Just an added point. Dave Wallace's post shows how the use of evolutionary assumptions (i.e. what he calls an "analogy for biological evolution") exploits the passive voice. In fact, I count 9 times passive voice is used in a short message, aside from the mysterious 'occurs' verb. Apparently the absence of human agency in computer programming and constitution writing has reached astonishing proportions!!!
Please take this with a grain of salt Dave. :) But I've noticed a common tendency in evolutionistic language to use passive voice. Have you ever wondered why that is?
Gregory
Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
This is probably the worst time possible for me to get into this topic now, but let me try to clarify why 'evolve' should not be equated with 'change-over-time.'
First, I'm speaking as a human-social scientist (more precisely, as a sociologist of science), not as a computer programmer. However, I assume, and please object to my assumption if it is incorrect, that human beings (in an active, intentional sense) are the ones who program computers. My sister was a programmer, so I can pretty much rest easy that you'll agree.
FIrst, lets get E2-E5 off the table. As much as I would challenge the breadth and depth of 'mechanistic' language, let's leave it out for now. Yes, I'm ready to agree that, as you write Steve: "aren't these definitions useful to biologists and anyone else trying to understand biological evolution?" I've accepted this, so for me its a non-issue. It misunderstands me to ask if 'gaps in evolution' "should make us reconsider our biological evolutionary theories." Are we on the same page?
The descriptive vs. prescriptive approach is a red herring. Why avoid teleology? You write: "the term sometimes used is 'business requirements have evolved'." Tell me please, what difference in meaning would saying 'business requirements have changed' imply? Getting better, progress? To me, to say 'evolving' is just to use sexy/popular jargon without any added meaning. Ask yourself this question: what particular type of change is evolution? If it is just any and every change (which is what I'm arguing against), then you're veering into the realm of TE/TE; only God doesn't change.
Why do I say this? Because a difference in computer programming and biological science is that you can't imply such things as choice, free will, agency, intention, purpose, meaning and even teleology for the vast majority of biological objects (but please, no one open up an 'other animals' branch in this thread, cuz I'm not going there now - I'm a human-social thinker, not an ethologist - you can dialogue with Dawkins or E.O. Wilson about it if you want). The language of 'prescription' can in this case 'only' apply to human-made things, which is what the computer example of Dave and Steve assumes. Yet they want their cake and to eat it too; all aboard everyone including human-social thinkers! Or perhaps Steve, you would make a sovereign distinction between natural sciences and human-social sciences rather than conflating them?
Saying 'Business Evolution' makes no sense because human beings are inherently purposeful and telic agents who 'cause' businesses to change, adapt, differentiate, vary, etc. - but we can say all of these things without saying 'evolution!' You can't escape this by saying it is 'simply descriptive' because then you simply exclude or avoid the meaning(s) of human action. To say a business 'evolves' is to marginalise (or melt into obscurity) the voices of those who actually 'change' the business by strategic means, as well as those human-social scientists who show how the choice to 'change' is a non-random, directed, guided, purposeful one. I don't see why this is a difficult perspective to comprehend. (?)
Perhaps this will help explain my position - a proposition that I wrote almost four years ago, which I posted at ASA list a year or so ago: "Human-made things do not 'evolve' into existence (being or having become)." This is because human-making is a non-evolutionary action, i.e. it is purposeful, meaningful, goal-oriented, intentional, willful, etc. with a few exceptions (e.g. the idea of 'unanticipated consequences' [Robert Merton, 1936] is one example within the evolutionary sociological tradition). Please don't put such things as 'fitness landscapes' and 'environmental pressures' in contrast with intentional human action - they are in a sphere they don't properly belong!
This is a really hard conversation to have (especailly by e-chat) because we are speaking from different academic traditions. I would ask Dave Wallace if he thinks natural sciences and human-social sciences operate with exactly the same methodological principles. It appears to me that he thinks this to be the case. A bit of W. Dilthey (even just wiki) would serve a good dose!!
Sure, as you say Steve, "the assumptions in E6 can creep into E1" (e.g. in TE/TE). But the key is that E1 is a bad definition to begin with because evolution is a particular type of change, it is not 'all changes' as universalistic and total evolution (the original makers of the misleading E1 definition) presume. A. Harvey's essay does not remedy this bad situation, though I do appreciate that he is attempting to improve clarity on the one of the most interdisciplinary topics available today in the academy: 'evolution.'
G. Arago
Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Wow – three IT related posts from 3 different authors in a single day … that's got to be a record here!
Hi Greg,
Re: broadening biological evolution & definitions E2 to E5
Yes this is probably an important discussion. But I believe much of the evidence and discussion for E2-E5 happens much before humans actually make their appearance on earth. So, from the beginning of life on earth ~4BYA to about 100,000 years ago or so, we are really only talking about biological evolution aren't we? I can see that we need to be careful to extrapolate too much from biological evolutionary theory into other areas, but again, aren't these definitions useful to biologists and anyone else trying to understand biological evolution?
