Exactly what I meant too.
No, they are hostile to anything that in their view smells of either āvitalismā or ādesignā, no matter how much real science is included in the discussion. Read Turnerās new book.
If you want to know what they are proposing, you should read what they write, not secondhand accounts from me or anyone else. Shapiroās book on Evolution is available at low cost. So is Turnerās. The collection of Altenberg papers is in print. The point is not that any of these individuals is correct ā the point is that they are all, by normal academic standards, trained and competent to write about evolution. One can disagree with them, but to treat them as incompetent scientists is absurd. Shapiro is 30 years older than you, and has been an evolutionary theorist for 30 years ā since before you started your undergrad science degree. If you want to differ from him for technical reasons, I have no objection, but donāt condescend to a man who has held a chair at one of the worldās greatest universities, Chicago, and published more specifically on evolutionary theory than you have (or than T. aquaticus has, for that matter). Just show where he is wrong, with specific references to his writings.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
You want me to know what they are proposing, so why donāt you discuss it? If it isnāt worth your time to discuss it then it isnāt worth my time to read it.
1 Like
Iām not seeing that.
Yes, Jerry Coyne is very critical of Shapiro. But I have not seen the same reaction from other biologists that I follow in online discussions.
I am far more likely to run into criticism of Behe than of Shapiro.
2 Likes
This is a common view throughout the sciences. It is not limited to Biology.
3 Likes
Sorry; Iād rather you rejected Scott Turnerās view on the basis of his own words, than rejected him on the basis of my inadequate summary. If you decided not to read his book on the basis of my inadequate representation of its contents, Turner would never forgive me. 
More seriously, Iām under no obligation here to summarize anything for anyone. Iām willing to discuss writings that I and a dialogue partner have read in common; thatās all I have time for. I am swamped in teaching and editing responsiblities at the moment, and saving others reading time is not high on my list of priorities.
If it isnāt worth your time to read Scott Turnerās new book, then itās a low priority for you to read one of the most thoughtful studies in a while on one of the most fundamental questions of biology ā what is the nature of life? Why wouldnāt you be on the lookout for such studies anyway, even if youād never heard of me?
Clearly, if I were a biologist, my priorities would not match yours. But this difference in intellectual temperament is nothing new to me. It happens in Religious Studies as well. There are plenty of Biblical scholars who think itās more important to read a hundred new technical philological articles on hypothetical reconstructions of the āQā source than to read a book which questions the tunnel vision of the whole enterprise of source criticism and suggests a new and more religiously relevant point of departure for Biblical scholarship.
So youāre telling me that intellectual Philistinism runs rampant in sciences other than Biology? I can only repeat the words of Mr. Spock to Dr. McCoy: āAs I always suspected.ā
This is a complete misunderstanding of science.
A new science book comes out in my field. So shall I read it?
Reading that book is likely to be an extremely boring experience. It will be reading 300 pages that tells me what I already know. There is no point in reading it, unless I have some good reason to suspect that there is something different about this book.
Thatās very different from the situation in the humanities, where new books often advance the field.
As for Scott Turner ā no, I have not read his book. And since I have not read it, I donāt much comment on Turner. Since Iām not a biologist, it does not count as being in my field. The reason that I have not read Turnerās book, is that I did read the review of it on ENV. And that was a huge turn off. It suggested that Turner was telling biologists all of the things that they should be studying, but arenāt. However, they are studying those things.
3 Likes
So true.
1 Like
It is your opinion of the importance of the book which I doubt.
2 Likes
More importantly, if Turner thinks that these topics should be studied in a certain way then why isnāt he doing those studies?
1 Like
I was speaking of the intellectual attitudes of scientists toward the broader and more foundational questions in their fields, rather than science itself. And after nearly forty years of interacting closely with scientists, including about ten years now interacting almost daily on the internet with the self-appointed representatives and guardians of science, especially the self-appointed representatives and guardians of biology, my judgment is based on more than a sufficient sample.
Thatās not the case with Turnerās book. After years of interaction with biologists, itās clear to me that most biologists (as you and T. aquaticus are yourselves stressing) spend their time keeping up with the journal literature of the past ten years or so, not reading in the history and philosophy of biology, or even the history and philosophy of evolutionary theory. The number of current biologists who have actually read Darwin from cover to cover (as I have, more than once) is vanishingly small; the number of current biologists who have a thorough grasp of the history of evolutionary theory, from pre-Darwin days through to the present, is almost nil. So most biologists would definitely learn something new from Turnerās book, which reviews the history of evolutionary theory from a particular angle. And itās more than historical things they would learn. He argues that many of the inadequacies of evolutionary theory spring from the fact that we have an inadequate theory of life ā what life is. He thinks that deeper scientific reflection on the nature of life and living organisms will help improve evolutionary theory. He develops the idea of homeostasis (which is not original with him, as he of course admits) in a constructive way toward this end.
