Week 3 - Evolution/Stories

I found Mayr’s discussion of our behavior toward outsiders to be very interesting. Mayr claims, “The same kinds of altruism that are extended to other members of a social group are rarely offered to outsiders.” Pg.258 Mayr’s discussion of “the other” reminds me of a novel I read called The Painted Bird by Kosinski. The book follows a young orphan who wanders around small towns in eastern Europe during WWII. During his journey, the boy meets a professional bird catcher. This particular man captures birds and paints them various colors. Then he releases the bird and watches how this painted bird interacts with the rest of the flock. Often when a flock of birds saw the painted bird approach them they would kill it. This phenomenon struck me as strikingly similar to Mayr’s analysis of how human beings treat outsiders. Mayr believes that we are not born with feelings of altruism but, rather obtain our feelings about others through social learning. The fact that these tendencies are not inherited certainly gives me hope that we can work to improving social relations with “the other”. Our need to alienate “the other” can be overcome.

Danielle pointed out a really fabulous quote that I remember underlining upon reading, regarding Mayr's belief that we don't need to question such overwhelming evidence. This seems to defy everything we have discussed in class, but conversely, Mayr has in fact done research of his own to confirm Darwinian theories. I suppose he means that during the execution of his research, he wouldn't dare question that he would reach a conclusion different from what Darwin has proposed - this would be "irrational."

During our discussion on Thursday, we approached the idea of truth existing or not existing. If no one is capable of fully recounting a story or event, is it fair to say it happened? If a story cannot ever be reproduced, how can we be so sure it existed in the first place? Eating a sandwich, for example, will never be the same process for one person as it is for another. A simple truth still contains these subjective cracks that we are not capable of always pinpointing. We take so much truth for granted, like Sarah eating a sandwich, that we forget what it would be like to replicate this story. No one will report the act of sandwich-eating the same; so does truth about it exist? My answer is yes - the objective truth does in fact exist, it is just beyond our reach as humans to recall and subconsciously agree on. We will all point out different details that appeal to us or catch our attention when recounting the story of sandwich-eating (crumbs fell, for instance) but there is no way to unify our responses with the actual truth. I am coming to realize that stories are our way of getting closer to this truth, but are in no way indicative of everything that actually occurred.

Throughout Mayr's book, he continually praises evolution like it was practically his own child. He idolizes Darwin and probably has a shrine to him somewhere in his house. He has written over a dozen books, most of which are about biology and evolution. What Evolution Is is filled with quotes such as "What made Darwin such a great scientist and intellectual innovator? He was a superb observer, endowed with insatiable curiosity." and the evidence shows "how remarkably congruent are the conclusions drawn from the most diversified branches of biology, which all support evolution. Indeed, these findings would make no sense in any other explanation." It is quite obvious that Mayr believes that evolution is fact. Truths must exist and evolution is a truth. He mentions several times throughout the book that all other stories to explain this set of observations are unfit and just plain crazy. It is quite obvious from this book that Mayr is in love with evolution, Darwin, and himself.

However, in the last chapter of the book, The Frontiers of Evolutionary Biology, Mayr doesn't give evolution enough credit. He explains how amazing evolution is because it can explain everything in science. He mentions only how science can benefit from evolution and nothing else. Even Professor Grobstein who doesn't believe in truths, and therefore, doesn't believe evolution can be the truth, gives evolution more credit. We are learning in class that evolution can explain almost everything, especially literature. Everything is constantly evolving. Even our discussion about science vs art was an example of evolution, when we didn't even get to address it.

I think that if Mayr was to adopt this method of thinking about evolution, he'd be even more in love with the idea. He would be able to explain everything, and write infinitely more books about evolution, and maybe this time, he'd have original ideas in them! And not just citations from his previous books.

I've reached the end of Mayr, and after four lectures and two discussions, I still have yet to make any real sense of this new concept of science as a story.  After having firmly believed in the idea that science reaches fact, and there is only the slightest, absolute tiniest possibility that everything previously believed was wrong, I was comfortable in my definition of what science was, and what was meant to be a scientist. 

During last weeks discussion, we divided ourselves into groups of humanists, scientists, and social scientists.  Many of us had trouble identifying with one group, myself included. I think that this is an important predicament.  If we are only able to fall into one category, I feel we might become too set in our ways.  Take Mayr for example, he goes on and on about Darwin's individuality, how his forward thinking made his theories possible.  This is all very true, meanwhile Mayr is a strong example of a scientist gone wrong.  He falls into the trap of accepting theories such as evolution to be fact, no need to retest. 

