Why 90% of biological science is stuck in the dark age.

[chaz wyman]

http://www.ted.com/talks/edith_widder_t ... cence.html

I found this to be a fascinating look into the depths.
But the woman who has spetd her life underwater is stuck in a philosophically naive world of teleology.
She has to account for bioluminescence as FOR something. She is asking the wrong question. It is as if Descartes had never dismissed Aristotle's teleology.
Her claims are self contradictory. Bioluminescence has to be first an foremost an efficient consequence of the chemistry of living processes. We need look no further, and we should certainly not pretend that it has the 'purpose' of defence, especially when she demonstrates later in the video that bioluminescence acts as a lure for predation.
This girl is confused.
She has taken evolution as a cause rather than an effect.

[John]

Interesting video, cheers.

Her claims are self contradictory. Bioluminescence has to be first an foremost an efficient consequence of the chemistry of living processes. We need look no further, and we should certainly not pretend that it has the 'purpose' of defence, especially when she demonstrates later in the video that bioluminescence acts as a lure for predation.
This girl is confused.
She has taken evolution as a cause rather than an effect.

I thought she was contradicting herself as well but she then said "But if it's a burglar alarm, you wouldn't expect it to attack the jellyfish directly. It's supposed to be attacking what's attacking the jellyfish" so I took it to mean that bioluminesence acts as a defence because it draws others predators that will attack the original predator giving the source of the light a chance to escape.

To be honest I didn't really get a sense that she was claiming that bioluminesence developed to be an effective defence mechanism just that it evolved and was an effective defence mechanism. I'd need to watch again though say that for sure though so I may be wrong.

[chaz wyman]

Interesting video, cheers.

Her claims are self contradictory. Bioluminescence has to be first an foremost an efficient consequence of the chemistry of living processes. We need look no further, and we should certainly not pretend that it has the 'purpose' of defence, especially when she demonstrates later in the video that bioluminescence acts as a lure for predation.
This girl is confused.
She has taken evolution as a cause rather than an effect.

I thought she was contradicting herself as well but she then said "But if it's a burglar alarm, you wouldn't expect it to attack the jellyfish directly. It's supposed to be attacking what's attacking the jellyfish" so I took it to mean that bioluminesence acts as a defence because it draws others predators that will attack the original predator giving the source of the light a chance to escape.

To be honest I didn't really get a sense that she was claiming that bioluminesence developed to be an effective defence mechanism just that it evolved and was an effective defence mechanism. I'd need to watch again though say that for sure though so I may be wrong.

My opinion was that she was labouring under a compulsion to try to offer some sort of explanation in survival terms, but that she really did not have any kind of a story to tell.
It's just another example of the overblown significance of Darwinian theory.
The fact is that within the theory you don't have to explain anything at all.
All traits have to precede selection, and nothing has to be explained in teleological terms of adaptation.
As long as any trait does not significantly impede survival it can persist.
All you really need to do is explain phenomena in terms of efficient cause. And I think BL is a case in point - nothing more than a co-incidental by product of bio-chemistry that has varying degrees of usefulness, or insignificance.

[John]

My opinion was that she was labouring under a compulsion to try to offer some sort of explanation in survival terms, but that she really did not have any kind of a story to tell.
It's just another example of the overblown significance of Darwinian theory.
The fact is that within the theory you don't have to explain anything at all.
All traits have to precede selection, and nothing has to be explained in teleological terms of adaptation.
As long as any trait does not significantly impede survival it can persist.
All you really need to do is explain phenomena in terms of efficient cause. And I think BL is a case in point - nothing more than a co-incidental by product of bio-chemistry that has varying degrees of usefulness, or insignificance.

I agree entirely but I'd need to watch the video again to come to any specific conclusion about it on that matter (and it's late and I need my bed). I have a suspicion though that popular nature programs, and maybe popular lectures like this, often have a habit of using teleological shorthand because they seem to think it's easier to talk about, for example, the markings on a butterfly in terms of something it developed to survive as opposed to something it developed accidentally that allowed it to survive. I recall a warning to look out for such things when I was studying the implications of Darwinism a few years back anyway.

[chaz wyman]

My opinion was that she was labouring under a compulsion to try to offer some sort of explanation in survival terms, but that she really did not have any kind of a story to tell.
It's just another example of the overblown significance of Darwinian theory.
The fact is that within the theory you don't have to explain anything at all.
All traits have to precede selection, and nothing has to be explained in teleological terms of adaptation.
As long as any trait does not significantly impede survival it can persist.
All you really need to do is explain phenomena in terms of efficient cause. And I think BL is a case in point - nothing more than a co-incidental by product of bio-chemistry that has varying degrees of usefulness, or insignificance.

