Re: Whitehead on Deduction (fwd)

[Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Due to critical responses to my last message, I am finalizing my remarks for purposes of clarification. thanks.
 

John, I will be brief. Honestly, I discussed Dawkin's book in several other occasions so I am somewhat bored with it. You asked me, and I cited  information. You should see the responses to Dawkins' hypothetical assumptions about human nature and genetic determinism by biologists and geneticists. Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose's book _Not in Our Genes: Biology, Human Nature, and Ideology_ is a perfect scientific work to start with.
 

>John M. Legge wrote:

> >Dawkins is Professor of the Understanding
> of Science and is >not a
> >sociobiologist.
This is what is written in his biography. According to the
information below, he also studied *zoology*.

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/bio.htm

Studied at Oxford University and graduated in 1962
Remained at Oxford to work for his doctorate with ethnologist Niko Tinbergen
Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley 1967-1969
Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College from 1970
Published his first book, The Selfish Gene in 1976
Holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science 1995 

>  >In his "Selfish Gene" he makes
> it quite clear that the
> >evolution of human society is not repeat not based in
> genetics,
Without my interpretation, John, Dawkins exactly says this:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins/

"It rapidly became clear to me that the most
imaginative way of looking at evolution, and the
most inspiring way of teaching it, was to say that
it's all about the genes. It's the genes that, for
their own good, are manipulating the
bodies  they ride about in. The individual organism is a
survival machine for its genes".

Dawkins fundamentally shares the socio-biological assumption that genetic differences determine all forms of social behavior. He sets the argument that gene is the unit of "heredity" that evolves independently of external factors. He further attibutes assumptions like "selfishness" to how genes are fundamentally organized, and behave .

Further excerpts from his book, _Selfish Gene_

In the beginning of his book, Dawkins provocatively reminds us that he is *not* doing a normative science.  Furthermore, he argues that he wants to understand the human begins as they have evolved.

http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/selfish.htm

Chapter 1

"I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity".

Chapter 7 - Family Planning

"Individuals who have too many children are penalized, not because the whole population goes extinct, but simply because fewer of their children survive.... There is no need for altruistic restraint in the birth-rate, because there is no welfare state in nature. Any gene for overindulgence is promptly punished: the children  containing that gene starve....Contraception is sometimes attacked as 'unnatural'. So it is, very unnatural. The trouble is, so is the welfare state. I think that most of us believe the welfare state is highly desirable. But you cannot have an unnatural welfare state, unless you also have unnatural birthcontrol, otherwise the end result
will be misery even greater than that which obtains in nature".

Chapter 8 - Battle of the Generations

"I am treating a mother as a machine programmed to do everything in its power to propagate copies of the genes which ride inside it".

Chapter 9 - Battle of the Sexes

"Each individual wants as many surviving children as possible. The less he or she is obliged to invest in any one of those children, the more children he or she can have. The obvious way to achieve this desirable state of affairs is to induce your sexual partner to invest more than his or her fair share of resources in each child, leaving you free to have other children with other partners. This would be a desirable strategy for either sex,  but it is more difficult for the female to achieve...

Of course in many species the father does work hard and faithfully at looking after the young. But even so, we must expect that there will normally be some evolutionary pressure on males to invest a little bit less in each child, and to try to have more children by different wives".
 