 By being more flexible with how we academically define ourselves, we have the ability to think more freely about what we are studying.  Because each of the three disiplines can observe the same object of study from three different angles, if we ourselves can view a subject in this way, we might be able to think in a way that challenges what is allready considered to be truth, when it is merely, of course, "less wrong".

Even if it doesn’t aim to, evolution as Mayr describes it affirms our human perfection. We are the endpoint of what began as prokaryotic bacteria 3,800 million years ago. We have attained the highest level of evolution because none of the factors leading to evolution are available to us. No long-term isolation in which to foster speciation, and no evidently superior genotypes. In the end, it is a rather self-serving theory in which man is the natural star. To return to the “seriously loopy science” we have our summary of observations, and their implications, and in this story I think the crack of subjectivity is huge.

We were speaking about subjectivity in our small group meeting with Dalke and how we couldn’t view evolution from any other perspective really because we were human. I find it interesting that in the end, this theory is a way to describe humans and their superior position on the planet. And it is described as a series of natural and random events. I am amazed. With this view there is no need for a Creator, so I see now why many people are so disturbed. I was also thinking about the imaginative stories behind life on other planets. The aliens that I always knew looked like humans but their brains were even larger and their bodies wasted. I assumed that aliens were like us, though more highly evolved. Is this part of the story that we’ve created about evolution?

Mayr presents us with “a sequence of historical narratives… that may be refuted at any time,” as he shows us the ascent of man. This is not what I thought science was, but I have been instructed that science is not truth, so I follow along. In the end I don’t think that it will hold up in front of the judge; it’s all circumstantial evidence.

My favorite quote: “It would be quite irrational to question this overwhelming evidence.” (p 236)

Danielle Joseph

In our section with Professor Dalke, we tried to find the key differences between humanity, social science, and science. We realized the differences may be much more slight than we had thought- that a lot overlapped- and that it was far more difficult to find the distinguishing factors than we had thought it would be. I began to wonder about these differences.. about why some of us feel more comfortable with subjects that more often contain "right" and "wrong" answers, and a kind of concreteness, and why others of us would rather choose a subject where our own interpretation carries far more worth. I think this class especially shows the overlap between science and the humanities.. Professor Grobstein telling us that, from the scientific perspective, we have choices, and stories, and that we can make our own decisions and judgements...that there are no right answers, only less wrong ones. I'm a biology major, but don't enjoy the often tight confines of science and math courses... maybe there is some comfort in knowing that you can get a pre-set answer- that there is an answer, and that all your work has an immediate reward at the end if you're "right", but... it seems more rewarding to be able to think around a subject, for as long as you'd like, and to be able to think whichever way you've come to think, and come up with a story all your own.. it seems more productive- for yourself, and, for other people to build off of. It's not an answer... just the point you've gotten to.. and that leads to a lot more room for thinking and newer, better, less wrong stories.

I was reading back through some of Mayr's earlier chapters, and found something interesting. On page 91, Mayr's discusses the seventeen principles of inheritance. Number one says that "genes cannot be modified through the environment." I think this is a little confusing.. it seems that smoking, or exposure to the sun, can modify and damage genes... maybe he's just talking about gene modification not being able to be passed down by inheritance, but it seems like a big generalization to make. I think that Mayr's says a lot based on what has been said before, and compiles it together, but sometimes makes claims without backing them up. But, as many people have said in class.. he probably wouldn't have sold as many books if he had expressed doubt.. or maybe it just would have targeted a very different audience. Last week, I posted about how Mayr's needs to say that this is the truth- that this is correct- and that maybe his need to say it so explicitly shows some uncertainty. Throughout the book Mayr's refers to people he quotes as "famous geneticists" and famous other-fields..it's interesting that he needs to add in the word famous to validate the quotes, which he often says are so correct and so right.. maybe there is some hidden doubt there.

I really like the idea that we do not need to have a point or purpose in intellectual pursuits. What is the point of knowing what the truth is other than to satisfy curiosity or utilize it for practical purposes. Perhaps evolution selected those who were curious since such traits often times lead to fruitful discoveries. As a result fields of studies that are considered impractical are by-products of curiosity being selected by evolution. I think for me this explains my reasons for wanting to reading the newspaper, knowing what happens at the end of the movie, or discovering an interesting but totally useless fact. That "oOoooOOhHh wow" feeling that I get is simply a byproduct of curiosity for useful knowledge being selected by evolution. So maybe there is not point to some types of intellectual persuits other than its just the way it is. We have traits that came along with other benefitial traits. Such traits didnt go away even though they may  be useless because they didnt hinder our ability to survive. Of course, this is based on the idea that evoluntion is not a purposeful process. It is not that endeavors to work most efficiently but rather simply to work.

