Week2 EvolStories

Biological evolution is something that I've always been taught and that I've never questioned. I was never a big believer in the story of Creation, but I thought it was nice to hear as a child. I guess until now I've never thought about evolution in other contexts. I mean technology and other things are constantly changing, constantly progressing, but I guess I've always thought of that has the human mind evolving, not exactly the technology itself. Now that I think about it, everything is constantly changing, evolving. Things change as a reaction to an internal or an external stimulus, such as an environmental constraint when thinking about biological evolution. Take for example, a piece of colored paper, when left in the sun, it eventually becomes lighter and lighter until all of the color fades away. Is that piece of paper not evolving with the environmental pressures the sun puts upon it? Or take a poem or a piece of literature? With each reading the mind pulls more information out of the piece, whether it is concretely there or inferred. 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 guess now, I see that evolution can be applied across the charts, with anything that changes over time as a result of some pressure.

Two discussion topics from Thursday have been bugging me over the weekend.

Firstly, we fell into the habit of talking about "higher evolved" or "more evolved", as if both of these were desirable traits. While we did address the idea that evolution isn't like steps on a ladder - it is about adaptability, the concept of being more "highly evolved" as intelligent and true is worrying.

Sure, humanity has done a pretty good job of surviving as whole. But so has the cockroach. Which one of us if more highly evolved? Humans may be (or seem, since it is a relative matter) more complex and have undergone more changes as a species, but the cockroach has proven highly adaptable.

It would seem then that the cockroach has reached a "higher" stage of evolution, since it has found a form which has proven resilient in a range of conditions.

Secondly, we mentioned that there is comfort in stories. I have heard that communities are defined by their stories. Stories offer a sense of idenity.

In addition, stories provide a social norm in an uncertain world. So the continued unresolved question is: why do we want security? Personally, I think there is a matter of simplicity. Also, it is easier to make risk assessments when you have something constant.

Maybe people are lazy. Or energy efficient.

One thing that really struck me about the conversation we had in professor Grobstein’s group on Thursday was the distinction made between the external nature of science and the internal nature of the humanities. It seemed as though we were discussing the humanities as if they resulted from humans’ desires to understand themselves and the sciences as reflections of our need to understand the external world apart from ourselves.  I agree that this distinction can be useful, but in light of focusing on evolution through reading Mayr, I’m not so sure that this distinction is as absolute as we had previously thought.

 Despite the seeming objectivity of science and its emphasis on nonhuman ideas and entities, it seems to me that everything in science is at least subtly, if not overtly, the result of humanity’s need to understand its place in the world.  Evolution is the most obvious example of this, but anything from geology to astronomy to chemistry is at some basic level an exploration how humanity came to be as it is today and an investigation of our place in the universe with which we interact.  It is this quest for understanding that causes stories to develop out of scientific knowledge.  There is an underlying need for explanation of how the world works in relation to our own existence.  The question of why things are the way they are is where the sciences and the humanities seem to overlap.  Both types of study attempt to answer this question in varying degrees, but neither can provide the definitive answer.  While the sciences can continually refine explanations, the root or "truth" can never actually be reached.  The humanities can try to address the “why” issue through personal, more overtly human creations, but essentially this type of explanation will be different for every person.  At least in my opinion, science and the humanities are driven by the same ultimate, distinctly human, questions, but attempt to answer them in different ways. 

Elise

I am having a difficult time working with the idea that there is no “truth”. The story of evolution as presented to me by Mayr still feels like the process is leading somewhere, towards something better. This teleological view is rejected adamantly, but I can’t help but see that as we evolve we are getting better, “getting it less wrong”. Survival of the fittest ensures that those organisms that are the most suited to their environment will survive. Evolution, in getting it less wrong, must be leading somewhere more right. I have a feeling that this stems from my inability to really comprehend the infinite “nature” of the universe, time and space. Whatever the cause, I remain unconvinced.

I have also been thinking about de-evolution and how humans with all of their medical technology are living longer lives. This evolution of thought and ideas is really amazing and allows us to drive cars and perform complex surgeries. It also though has led to global warming which could be the cause of our extinction. Human logic is what separates us from other animals. We have locked other animals up or caused their extinction, and these seemingly wonderful technologies are actually leading to our demise. I am not beyond having faith that we may step forward again and develop more sustainable technologies, but it seems as though the past two hundred years have been a horribly failing experiment that no one wants to pull the plug on.

