA episode that I disliked the most. They film Wilson in Haiti (or just over the border in the DR - I can't recall). He talks to some ultrapoor people living on the edge of survival, and actually asks them if they're aware that their actions are environmentally damaging. I mean, really. While they make it explicit that these people are victims, they make the causes of their plight seem abstract (I think he calls them "environmental refugees" - it would be more accurate to call them "World Bank refugees" or "refugees of neoliberalism" or "brutal US policy refugees") and has nothing to say about the efforts of Haitians themselves to change their situation and help the environment. I'm starting to think that no one should be allowed to talk about Haiti on TV without interviewing either Paul Farmer or Randall Robinson or both. I'm sure he means well, but that segment set me off.

SC@82. No doubt Wilson and the TV crew had flown there and were staying in the best hotels! He just hasn't got a clue, politically - I don't think it was courage that led him to "brave the storm" that followed his painfully naive "Sociobiology" - he just didn't see it coming.

For anyone who is interested:
a) The arithmetic in Darwinism does not work, therefore there has to be a change.
b) The flaw in the theory is simple. It assumes no direction to evolution. However for any species a direction to evolution arises whenever its environment changes substantially and it is failing while there is, in the same environment, a thriving organism. The difference between the effectiveness of the genetically encoded mechanisms in the two species provides a temporary local direction to evolution for the failing species. Under these conditions "fittest" amounts to an ability to acquire and incorporate genetic material from the successful species. Read up on acquired antibiotic resistance for an example. ALthough this process occupies only a few millionths of the history of a line of descent it is sufficiently much faster to dominate.
Now try to explain this to a Darwinist.

entific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution."

Where the hell did Mazur pull this from (aside from the obvious 'out of her ass')?

Or maybe Salthe's. it is funny who people like Mazur puick as 'experts' - a demented old cranky malcontent and a couple of anti-Darwinists as experts on 'Darwinism.' I also liked how she forcefully implied that because the gene is no longer central (according to her precious mavericks) that this spells trouble for evolution.

Amazing...