I agree entirely but I'd need to watch the video again to come to any specific conclusion about it on that matter (and it's late and I need my bed). I have a suspicion though that popular nature programs, and maybe popular lectures like this, often have a habit of using teleological shorthand because they seem to think it's easier to talk about, for example, the markings on a butterfly in terms of something it developed to survive as opposed to something it developed accidentally that allowed it to survive. I recall a warning to look out for such things when I was studying the implications of Darwinism a few years back anyway.

I'm glad you understand the problem - so few seem to.

I'd like to believe that this sort of error is due to offering something for public consumption- though that does not excuse the error- its bad enough trying to fend off Intelligent design in the public imagination, without adding to the problem.
But I don't think it is the case. I tend to think that people doing REAL biological science are just philosophically naive. I know a professor of genetics and I find her grasp of this problem somewhat disappointing.
Part of the problem might be in understanding what sort of research attracts funding.

[John]

Even Dawkins is guilty of teleological shorthand when he refers to "selfish genes" because of course genes have no desires or wants in themselves be he obviously feels it's a useful metaphor. Unfortunately it's a metaphor that's been taken out of context and used to attack Darwinism though.

I found this extract from the text book I was alluding to earlier which I think provides a good example:

Even Darwinians frequently use teleological forms of explanation as shorthand in contexts where they are well aware that the real Darwinian explanation should be non-teleological. For example:

Teleological shorthand:
Stoats used to moult and grow a white coat in winter, to be less
conspicuous in the snow, and then change back to brown in the spring.
Now there isn’t so much snow it is safer for them to stay brown all year.
That is why ermine is even rarer than it used to be.

Non-teleological Darwinian explanation:
Stoats that happened to grow a white coat after their autumn moult
were less conspicuous in the snow than the ones that stayed brown, and
were less easily seen by predators. More of them therefore survived the
winter, and produced offspring which also turned white in winter. But
as the climate changed and winters were no longer snowy, the white
stoats were more easily picked off by predators than the brown, and the
brown ones became the ones that survived the winter and produced
offspring afterwards. This is why white stoats are now rare, and ermine
is even rarer than it used to be.
The teleological shorthand is convenient but potentially misleading, because it gives the impression that the stoats, or the designer of the stoats, planned this as a way of making sure stoats kept going. Darwinian evolution has no plans at all, and it is important to remember what the full Darwinian form should be.

(Janet Radcliffe Richards, (2002) Human Nature after Darwin, p36-37, The Open University)

[chaz wyman]

Even Dawkins is guilty of teleological shorthand when he refers to "selfish genes" because of course genes have no desires or wants in themselves be he obviously feels it's a useful metaphor. Unfortunately it's a metaphor that's been taken out of context and used to attack Darwinism though.

I found this extract from the text book I was alluding to earlier which I think provides a good example:

Even Darwinians frequently use teleological forms of explanation as shorthand in contexts where they are well aware that the real Darwinian explanation should be non-teleological. For example:

Teleological shorthand:
Stoats used to moult and grow a white coat in winter, to be less
conspicuous in the snow, and then change back to brown in the spring.
Now there isn’t so much snow it is safer for them to stay brown all year.
That is why ermine is even rarer than it used to be.

Non-teleological Darwinian explanation:
Stoats that happened to grow a white coat after their autumn moult
were less conspicuous in the snow than the ones that stayed brown, and
were less easily seen by predators. More of them therefore survived the
winter, and produced offspring which also turned white in winter. But
as the climate changed and winters were no longer snowy, the white
stoats were more easily picked off by predators than the brown, and the
brown ones became the ones that survived the winter and produced
offspring afterwards. This is why white stoats are now rare, and ermine
is even rarer than it used to be.
The teleological shorthand is convenient but potentially misleading, because it gives the impression that the stoats, or the designer of the stoats, planned this as a way of making sure stoats kept going. Darwinian evolution has no plans at all, and it is important to remember what the full Darwinian form should be.

(Janet Radcliffe Richards, (2002) Human Nature after Darwin, p36-37, The Open University)

Excellent. It is puzzling and unfortunate. I do think it leads to a basic misconception about the nature of living things.
Susan Blackmore and Steve Pinker are dreadful and I think they go so far as to cross the line.

Some example are far more subtle and dangerous. Something as basic as a ' a kidney is for the excretion of waste', ought to be ' a kidney excretes waste'.

It is almost as if humans are incapable of avoiding this sort of language.
I did come across a paper once called something like the 'evolution of purpose' which suggested that this tendency to see the world in teleological terms is actually an adaptation. Primitive humans that had this trait, it claimed, were better able to see the world in terms of its utility and found objects in the natural environment that they assumed were put there for there own benefit: whilst humans that did not think this way were at a disadvantage. Thinking that the world has been put there for you to use leads to God and all that jazz.
I wish I knew where I found the paper - !! (If only I had had a purpose for it at the time!!)