In response to Hayley's skepticism about the brain not changing, I think that it is indeed difficult to believe but not entirely implausible. I also agree there is nothing immutable except for change itself, and for the brain to not change while the tangible results and evidences of its activities have changed so significantly...this is hard to swallow. But perhaps our mental faculties and mechanisms in processing information have not and need not change too significantly for our present accumulation of human accomplishments to have resulted. Perhaps we can an ancient brain travel back to the future and still be able to teach everything we know. It's our knowledge that might have accumulated rather than the capabilities to attain that knowledge. I mean, why would it need to change so much? we as a species already is a pretty successful player at this evolutionary game.....well except when we don't conspire to blow each other up and ourselves along with it. aside from the itty bitty hindrance in evolutionary progress, we are a very viable species. no need to fix what isn't broken.

-Trinh Truong

Scientists have such a need to be sure of things. The way they teach and learn finds its basis in fact. Rarely in science, do you hear a professor label something being taught "this is the most plausible explanation" or this is the "best theory we can create based on the scientific evidence". I have talked to many students who are biology, chemistry, and physics majors, and when I ask them why they don't like non-science courses many say "because there is no definitive answer, and I need to know there is right answer". I am not sure if they were talking specifically about science in an academic setting (the teacher wants one answer that is correct, no room for personal opinion), or that science itself is constantly working toward a correct answer, and everyone in science is working toward that same answer.

The latter is what I think separates the natural sciences from other subjects such as the humanities and social sciences. In those subjects, it seems that there is much more opinion, and much more openness to conflicting theories. This, most likely has to do with the ways in which theories are negated or affirmed. The natural sciences use experiments and the scientific method to reject or affirm a theory, while the humanities mainly use the language of argument. The social sciences, on the other hand, use a combination of the two. This aspect of the natural sciences reinforces the need to be right or wrong. Either the experiment works or it doesn't. There is no middle ground that can be created by an articulate argument.

Furthermore, this difference got me thinking about what is the basic distinction between natural science, social science, and the humanities. Definitions I got from an encyclopedia state that the natural sciences use scientific method to study the laws of nature, while the social sciences use scientific method to study human behavior. The humanities, on the other hand use speculative or analytical methods other than empirical evidence. So I was a little off in my assumption, in that the social sciences use only empirical evidence. Given these facts about the nature of each academic category, it is easy to see why natural scientists feel a need to be correct, because there is a preconceived notion that there are inherent laws of nature, and therefore, a correct answer. But what if there actually are not any laws at all? What if we are working toward a correct answer that does not actually exist, but only seems to exist, or only works 99.99% of the time? What would that mean for the natural sciences?

I’ve been thinking about Professor Grobstein’s amusing recital of the “The Point” on Thursday and our brief discussion about whether or not science has to have a point.  Far be it from me to announce that all scientists are working toward some “point” or final goal, but it seems as though they do all share a driving force, curiosity.  As Shannon points out, “It is an inevitable part of exploration.”  However, aside from the initial drive towards scientific discovery, there is another element to “having a point” that I think varies from scientist to scientist. 

Whether or not the scientist tries to apply their discovery, theory, or observation to a bigger issue assigns their “point” a different level of significance.  Mayr is a prime example.  "What Evolution Is" gives the reader an in-depth picture of how evolution works, what “evidence” supports it and how some things just don’t fit as well as Mayr would like.  On top of all of this though, at least I feel, that Mayr is trying to convert people to his total acceptance of Darwinian Evolution.  He believes on some level that it is “true” and thus wants the reader to also understand its importance.  In a way, this is Mayr’s “point.”  He is trying to make an ironclad case for evolution as the only explanation for the way things are, and also convince the reader that it is in fact the only reasonable explanation.  While many scientists do not attempt to apply their findings directly to the social consciousness as Mayr does, it is useful to examine the possible “points” they may be trying to get across.

Elise

some views of literature have been put forth that i disagree with. take an excerpt from a week 2 post:

"Also take an author. An author begins to write and write and write. His first draft is rarely what is published. The piece requires countless hours of editing and revision. The piece is constantly evolving into a publishable master piece."

