Since I happen to be still awake (GMT +3) and this post referenced my view of 'evolution,' let me offer a relatively brief response.
First, I'm glad that Randy is taking care to help clarify the meaning of this word 'evolution,' which is indeed one of the most interdisciplinary concepts available in the academy today. Perhaps only 'equilibrium,' 'force,' 'movement,' 'power' or 'development' (other suggestions are welcome!) are similarly transferred across the disciplines. Since 'evolution' is so broadly used, there is no one, including of course myself, who can claim to be an expert on the meaning of 'it' (unless they are perhaps an evolution-ologist!!)
Second, I'm not a promoter of 'culture war' mentality but a diffuser. Since where I currently live there is not a 'culture war' in the same sense it is meant in America, I hope you'll accept that my aim to reveal a more accurate representation of 'evolution' comes from outside of your familiar context. Thus, indeed, it may still not make much sense to you, yet 'elsewhere' it makes complete sense. And since I'm considerable younger than most on this list...
Well, so, I take exception to Randy (or at least suggest he should clarify) saying I am promoting a 'narrow usage' of the meaning of 'evolution'. Recently, I said that 'evolution' may indeed be suitable for (all) natural sciences. Is the realm of natural science meant to be a 'narrow usage' of 'evolution? I'd suggest I'm advocating that evolution be situated (cf. limited to) within a generous part of academia!
One the one hand, it seems that Randy is taking a perspective that argues for 'cumulative knowledge' - e.g. he writes, "derived from a previous and similar, though different form." This is certainly a powerful perspective, drawing on time's arrow. It seems to make sense that everything comes from something earlier, previous, before-which it could not exist. Yet the time argument is falsely dominated by 'evolution' with its pseudo-monopoly of 'change-over-time.' If everything changes, then supposedly everything 'evolves' (including 'freedom,' according to D. Dennett!). I've tried to impress upon the ASA list that 'evolution' and 'change' are NOT synonymous, that the definition of 'evolution' as merely 'change-over-time' is misleading, yet only a few voices appear to have heard me or been willing to acknowledge this in their TE/EC view. C'mon, get with the program is all I've left to say on that! :)
When the Disciplinary Specific Context (effectively presented by Murray Hogg in recent days) of evolution is raised, then I believe the nonsense of 'evolution' when used in regard to ANY 'human-made' thing can be effectively shown. Evolution is best 'restricted' to being a natural scientific theory because once human-social thought is concerned, the agency, free will, purpose, meaning, goal-directedness, and yes, morality of people goes against the evolutionary theories as commonly expressed in natural sciences. Think biological altruism vs. spiritual altruism to ponder the difference. Yet the roots of evolutionary philosophy and theology (cf. EC) inevitably overlap with natural science in some places!
Randy writes: "Hence, it seems to me quite appropriate to use the term "evolution" for any state that develops from a prior state through some type of change, whether it be human-mediated or according to natural law, or anything else."
Please forgive my questions to the chief, but whose 'theory' are you using as an authority here Randy? Or is this just your opinion based on no 'previous' or 'similar' theorist/theory? There are many people who've already thought the thought you are trying to express. Have you studied their writings or utterances? You seem to conflate 'evolution' and 'change' which is, as I repeat above, misleading.
Likewise, you speak about a 'state' involved in some kind of 'development.' Why not the just avoid the ideologically-charged word 'evolution' completely and speak of 'developing' instead of 'evolving'? Sure, in some areas of the academy, for example, world systems theory (I saw I. Wallerstein two days ago), the word 'development' is also problematic. But 'evolution' is a FAR MORE problematic word in our contemporary academy - this should be EASY to admit!
'Human-mediated change' (Randy's terms) involves concepts and categories that exceed (or preceed) the natural scientific paradigm of 'evolution.' So by now, we've called 'evolution' a 'word,' a 'concept,' a 'theory' (actually 'theories'), and now a 'paradigm.' This is what makes it extremely hard to pin down (Keith Miller even recently says 'evolutionary philosophy' could mean 'anything', which I hope to catch up on sometime soon)!! Which is why I am thankful for Murray's recent 'epiphany' and desire to help clarify what I've been arguing about; how the natural scientific (establishment's) assumption that 'their' definition of 'evolution' SHOULD be transferred into 'other' disciplinary specific contexts (i.e. 'ours' - human-social scientists) is misplaced. It now appears, however, shocking indeed, that Randy seeks to do just that; to TRANSFER his definition of 'evolution' into a disciplinary specific context in which he is not familiar theoretically, i.e. into the realm
of 'human-made things as human-social scientists speak of them.'