I think there is a serious problem with this tendency in science, in that the especially popularist view leads to intelligent design and creationism. Every time a scientist is too lazy to use proper language there is some kid thinking that thinks the world is purposeful.

[Izzywizzy]

Chaz this threads opening post by you started well but now you have gone off track to talk about other theories

[Notvacka]

It is almost as if humans are incapable of avoiding this sort of language...

I did come across a paper once called something like the 'evolution of purpose' which suggested that this tendency to see the world in teleological terms is actually an adaptation. Primitive humans that had this trait, it claimed, were better able to see the world in terms of its utility and found objects in the natural environment that they assumed were put there for there own benefit: whilst humans that did not think this way were at a disadvantage.

This seems like a very reasonable theory. The human mind excels in recognizing patterns, to the point of creating patterns where there are none. And interpreting the world as intentionally purposeful seems like an advantageous approach.

It might be mere prejudice, but I also believe there is some truth to biologists being less stringent than physicists and mathematicians, for instance.

A mathematician, a physicist and a biologist are riding a train through Scotland.

The biologist looks out the window, sees a black sheep and exclaims, "Hey! The sheep are black in Scotland!"

The physicist looks out the window and corrects the biologist, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black."

The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, " Strictly speaking, all we know is that at least one side of one sheep in Scotland is black."

[chaz wyman]

Chaz this threads opening post by you started well but now you have gone off track to talk about other theories

No really. If you follow it carefully you will see that we are still talking about people's tendency to think in teleological terms, which for scientists recasts the world as a purposeful one.

My last post merely pointed to a paper that suggested that early man's tendency to think that Nature is adjust to human purpose might have been useful and this might explain why the tendency, so often seen in religious thinking is so common.

[i blame blame]

This seems like a very reasonable theory. The human mind excels in recognizing patterns, to the point of creating patterns where there are none. And interpreting the world as intentionally purposeful seems like an advantageous approach.

It might be mere prejudice, but I also believe there is some truth to biologists being less stringent than physicists and mathematicians, for instance.

A mathematician, a physicist and a biologist are riding a train through Scotland.

The biologist looks out the window, sees a black sheep and exclaims, "Hey! The sheep are black in Scotland!"

The physicist looks out the window and corrects the biologist, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black."

The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, " Strictly speaking, all we know is that at least one side of one sheep in Scotland is black."

As your joke implies, physicists sometimes also lack stringency, when informally saying that a bound electron "wants" to be on the lowest possible energy level.

[chaz wyman]

This seems like a very reasonable theory. The human mind excels in recognizing patterns, to the point of creating patterns where there are none. And interpreting the world as intentionally purposeful seems like an advantageous approach.

It might be mere prejudice, but I also believe there is some truth to biologists being less stringent than physicists and mathematicians, for instance.

A mathematician, a physicist and a biologist are riding a train through Scotland.

The biologist looks out the window, sees a black sheep and exclaims, "Hey! The sheep are black in Scotland!"

The physicist looks out the window and corrects the biologist, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black."

The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, " Strictly speaking, all we know is that at least one side of one sheep in Scotland is black."

As your joke implies, physicists sometimes also lack stringency, when informally saying that a bound electron "wants" to be on the lowest possible energy level.

It's much worse. Susan Blackmore is convinced that what she calls memes and temes (things like wearing baseball hats on backwards, and folding the ends of toilet paper in a certain way) , Are "using you to replicate themselves because they want to survive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_9-Qx5Hz4

This is simply no way to understand complex cultural phenomena!!

[John]

It's much worse. Susan Blackmore is convinced that what she calls memes and temes (things like wearing baseball hats on backwards, and folding the ends of toilet paper in a certain way) , Are "using you to replicate themselves because they want to survive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_9-Qx5Hz4

This is simply no way to understand complex cultural phenomena!!

You sure she said that? I don't quite have the time to watch the video at the moment but I was surprised that she'd say that so I had a quick search of the transcript on the TED site and couldn't find where she said it.

Edit: found it, as per the post below.

[John]

I should have looked harder.

I assume this is the bit: "So think of it this way. Imagine a world full of brains and far more memes than can possibly find homes. The memes are all trying to get copied, trying, in inverted commas, i.e., that's the shorthand for, if they can get copied they will. They're using you and me as their propagating copying machinery, and we are the meme machines."

I'll need to watch the full thing but I think I'd probably forgive her as she makes it clear that she's using shorthand.

[Notvacka]

It's much worse. Susan Blackmore is convinced that what she calls memes and temes (things like wearing baseball hats on backwards, and folding the ends of toilet paper in a certain way) , Are "using you to replicate themselves because they want to survive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_9-Qx5Hz4

She obviously doesn't mean that literally, any more than Dawkins ever meant that genes are consciously selfish.