These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
What's the correct way to think about evolution from you point of view, David? mike On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:39 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote: > Andy: > > I'm assuming that "Halime" is a GIRL's name. "Halima" is a girl's name in > Arabic. I thought that was the whole point; there was a certain conflict > (precisely over the question of what constitutes a "good life" for a Muslim > girl) between parents and teachers. > > In honor of Darwin's 150th, and the centennial of Origin of Species, I have > a question about REDUCTIONISM that might be pertinent here. > > As is well known, Darwin shares the honor of discovering the basic > mechanism of evolution with Wallace. But this is a little like saying that > Vygotsky shares the honor of discovering the basic mechanism of mediation > with Leontiev. > > Darwin (the fox) saw adaptation as only ONE of many mechanisms of evolution > (though it is true that he saw it as the most important one).This > position is represented in our own time by the late Stephen J. Gould, who > has made arguments for exaptation which are very "exaptable" for explaining > sociocultural APPROPRIATION of the biological endowment of higher primates. > > Wallace the hedgehog insisted that adaptation was really the ONLY mechanism > of evolution. This position is represented in our own time by Richard > Dawkins, who has argued that bodies are really just "gene-replication > devices" and their drives are reducible, without remainder, to the selfish > tendencies of their genes. This is argument is very congenial to > evolutionary psychology, and in fact has been appropriated by the likes of > Steven Pinker, Paul Bloom, etc. > > It will be seen that the Wallace-Dawkins-Pinker version of evolutionary > theory is downward reductionist, in much the same way that a psychology > based on the same analytical unit as behavior (viz. mediated action) has to > be. It takes the species as the explanandum and offers the gene as the sole > explanans, just as attempts to explain consciousness as the ideal > precipitate of "activity" take "action" as the explanandum and offer > "mediation" as the sole explanans. > > The response to this would be that "exaptation" is a wastebasket category > for everything that isn't be genetically encoded but is still handy to have > around and that the Darwin-Gould version is handwaving and upward > reductionist in much the same way that a psychology based entirely on > concepts such as "the good life" or "institutional conflict" has to be. But > of course that's not MY response! > > David Kellogg > Seoul National University of Education > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca