Life. Don't talk to me about Life.
I was reading a book in the library just now titled The Ideology of Biology. I forget the name of the author, but he claims that much of Biology (he mostly focuses on the idea that we are deterministic creatures controlled by our genes) is not scientific or objective and is ideological in nature. He claims that we should not be looking at genes as the key subjects of biological study, but the organism and its interaction with its environment. Mimicking my Efficient Society Hypothesis, (yeah, right) he also claims that organisms largely create their own environment instead of having the environment shape them. I just had a few thoughts while considering these claims.First, he attacks the way biologists come up with a theory based on a few observations, and then go on to explain other phenomena using that theory, without testing it, when there could be alternate explanations for those phenomena. He's absolutely right; this is where scientists get in trouble for saying that philosophy is "B.S." (take that Richard Feynman!) because they would have learned logic in their philosophy class. There are some instances where you cannot determine unknowns from known facts only because there are more possible explanations than the model you are using. It is still very common to do so, though, and it gets science into trouble because it becomes a platform for agendas rather than being actual science. Biology is the perfect example. Anyone who attacks the current model gets branded as ignorant, and is informed that the 'top minds in biology' back it. That is, they are defending the system, not because it is necessarily true, but on the basis of authority.
Second, the author of this book makes the same mistake that his opponents make. When he claims that the organism creates its own environment, I wanted to ask him "from what?" Obviously, an organism influences its environment, and that that influence has a major role in what that organism becomes. But isn't it true that the influence of other aspects of an environment on organisms has a greater influence? Let me put it a different way. A classical Oriental philosopher or biologist would never come up with this concept, because for them the whole has more influence than the part. China, Japan, and India didn't come up with biology in the same way the west did: what they had would be more akin to sociology or ecology because they placed more value on the community than the West did. The fact is, any model we come up with to describe anything is exactly that: a model. It will never perfectly describe the real thing. It's placing a three dimensional world on to a two dimensional map: distortions are going to be created. I, of course, have shown how people can say various aspects of the same thing, so that they are both, in all essentials, universally true (in their own frame of reference) while seeming to conflict using my model of 'stacked' realities. Yeah. Go ego.
Third. As for his biology, I think he's mostly right, or at least let me say that I mostly agree with him. I have always had a hard time reconciling the idea of genetics that I got from Biology (RNA comes in, copies DNA, out come proteins. Lather Rinse Repeat.) with the all encompassing qualities I hear attributed to them, that they determine our intelligence and personality. While the answer that it is both nature and nurture seems laughably simple, many scientists find that it is far too difficult to consider. The fact is, it is far trickier to try to determine what part is nature and what part is nurture, which scientists would have to do if they wanted to build a more and more accurate model if they go on the same track, than it is to attribute everything to one important aspect.
I have to admit that most of my antagonism toward Biology was founded prior to reading this book. While in England, I visited the Natural History Museum and was able to go on a tour of some of the research areas of the associated Darwin Center, where much of the work goes into Taxonomy, or the classification of organisms. While there, it was fully drummed into my mind how arbitrary the process was. If a new specimen is found, only an expert in the field can accurately determine whether or not it is a new species or a variation of an existing species. Since there is no objective dividing line, one expert may label the specimen a new species where another may not. This is not science.
Anyway, Maren, next update I'll talk your post, I promise.
posted by Emmett @ 16:28
10 Comments:
Yeah, I never liked biology much either. For very different reasons, of course. Mainly because I convinced myself in 8th grade that I was more of a quantitative than a qualitative person. And biology as taught in 8th grade is very qualitative. Never taken a biology course since, frequently assert that I don't like it but privately know that I will find something entirely different than what I remember when I take it next semester (or whenever).
Paradoxes are the most difficult things to grapple with, but I frequently find that they are the stuff of truth. In fact, I'm planning on writing something about paradoxes when I have more time. Nature vs nurture... there is no vs! There's almost never a vs!