Re: definition E1
As Allan mentions, his E1 definition is descriptive and not prescriptive, and is not related to any teleology. And it is definitely a valid use and one I see all the time in my work. I work in computer software and the way I see the word "evolve" or "evolution" used really is synonymous with "change over time". This can have either positive or negative connotations; it can be used as change with a purpose, or change without direction or purpose; it can mean change that results in a worse state, or change that results in a better state. It all depends on the context.
For example, mature companies that have been using information technology for quite some time often have a wide variety of older technologies & older business processes in place that matched business requirements in the past. But often, these business requirements change over time – the term sometimes used is "business requirements have evolved". They may have evolved because of a change in business focus (ie. the company changed their own business requirements) or because of a change in external business factors (ie. the company had little influence on the changes in requirements and is reacting to external change). Used here, evolution is simply descriptive (and may or may not have been because of teleology – it is irrelevant in this context).
Now, the company needs to change their IT solutions to meet these requirements. Sometimes a wholescale rewrite of their systems may be required. Often though, the less risky & more practical / less costly idea is to change things slowly. In this sense, IT management tries to evolve their systems to meet new requirements. Ie. they are actively driving and managing a slow change in their own IT environment. Used here, evolve is both prescriptive and teleological.
Some companies let their IT infrastructure degenerate so badly that it puts their entire business at risk. Often this is because of poor business management; new IT solutions are implemented willy-nilly without proper planning, IT hardware and software are not maintained properly, and no thought is put into an IT strategy. New management will come in and declare "We can not let our IT systems continue to evolve like this". Here, evolve is used as a description of what has happened because of a lack of teleology.
I guess I'm not sure what your concern is here. I think you may be worried that some of the assumptions in E6 can creep into E1. But I believe Allan's essays explicitly state this is not the case.
thanks,
On 5/19/08, SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote: Since I am being invoked and criticized in this thread ....
Gregory Arago wrote:
----------------------------------------
"Harvey's definitions, which I've read, says that "evolve really is used as a synonym for change." This is the definition I'm challenging, following in the footsteps of other sociologists, e.g. A. Giddens and P. Sztompka (both renowned and not minor players, one in England, advisor to Tony Blair, the other was President of the ISA). Harvey says E1 is "clearly no problem." I'm saying he's missing the bigger picture. Thus, Harvey's definition needs to be updated; evolution is not and should not be (whoa, naturalistic fallacy) claimed synonymous with 'change.' He is wrong to perpetuate the total evolutionistic (TE) fallacy."
---------------------------------------
To start on the same page, this is something from "Chapter 5" of my online "course" here:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/
I hope if Gregory were to read the whole chapter, rather than one excerpt, he would recognize that he has misunderstood me.
What Gregory seems to have missed is the fact that in this section where he thinks I am advocating a position he abhors, I am writing DESCRIPTIVELY, not prescriptively.
My whole point in this part of the essay is that the word "evolution" is used in many different ways, and that it is important in discussion to be clear on what one means when that word is used. I should think Gregory would be standing up and applauding me at this point, because he so constantly harps on people's failure to define exactly what they mean by the word (even in cases where the context makes it pretty clear to others that biological evolution is meant).
My meaning E-1 is simply describing a fact of English usage. It is undeniable that the word "evolution" is sometimes used in English to describe simply "change over time" with no implication of Darwinian mechanisms -- we might talk about the evolution of a weather system or the evolution of symptoms as one goes through a disease. Gregory may not like that usage of the word (which I believe is the original English meaning, from long before Darwin), and I am not particularly advocating it, but one will find that meaning in the dictionary and it is a fact that the usage happens. Recognizing this English usage does not imply endorsement of any particular metaphysics; it is just another reason to be clear about our meanings when we use the word.
Gregory has also misunderstood my "clearly no problem" with regard to this meaning E-1. I was NOT saying that the USAGE is "no problem". While I don't find that English usage as objectionable as Gregory apparently does, usage is simply not at all what I was talking about at that point. The context of this chapter is biological evolution and whether or not it is a threat to Christian faith. My statements about the degree to which meanings E-1 to E-6 might be a "problem" do not refer to whether the usage is problematic, but to whether the concept being described by the usage (whatever words might be used) should be a problem for Christian theology. So in saying E-1 "should be no problem" I was simply saying that the idea that life on earth has changed over time in and of itself "should be no problem" for Christians. The other meanings starting with E-2 begin to talk about aspects of how that change over time may have happened (common ancestry, Darwinian mechanisms,
etc.), and some of those concepts can be more of a "problem" for some Christians.
I hope that clears up the confusion.
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
---------------------------------
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
--
Steve Martin (CSCA)
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 19 16:51:13 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 19 2008 - 16:51:13 EDT