I think this is not a sensible way to describe evolution in regards to literature. in class we've studied that evolution is non-teleological (and this is where social darwinism gets it wrong, besides the bigotry and everything...) -- it eliminates some of the traits that don't work as well, but the "best" don't survive, simply the species that work. it shouldn't really be called "the survival of the fittest" i think it's "the survival of the fitter,"  or, best of all, "the survival of the adequately fit."

evolution does not have the creation of a master race as a goal. homo sapiens happened to evolve because of complex brain functions that prevented it from dying, not because it was meant to be the most sophisticated thing on earth. however, the poster's view of literature in the above excerpt is dreadfully teleological. she sees evolution in literature as a goal to perfection or to a "masterpiece." in this case, the writer has an idea in mind and works to get to that. this is exactly what scientific evolution is not.

a better way of thinking of evolution in literature is of the history of literature. certain themes and forms have persisted, others have not, because of changes in our society that have occurred gradually. there is nothing teleological here; people change over time. there is also no improvement here, as there is in scientific evolution, but it is not fair to see present literature as superior to past literature; the genre as a whole certainly does not evolve, and that is why the above poster wanted to talk about literary evolution in terms of one novel, not in terms of the history of the novel. a novel "evolves" in the figurative sense of the word, and this sense is wrong scientifically. we talk about how people "evolve." since this is so misleading for understanding science, we should stop right away and use more accurate words. we should say instead that people "mature" or that novels "blossom" or "progress."

Today in our group discussion, Professor Grobstein said something that caught my attention. Now, unfortunately, my memory leaves much to be desired, and I can't quite remember what it was that he said. However, I remember that it had to do with evolution and literature being trial and error.

I agree that in both literature and evolution, there is trial and error. The difference in these trials and error is that it's easier to "fix" in literature--if it's not printed out yet, you can delete the error and fix it. If it has been printed out, distributed and what not, the mistake is there, but if it is even noticed, it will soon be forgotten (or live on only in the deepest recesses of the mind). Errors in literature are human-made errors and can be fixed by humans.

In evolution, however, the "error" is the "weaker" or less desirable trait. It doesn't immediately die out--rather, it is slowly weeded out either until it is obsolete or, in time, becomes the favorable and thus, "stronger" trait. While the theory may be human made, evolution itself is not. Evolution, at least what we covered of it in class, is random. Humans have no control over it--we cannot go and fix the errors--indeed, we, or at least some of us, may be errors. Unlike literature, which, at some point is printed out and (hopefully) found to be at least satisfactory, there is no point of satisfaction in evolution--there is no one or thing to please. Whereas in literature, one may go back and fix the errors (or bring attention to it), even years later, in evolution, there is no going back, no real "fixing" because evolution depends on the environment and what the "error" is in evolution is fluid, changing with the times.

Yesterday, The New York Times Science Times included an essay, "On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty," which seems to me a pretty good test case for the story of science-as-unending-skepticism that we've been invited to entertain in this class. The essay claims that it has become so obvious that human activity is responsible for a continuing rise in average global temperature that no other explanation is plausible: "the fact of global warming itself can now be considered 'unequivocal'...11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide...the most striking aspect of the 2007 report [of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is the sheer number and variety of directly observed ways in which global warming is already having a 'likely' or 'very likely' impact on the earth."

And then comes the caveat:

"to say that reasonable doubt is vanishing does not mean there is no doubt at all. Many gaps remain in knowledge about the climate system. Scientists do make mistakes, and in any case science continually evolves and changes. That is why the panel's findings, synthesized from a vast body of scientific studies, are generally couched in terms of probabilities and sometimes substantial margins of error..."

So: do you "believe" the findings of the panel? Or is that now the "wrong" question to ask--and to try to answer?

in class today prof. dalke reminded me that the "fail better" quote is by beckett. this is really interesting and points out a huge problem in smith's essay. what smith conveniently doesn't tell is us that beckett is known for having said, "qu'importe qui parle" or "it doesn't matter who is speaking" which means that he is in direct opposition to the ideology smith puts forth in her essay! if smith were a foucauldian, this wouldn't matter, because she could use beckett's words however she wanted. however, as we know this essay very well by now, smith thinks she knows beckett's personality from having read him; she thinks she's getting at his "essence" by quoting him. to look at this from the point of view of foucault's studies on power, she is manipulating his words to assert control, authority. as i have argued in my "recent blog post" on the smith essay, smith takes a rather didactic tone to reestablish the author as controller of the meaning of the text.

clearly we have seen that smith is wrong. she is, to quote modern french scholars at the academie, "failing worse."

--la marquise de merteuil