Exogenic Inanities Anyone?
I figure with all this space, why limit myself to my own silliness? There is plenty of wackiness in this world, so I figure I'll just import some of it for my own purposes.
So I'm finishing up reading of Mary Jane West-Eberhard's massive tome on Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (which has been no small feat, I tell you) and I realize she has come up with yet another of her near continuous oddities of thought. There is, actually, plenty of good and interesting points throughout the 600+ pages here, but there is plenty of inanity as well!
So I come across this tidbit near the end- while discussing punctuation in evolution (which is a seriously contended issue), she writes: admitting “some people [serious scientists]…think [puntuation] has not been shown to exist, and others…call it ‘the dominant empirical evolutionary pattern of the history of life itself’…It is beyond the scope of this chapter to evaluate these opinions [ok, fair enough]. Instead, I assume that the fossil record at least sometimes shows true punctuated change, since punctuated evolutionary change is known from neontological evidence [quotes here own work]” What the HELL?!?! She is saying that the concept of punctuation is still seriously debated, so she isn't going to discuss it, she is SIMPLY GOING TO ASSUME IT HAPPENS BECAUSE SHE DECIDED SHE HAS SEEN IT BEFORE!
If you want to get involved in the discussion, please do, but don't say there is a discussion on-going, you're not going to get involved, and then simply state one side is true because you believe it. And this is by a scientist studying evolution!
This is one of the biggest problems I have with science- too many practitioners operating under preconceived paradigms, with no recognition (even to themselves) that they are doing so. To quote Eldridge and Gould (1972): “The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the old influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective” (83).
In other words, we, as scientists, see what we expect to see, sometimes despite the facts, and if we want to see something differently, we need to decide how we are going to see it before we can see it.
Pretty cool, hah?
So I'm finishing up reading of Mary Jane West-Eberhard's massive tome on Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (which has been no small feat, I tell you) and I realize she has come up with yet another of her near continuous oddities of thought. There is, actually, plenty of good and interesting points throughout the 600+ pages here, but there is plenty of inanity as well!
So I come across this tidbit near the end- while discussing punctuation in evolution (which is a seriously contended issue), she writes: admitting “some people [serious scientists]…think [puntuation] has not been shown to exist, and others…call it ‘the dominant empirical evolutionary pattern of the history of life itself’…It is beyond the scope of this chapter to evaluate these opinions [ok, fair enough]. Instead, I assume that the fossil record at least sometimes shows true punctuated change, since punctuated evolutionary change is known from neontological evidence [quotes here own work]” What the HELL?!?! She is saying that the concept of punctuation is still seriously debated, so she isn't going to discuss it, she is SIMPLY GOING TO ASSUME IT HAPPENS BECAUSE SHE DECIDED SHE HAS SEEN IT BEFORE!
If you want to get involved in the discussion, please do, but don't say there is a discussion on-going, you're not going to get involved, and then simply state one side is true because you believe it. And this is by a scientist studying evolution!
This is one of the biggest problems I have with science- too many practitioners operating under preconceived paradigms, with no recognition (even to themselves) that they are doing so. To quote Eldridge and Gould (1972): “The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the old influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective” (83).
In other words, we, as scientists, see what we expect to see, sometimes despite the facts, and if we want to see something differently, we need to decide how we are going to see it before we can see it.
Pretty cool, hah?
posted by Fool Ishy at 2:52 PM
1 Comments:
Well, I'm not a scientist anymore, but it seems to me that we shape the reality we see. If we don't see it, it's not there. Having been a physicits once upon a time, I liken this to M theory or string theory which cannont really be proven because the equations are just so complicated, but, because guys like Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene say it's so, it must be. Good luck with the reading.
Chris (My Blog)
Post a Comment
<< Home