Danielle Joseph

In my smaller group on Thursday, with Professor Dalke, we discussed Mayr and the concept of scientific stories.  We discussed the usefulness of a scientific story needing a reader to interpret it.  I think that there is the necessity for the story interpretted, and, at the same time, I feel like we're going to interpret the story probably differently that intended, had there been an intention, just because we all think and observe so differently.  I like the idea of there being no right- no absolute truth.  If we know we'll never be right, and by default, always be wrong, to one degree or another, it seems it makes guessing- venturing out- less intimidating.  In our society, we aim to be "right".  More often than not, we're given quizzes asking about characters, or facts, or equations, with a right and wrong answer.  We study and memorize to prove to others, but more, ourselves, that we're capable.  By there not being a right answer, or a right answer we'll be able to attain, the emphasis is less on memorizing or learning a specific way, but more on seeing what our own brains and observing capabilties can offer.  Applying this to Mayr's story of evolution, I like the ideas behind the story, and I like that there are things we can see, if we choose, to make the story more credible.  I don't like the authoritive tone the book is set in, and I don't like being told that this is right and that we're finally being told the truth.  To me, it seems that if someone needs to say that- to state it, so explicitly, then there must be some sufficient doubt about truth- maybe just the concept, but it seems interesting that Mayr's needs to state that his story is the right story so strongly.  Maybe he's just trying to recruit people to believe his story, and feels that this confidence is the way to do so... either way, I'd rather have the story presented to me, with no forceful opinion, letting me make up my mind.  I think, because of how little we know about the world, the universe, we can't say that this is the "right" story or this is how it definitely happened. The best we can say is this is what we're thinking now.. the story as we have it up until now.   

Hmm..
We established in class last week that there are two types of stories - the narrative and non-narrative, non-narratives being static and narratives changing over time. While finishing Mayr's What Evolution Is, I came to realize that his tone and structure classified him as the quintessential non-narrative story teller. That is, he relays the story of evolution in black and white terms, with no room for objections or for alternatives.
With all of this in mind, I find myself still frustrated. I am dissatisfied with the idea that evolution is a non-narrative story. It seems so paradoxical that what is defined as a series of changes is a story that stays the same. I don't understand why we can assume that this is the end of the line of evolution and that we are not going to become for future generations what are ancestors are to us now. How can we be so sure that this is it, that we have it all figured out, and that this story really is a non-narrative one? I am not implying that we are on our way to evolving into some new species in a few billion years, but I do not see how we can say that evolution stops at this point. Certainly Mayr does not wish to compromise his authority on evolution, and he knows a lot more than I do, hence why his stance is so black and white throughout the book. 
The mixture of personalities (or more appropriately, "readers") in our group discussion on Thursday emphasizes the importance of the self in analyzing a story. Was I really the only one who found the idea of humans evolving by spontaneity a comfort? The reader, then, is the ultimate receptor of the story, and it is up to him or her to give it meaning.

The discussion we had on Thursday about people trying to turn science from a narrative story into a non-narrative story was constantly on my mind as I was doing the reading in Mayr and as I got further into the book I realized that Mayr was definitely one of those people.  As Mayr was describing the discoveries that people had made that created widespread acceptance for evolution he described them in an odd way. All of these discoveries were described in a way that made them seem as though all of these discoveries and conclusions had just been puzzle pieces that the scientists had found that revealed this pre-existing truth. He writes about the ideas people had before evolution was fully accepted as though they were the opinions of stupid hacks who did not know what they were doing. It is one thing to bee sure in an opinion but quite another to scorn all other opinions. Mayr seems to be so sure in the truth of the evolution story that he holds nothing but disdain for all other stories even if they were formulated before the observations that led scientists to the evolution story.

I've heard Paul talk about "science as story" quite a few times (the last couple of versions focused on whether there is life on Mars, and the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami , as starting points for a story of story-telling). Each time 'round, with each refinement, I find myself picking up some new ideas. What excited me first, last week, was the question of whether "seriously loopy science" could only be conducted by humans (I think not, and I found a great article this week, by Mitch Resnick, called " Like a Tree, " which suggests that plants also engage in this observation-making/story-altering process: its about a 'walking tree' in Costa Rica that actually changes its location over time).

I also found myself quite struck by a second observation which arose at the end of last Tuesday's lecture about the move from non-narrative to narrative story-telling (from static to historical accounts of why-things-are): the idea that, in our desire and search for fixed truths, we loop back again to "non-narrative" story-telling, accounts that don't change (or that we hope won't change) over time.