> >excepting
> >the  obvious point that physical human beings are
> the result of >a sequence
> >of genetically determined evolutionary changes.
This is a determinist version of evolutionary theory. 
Some evolutionary biologists like Stephen Gould argues that evolution is
*not* predetermined. On the contrary, it is open to contingency, interference
and other enviromental factors, which do not necessarily derive from our
genes. Evolution is a kind of adaptation to changing environment. There
are non-predictive results on the way that that can create a better evolutionary
strategy for survival.  Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence
in DAwkins' argument that (see the battle of sexes) genes provide a basis
for the need for a child by women, and that this is a necessary evolutionary
strategy in the long run. Many findings on hormonal abnormalities show 
there are androgen insensitive chromosomal males around. they are equally
preoccupied with caring children and nurturant towards their infants as
women.  Dawkins' argument is sexist and misogonist par excellence,
besides other things.  When we also turn more direct evidence on biology,
we find no direct research on the genetic basis of reproduction. On the
contrary, there is a substantial evidence that non-biological mothers,
men, can parent as adequately as women. Moreover, the extend of sex variation
varies among societies. For example, people of both sexes in one culture 
may be taller on average, or have more body hair  or stronger muscles
than people of both sexes in other cultures. Despite our biological characteristics
as men and women,  or individuals, biological bases of sex or other
differences in behavior is very hard to formulate or substantiate. And
I have ZERO confidence in arguments that say otherwise!!! 
 
> >I am not aware of any
> >non-crank who disputes the genetic basis of biological
> >evolution.
Bingo!! You should be aware of then. Peterson is a well known
socio-biologist and an authoritative figure in the discipline of socio-biology;
he is a self-proclaimed fascist, brought to US by an anti-Semite. He is
also a member of the  Northern League. He is  the writer of 
famous book_Eugenics and Race_.  Furthermore,  Peterson was an
adviser to Reagen administration at some point in the past, I forget when.
The man is the editor of _Mankind Quarterly_. This journal is the most
"prestigious",  "scientific"  and "objective" journal in evolutionary
sciences . Peterson is also in the editorialship of several other scientific
magazines, and dominates the Washington based  Center for Economic
and Political Studies, and its journal JPES. The Mankind Quarterly publishes
in topics related to eugenics and evolutionary phschology by scientists
like Lynn, Rushton and Peterson. I guess you know who Rushton is. The journal 
publishes articles so called  "Virtues in Racism" (http://www.mankind.org/index.html)
or critiques of anti-discrimnation laws by Washington policy analysts in
its co-associate JPSES.
> >The
> >fundamental premise of sociobiology is based on a genetic
> >analogy, not
> >genetics,
Briefly defined, socio-biologists are those who believe in
genetically transmitted differences and biological bases of all forms of
social behavior (culture, politics, economics, race, gender). In other
words, genes set limits to social environment and culture. Even though
socio-biologists recognize the role of social environment, they derive
cultural differences from genetic differences. The idea that people differ 
because they differ genetically is called  RACISM, broadly speaking.

Edward  Wilson, says the following in introduction to What
    is Sociobiology_:

 "Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, including sexual and parental behavior, in all kinds of organisms including humans. As such, it is a discipline inevitable discipline, since there must be a systematic study of social behavior. Sociobiology consists mostly of zoology. About 90 percent of its current material concerns animals, even though over 90 percent of the attention given to sociobiology by  nonscientists, and especially journalists, is due to its possible applications to the study of human social behavior.
    There is nothing unusual about deriving principles and methods, and even terminology, from intensive examinations of  lower organisms and applying them to the study of human beings. Most of the fundamental principles of genetics and
    biochemistry applied to human biology are based on colon bacteria, fruit flies, and white rats. To say that the same  science can be applied to human beings is not to reduce humanity to the status of these simpler creatures".
    (http://www.runet.edu/~lridener/courses/SOCBIO.HTML)

    (From Edward O. Wilson, "Introduction: What is Sociobiology?" In Michael S. Gregory, Anita Silvers, and Diane Such
    (Eds.). 1978. Sociobiology and Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Critique and Defense. San Francisco, CA:
    Jossey-Bass, pp.
    1 - 12.)
 

> >Sociobiologists have
> >not been able to turn this insight into the basis of
> a predictive >science
> >but are good at developing plausible explanations of
> behaviour >post facto.
Please, see the responses to socio-biologists by geneticists
and evolutionary biologists. The first is a direct response to Richard
Dawkins.