By the way, I first heart about Scott Turnerās work when I heard him read a paper at a scientific conference. (A conference where none of the papers concerned religion, by the way.) I was impressed with his breadth of approach. I chose to start reading his new book based on my high estimation of him as a thinker, not because of anything that was said about him on ENV, or by any ID proponent.
If I may give you a piece of advice, donāt read book reviews published on ENV. ENV is a partisan venue, and tends to uncritically praise any piece of writing which in its view is critical of Darwinian evolution. And given that you are already well-known as an opponent of ID, it is likely that you will react against any positive review of any book given by an ID cheerleader. So if you want to get a sense of what the book is about, you should consult the reviews on Amazon or someplace else. You can also use the āread inside this bookā feature on Amazon to catch a bit of the text ā though in this case that is mainly the introductory part of the book, and therefore the most relaxed and intellectually lightweight part of it ā the meat comes later on.
Itās inconceivable to me that anyone who purports to be a professional biologist wouldnāt be interested in the larger questions of the field, and not just the little technical questions of the type that are addressed in journal articles. But then, as I said, itās inconceivable to me that anyone who purports to be a scholar of religion could spend his or her life doing nothing but hypothetical reconstructions of alleged sources of Biblical books, buried in a pile of philological technicalities, and abandoning thinking about the broader questions of religion and theology ā but itās a fact that a large number of Biblical scholars at secular universities do exactly that. So what we are dealing with in this discussion has less to do with āscienceā versus āartsā approaches (though itās true that on average Arts subjects spent more time dealing with their own epistemological foundations than Science subjects do, as I know from having studied both), and more to do with individual intellectual attitudes. Every subject has its technicians, and every subject has its philosophers. The technicians are often very impatient of big, broad questions, because they donāt lend themselves so easily to black-and-white, right-or-wrong answers. The philosophers are often impatient of the technicians, who in their view fail to see the forest for the trees. This difference is a temperamental one, and has existed for as long as the modern, Kant-inspired university has existed.
My ideal scientist is of course a good technician in one area of his or her field, but also one who frequently reflects on the broader implications of his or her specialized work, and has a lively curiosity about larger metaphysical and epistemological questions relevant to deeper understanding. We see this in physicists like Heisenberg and in biologists like Gould. Gould was quite capable of doing technical study of fossils, etc., but he also had a rich and broad knowledge of evolutionary theory, and he reflected on it with the intelligence of a broadly educated human being, not just the intelligence of a mathematician or other technician. Thatās why Iāve learned a lot about evolutionary thought from reading his book, whereas Iāve learned almost nothing about evolutionary thought from reading the technical jabbering of most of the people who debate on the internet, who merely repeat the tropes uttered by the majority of people in their fields, and show no philosophical detachment regarding the ātruthsā they take for granted.
Those biologists who really arenāt interested in the shape of the forest, but only in cataloguing individual trees, wonāt want to read Turnerās book. They wonāt be interested in it unless it has 7,000 footnotes to peer-reviewed literature in it. But biologists who are looking for a broader discussion of the nature of life itself ā a discussion which requires leisurely development and canāt be dealt with in a single journal article ā should find the book both interesting and useful. If I were a biologist, and especially if I were a biologist who claimed to know a great deal about evolution, I would definitely be reading the book. I would be trying to get as many different angles on the phenomenon of evolution as I possibly could. But of course, those who are convinced that all evolutionary theory needs is more precise mathematical and computer modelling of population genetics, wonāt see the need for any other perspectives on evolution, or for reflection on āuseless, philosophical questionsā like āWhat exactly is life, anyway?ā
Why do you assume he isnāt doing those studies? Why do you assume that because a scientist writes a book, he doesnāt also write articles, do research, etc.? Why are the two activities, writing books which try for a broad synthesis, and writing articles which contribute particular results to the body of knowledge, mutually exclusive? In fact, he has published many articles, which you should be able to look up with your knowledge of how to use scientific journal indices. I canāt give you a full list of his publications, but if you go to his university website, Iām sure you can find out what he has written.
More important why do want to keep arguing about the thought of a man whose writings you havenāt even read? What is it with you internet biologists, that you carry on in this way? The first thing you learn in the humanities is that you arenāt entitled to an opinion about a work you havenāt read. Apparently thatās not something thatās taught in the biological sciences, based on the behavior of many biologists as Iāve witnessed it now over ten years of internet debate.