Discussion across the hall in Group A on Thursday, as Megan said, focused on who the readers of this scientific story are. We found ourselves grouped along quite a few different axes (and haven't figured out yet if/how those groups intersect). Some of us look for characters, others for ideas; some of us want facts, others concepts; some of us are scientists, some humanists, some social scientists; some of us are believers (looking to be convinced), others are skeptics (needing to be convinced), others are cynics (seemingly "unconvinceable"). We spent some time considering the usefulness of the both the believing and doubting games as complementary ways toward understanding: trying on a story, trying to think of reasons to believe it, trying to add evidence to make it work, can be useful tools to complement the activities of questioning logic, evidence and scope.

We also spent some time thinking about our own observations of the processes of evolution, and some more time trying to figure out if/how the story of evolution could be "useful" in our own lives. What difference does it make, to "believe" or "use" this story to make sense of the ways things are?

          In Thursday's group discussion with Professor Dalke, we continued to discuss how the person telling the story is reflected within the text, and therefore there is no such thing as "the view from nowhere". That is, the "self" that Zadie Smith talked about in "Fail Better" is as apparent in nonfiction as it is in fiction. 
       I found myself continually thinking about this while reading chapters 4-8. A reason why we can never find "truth" is because we can never be told the truth; we have no perfect way of expressing genuine information. Mayr's words are his own, and his intentions are completely evident, and while his story is obviously opinionated, to a degree all stories are. In this way, we can never arrive at a complete story. There are differences in the way that each individual sees things and reports information, from the way that we view material in class to completing a police report. Therefore, variations exist as much in nature as they do in literature, and furthermore, in all aspects of human observation. 
         Even our own observations are as variable as hearing about those observations from others. I find this whole concept very frustrating. I suppose, as much as I don't want to admit it, I do want to know the "truth", and this view of never reaching it seems completely cynical.  

I had a great experience in Professor Grobstein's "small group discussion on Thursday! Even though we did not directly cover the material addressed in Mayr's book, we individually discussed our feelings on the conglomeration of science and the humanities. The pondering questions in our discussion that I found most interesting was why does society think that there must be a "black & white" answer to science, while ambiguity in the humanities is accepted without debate. I feel that this notion of the scientific "correct" answer is taught to us in middle and high school. At least in my biology and chemistry classes, the instructors acted as if there was no room for debate whether or not you did an experiment wrong... if it didn't turn out the way they expected, you basically "failed" the experiment.

Another thought as to why society expects straight answers from science is the fact that scientists are expected to be very intelligent individuals, experts in their fields. Society questions a scientist's credibility when he or she does not know the concrete answer... but they are only human. Besides, laypeople believe that scientific discoveries act as a bunch of chain links... one discovery leads to another-- and another--- and another. I would be extremely pissed off if I were a scientist investigating, spending years upon years researching something that I thought was concrete, when it in fact could be interpreted many different ways by anyone (such as the case with poetry). People assume that one discovery is perfectly "black and white" for another big discovery to branch from it. If only science were that simple... the greatest discoveries occur when an individual, not necessarily a world renound scientist, mind you, makes a mistake & gets something "less wrong"!

In class on Tuesday, we discussed how the evolutionary theory that Mayr describes in his book, since he thinks he has found the “truth” about evolution, is non-narrative (static).  In fact the theory of evolution is more of a narrative, ever changing.  This got me thinking about what the future and its more accurate “summary of observations,” due to numerous amounts of experiments testing the theory of evolution, will bring to the ever evolving story of how organisms have evolved. 

Once upon a time, many people believed that animals and plants were placed on the earth by an ever powerful being.  They were placed on an earth where life did not evolve, and where there was no such thing as genetic mutations.  This theory was based on their “summary of observations.”  It seemed to them that there was no change to the life on earth, since evolution occurs over millions of years, so their predictions appeared to be correct.

Although I have never witnessed evolution, I trust that the evolutionary theory is “more less wrong” than the story of all of life being placed on this earth, due to studying about others’ “summary of observations,” and looking at the fossil record.  So essentially we have produced a theory that is more “less wrong” than our ancestors.  Perhaps our predecessors will say the same about us.  What if, in the future, our idea of evolution is so more wrong that it is rejected, as our ancestors’ ideas have been?

Andrea Zambetti