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Not_in_Our_Genes.html
 
                                Not In Our Genes

                                 Biology, Ideology and Human Nature

                         Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose + Leon
                                        J. Kamin

                                        Random House 1984

                   A book review by Danny Yee <danny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

          Not In Our Genes is a brilliant attack on reductionist claims that there is  a biologically determined "human nature".

               Do you think the concept of "race" means anything? 85% of all human  genetic variation is intra-population, 7% intra-race and only 8%  inter-racial.

               Do you think that "intelligence" is inherited? There is no compelling   evidence that the heritability of I.Q. is anything other than 0.

               Do you think the differences between men and women are genetically and biologically ordained? Read chapter 6 and think again.

               Are you worried about attempts to "fix" individuals to fit society, rather than fixing the problems with society? Read chapter 7 and be very, very  afraid. (Of course the rioters in LA only rioted because they had brain  lesions :-)

               Is society "naturally" hierarchical, with inequality an unavoidable consequence of human nature? What does cause of schizophrenia and  mental illness? Are human social structures determined by human  biology and evolution? If you are interested in any of these questions  then you should read this book!

               Not In Our Genes is also very enlightening on the relationship between  ideology and science, sloppy experimental technique, and outright  forgery...

               Read this book!

               11 May 1992
 
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/The_Dialectical_Biologist.html

                        The Dialectical Biologist

                   Richard Levins + Richard Lewontin

                                    Harvard University Press 1985

                   A book review by Danny Yee <danny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,  Copyright ©             1993

               The Dialectical Biologist is a collection of essays on various aspects of  biology. Richard Lewontin is a population geneticist and Richard Levins  is an ecologist, and they are both world-famous within their fields. Here   they are writing as Marxists (and dialectical materialists), and it is this that gives this book its unique perspective. It was by reading this book that I first came to an understanding of the dialectical method and
attained some grasp of Marx and Engel's broader philosophy. Perhaps  this is because my understanding of biology is better than my  understanding of economics and political theory, or perhaps it is simply  because Marx's writings are difficult to come to grips with and the  commentary on them is so contentious.

               The essays are divided into three sections. The first is about evolution,  and the three essays it contains are all attacks on the adaptionist,  neo-Darwinian view of the subject. The essays are lucid and well argued  (as one would expect from the author of The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change) but there is a bit of repetition between them (two  of them were originally encyclopaedia articles on "Evolution" and  "Adaption"). The second section, entitled "On Anlysis", contains a  warning of the potential for misuse of the analysis of variance in  genetics, the brilliantly funny parody "Isadore Nabi on the Tendencies of  Motion" and an essay on the relationship between dialectics and  reductionism which makes particular reference to community ecology.
 
The third section, entitled "Science as a Social Product and the Social  Product of Science", contains an eclectic collection of essays on the use  of science and the effects of social factors on science. The essay titles  are "Lysenkoism", "The Commoditization of Science", "Biology in the  Third World", "Political Economy of Agricultural Research", "The  Pesticide System", "Research Needs for Latin Community Health" and  "What is Human Nature?". The essay on Lysenkoism was the one I  found the most interesting; while not denying the scientific errors  involved, it is concerned to explain the full complexities of the "affair",  which are all too often ignored by those using it as a stick to beat  Marxism with. The common feature of all the essays is respect for the  complexities of social processes, scientific practice and the interaction between them.

               The conclusion is a short (around twenty page) general discussion on the  philosophical foundations of science entitled "Dialectics". It is one of the  best things I have ever read on the philosophy of science, and a worthy  conclusion to a great book. The Dialectical Biologist is heartily recommended to anyone with an interest in biology or the philosophy of science.

               26 July 1993

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Lifelines.html
 

 

> -----Original Message (part)-----
> From: owner-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Richard DAwkins, _Selfish Gene_ (he is a  prof of Zoology at
> Oxford and
> a socio-biologist)
>
>

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222