I can't wait to hear what you think about paradoxes, Paul! I never thought about it quite that way before. I mean, I knew nature vs. nurture was flawed, and I had considered some aspects of paradoxes, but I hadn't put together it as a paradox!! How silly of me, huh?
Don't worry about my post, I'm feeling much better now. :)
It never ceases to amaze me how much you can pick apart what you read. I promise I read your posts, Emmett, but I can never think of anything intelligent to say, so I just make up random things to fill up your comment box. Just ignore me!
Yes. Silly. Well, at least I understand what you are saying. What would you have biologists do, eternally fight over the true nature of a species's existence and it's philosphical location within the known universe of Aristotle? Do they sink or do they float? Are they in a sphere above the water? In the air? Fiddle Faddle. Biologists are so arbitrary because they must be in order to get past the issue. The philosophical and eternal truth of anything is seen as subjective to philosophy, so they would inexorably fight over the family and never get to cutting the thing open to see what's in its stomach. I'm thinking about taking a dive into biology, and since I have the same experience as Paul, I am more open to the subject than, say, physics (which has become a bore to me lately, especially since taking the class in college). I also didn't like the qualitative nature of it, but I think there's more to biology than why ducks quack and what makes a centipede walk. There's medical miracles in nature, and miracles are things I'm interested in. I think I also like cutting things open, too. I sure enjoyed looking at the heart of the fish I caught at Three Lakes. I've heard doctors say that the more they learn about the human body, the more they believe in inteliigent design.
I find it amusing, also, that you would criticize the legitimacy of an entire field of science based on how they categorize an animal. A hint of ego? Sure, it may seem arrogant to just have someone place an animal into a category for purposes of study, but is that really that important? You seem to be more irked by the nature v. nurture controversy. Paul says it's a paradox because nature determines nurture which in turn influences nature. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Call me a pragmatist, but does it really matter? I'll eat them both! End of paradox.
I think we're talking at cross angles here, Chris. There are two parts to any science. The part which looks, and the part that explains. I'm looking at Biology and saying that the method they use to explain things is flawed at a fundamental level. You look at it and see the results, the medical miracles, and since they come from biology than the structure must be sound. One of the things the book I read said was that most medicinal techniques are not achieved at the biological level of research. It's mostly trial and error. Does that mean Biology has no merit? Of course not, but I think that if the basic system they use is based on nonscientific premises and information, such as arbitrary taxonomy, then it shouldn't be considered as rigourous science. A system to come up with certain new medical ideas, sure. That wouldn't have to be scientific in nature, just research. And that's great, for what it is.
It sounds, from your first couple sentences, like you think the way Biologists go about things now is the only way that there is to study life. But it isn't. It's just the model that we use right now. What if we decided to study life in terms of communities, rather than individuals or individual genetics? Then the subject of taxonomy wouldn't come up: it would be clear what individuals constituted a community and which ones didn't. We would then analyze the basic traits of community life: interactions between individuals, interactions with the outside, changes in organization or ritual. We could attempt a series of basic laws of community that we find based on our research, and then we could postulate out from those laws and see what they mean, the way physicists like Einstein did.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Biology is fine for what you are asking from it, and that's cool, but I'm asking for something different and not getting it. Unfortunately, both things are necessary to make something 'science.' So while what you're describing has obvious and powerful benefits, it's not science.
You still need us theorists.
Oh, and hey, by the way, I forgot to say congratulations to you, Chris, for acing your History test. Send me some luck for Japanese.
PLUCK THE EGG AND HARDBOIL THE CHICKEN
I see your point, Emmett. You have to admit, though, that you wouldn't want a theorist doing brain surgury on you. Snip snip! Interesting. Okay, kidding aside, I see how you see Biology, and it would be nice if there were a different model to look to, but this is what I've been given, and so I think I'll have to learn it and use it for practical purposes. I'll send my luck for your tests, but I'll keep a little for ceramics projects. Those can be so hard in a different way.
surgery. I can't believe I misspelled surgery.
ATACK OF THE SHARP INCISION-CAUSING OBJECTS!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home