Along this line, Iāve seen nothing but negative comments about Shapiro from internet debaters, yet not one discussion of any passages from his book ā which incidentally contains massive citations from the peer-reviewed literature, with even more to be found on his website. Again, it appears that some biologists think one can reject someoneās thought based on rumor, hearsay, third-party summaries, etc. This attitude goes completely against my years of scholarly training.
If someone here who has actually read Shapiroās book on evolution (as I have) wishes to start a discussion thread on it, one in which his notions are considered with an open mind, I would read along and hope to learn a few things from the discussion, as Iām far from being a master of the technical aspects of his work. But Iām not interested in wrangling about Shapiro with people who havenāt read his book, or about Turner with people who havenāt read his book, etc. Life is too short, and I have other work to do, work for which employers are paying me and canāt be neglected, not even for charming internet conversations.
1 Like
If he is doing those studies, then lets see them. As the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I am not arguing about them. I am asking you to discuss them. This is a forum for discussing things, not a recommended reading forum.
I have read Shapiroās work. Would you like to discuss some of it? Here is a paper that could form the basis of a discussion:
1 Like
So you say. I seem to recall a thread at TSZ on Turnerās book. And nothing in that thread persuaded me to read it.
The three most recent books on biology, that I have read are:
- Shapiro: Evolution: A view from the 21st century
- Denton: Evolution: Still a theory in crisis
- Provine: The random genetic drift fallacy.
Iād say that the Provine book was the one most worth reading, though I have not come to a firm conclusion on whether genetic drift is a fallacy.
Yes, I understood this from the ENV review. And I understood Turner to consider homeostasis to be important. I already consider homeostasis to be important, and Iām pretty sure that most biologists do too. However, the question of āwhat is life?ā is still a philosophical question more than a biological question, and I was not sufficiently persuaded that Turnerās book would contribute much.
I think it more likely, that they are impatient with books that claim to resolve big philosophical questions. And they are impatient with those books because prior experience with such books suggests that they never live up to their claims.
I already told you where you could find them. You can look up his website as quickly as I can, and you can look up the technical scientific literature more quickly than I can, because I have no online access from home to the indices for scientific journals, whereas you likely have instant access through your university.
Yes, discussing things. Not simply saying that youāve read Shapiroās science and found it bad, but explaining why you think itās bad.
Have you read his book?
I would be happy if you started a new topic, and led a discussion of this paper, especially if your discussion included a balanced critique of the article ā mentioning its good points as well as its bad points (as opposed to the more usual assassination type of review, typical of internet discussions of any scientist who differs from the party line). I would chip in as I was able, with questions, comments, whatever.
Thatās good. Iāve read the first two of those. But note that though your own field was computer programming and math, you are (to your credit) interested in the large questions raised in these books. Thatās wonderful! I would think that biologists would be even more interested in the questions, especially those biologists who claim to be working in evolutionary theory.
I found the Denton book useful in a number of ways. First, he clarified that he was not questioning the reality of evolution, to clear himself of the old charge that he was anti-evolutionary. Second, he presented some useful material on the history of evolutionary thought, the contrast between structuralist and adaptationist approaches being quite helpful. (Gould also discusses that subject.) And there are many other good things in Dentonās book. Even BioLogos geneticist Darrel Falk, who normally had nothing good to say about ID or Discovery, praised Discovery for publishing the book.
The Shapiro book was more technical in nature, but its main thesis was plain enough even for a non-specialist. I certainly found his discussion of the ability of some organisms to modify their own genomes to be quite interesting and informative.
You havenāt read the context in which Turner places the question. He is trying to arrive at a definition of life that is not merely philosophically sound, but scientifically tractable. That is why he ties the idea of life into the idea of homeostasis, a genuine scientific concept. But of course he wants to give homeostasis a richer and fuller treatment than it is typically given.
Homeostasis was involved in hurricane Florence, which recently caused of lot of damage in the southeast. I would not want to say that Florence was an example of life. Homeostasis is not enough. It will continue to be very difficult to characterize what we mean by ālifeā.
This remark is silly. Neither Turner nor I has said that the words āhomeostasisā and ālifeā are synonyms. His point is that homeostasis is a vital concept for grasping the nature of life. Your off-the-cuff remark is not a serious response either to Turner or to my remarks on Turner.
If you want to read the Turner book and discuss particular passages of it here, Iām willing. If you donāt want to read the Turner book, thatās fine with me, too. But this endless preamble about whether or people should or shouldnāt read Turner, why theyāre not interested in reading Turner, etc., is a complete waste of time. Either we discuss the actual text containing Turnerās argument ā which I refuse to do until people indicate theyāve read it ā or we should drop this subject. Iām happy with either outcome.
Iām pretty sure that almost every biologist agrees with this.
It looked to me as if Turner wrote a whole book for the purpose of persuading biologists of something that they already believed.