Granted, Randy has MADE things himself and this gives him (and actually everyone else in the WORLD) some license to speak of how he has 'evolved' something, if he so linguistically chooses, according to his use of evolution as a 'developing' from some previous form. But for me, there is basically no need to say 'evolution,' or to use the verb 'to evolve' in such a case. In fact it is counter-logical to do so!! It is self-defeating.
Yes, sure the Latin meaning of 'evolvere' is simply 'unfolding' or 'rolling out.' But Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis have tainted the meaning such that now, ideology and science need to be carefully protected from the misuse of 'evolution' by the likes of R.D., D.D., S.H., M.M., E.S., R.T. etc. etc. Surely this should be acknowledged in Randy's message about "The word 'evolution'."
Randy also wrote: "I do agree with Greg that we need much more emphasis on social sciences in the ASA"
If so, then please, please, try to create an atmosphere wherein you can actually 'hear' what is being said from a human-social sciences perspective, instead of presuming that 'your' models are the same as 'ours.' They're not; evolution is an excellent example of where agency, intentionality, purpose, meaning, goal-directedness and teleology, require a different vocabulary than natural scientific language can (ever!) provide. It makes sense to emphasise the differences and similarities between natural scientific and human-social scientific methodologies so that common understandings can be achieved and collaborative learning promoted. The academy (and its scholars) is (are) too interdisciplinary today to reason otherwise (e.g. NOMA).
The British-American sociologist-ethnographer Michael Burawoy has spoken about 'reflexive science' in contrast to 'positive science.' This is one attempt to 'get outside' of a natural sciences hegemony. I doubt ASA would wish to promote such a hegemony, but recognizing the sovereignty of human-social thought to REJECT the dehumanizing influence of evolutionary thought is one way to show it. This is a central part of the perspective I've been presenting at ASA for about two years, with some hidden encouragements, but lack of a 'breakthrough' on the whole. Perhaps, with Randy addressing "the word 'evolution'," a type of consensus or agreement about the uniqueness of human-social thought may be reached.
Sincerely,
Gregory
Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
I just noticed that one of the feature articles in the current May 2008 issue of Physics Today is titled "The evolution of a dedicated synchrotron light source." That spurred me to finally comment on the seemingly endless fray on this list about the proper use of the word "evolution."
I'd like to cast my vote for a rather broad usage of the word. I suppose this would be at the other end of the spectrum from the more narrow usage that Greg recommends. Much of my thinking was influenced by recently listening to a course on the history of the theory of evolution by Ed Larsen. He spent a fair amount of time discussing concepts of evolution prior to Darwin. If I understood him correctly, evolution was a broad term used to express the idea that an entity was derived from a previous and similar, though different, form. In contrast, alternative views were that of stasis, or eternal existence of that entity, and catastrophism, or sudden appearance of that entity independent from any pre-existing forms.
The concept of evolution was independent of any source of variation or of any mechanism of selection and seemed to be broader than organic life. Hence, it seems to me quite appropriate to use the term "evolution" for any state that develops from a prior state through some type of change, whether it be human-mediated or according to natural law, or anything else.
It seems appropriate to refer, as the editors of Physics Today do, to technological successes as having evolved. I'm particularly interested in the sociology of scientific research and of technology development. (and I do agree with Greg that we need much more emphasis on social sciences in the ASA) I've closely observed two separate DRAM development teams in IBM and have seen how each of them evolved along slightly different paths. Their "group knowledge" seems to exist independent of any particular individual. It was a major challenge to document that group knowledge and to transfer that knowledge to a different group.
In general, the use of the term "evolution" is easily understood from the context as in the title quoted above. When used as a stand-alone term, as in a pollster's rendering of "Do you believe in evolution?", the meaning is not as clear but given the culture wars around us, virtually everyone understands it to mean "the development of all living species from a common ancestor" with primary mechanisms for change being any modification of genetics and selection being primarily, though not exclusively, natural selection. What confuses the issue is the oft-appended assumption "without purpose and without any divine guidance." This does not seem to be an appropriate use of the term but is so common that this must be clarified for many people.
Randy
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 26 19:28:25 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 26 2008 - 19:28:25 EDT