hibbsa
2013-02-27 23:09:40 UTC
DD - as an afterthought, one way the historical timing of the emergence
of the gene-centric view could prove important, would be if as a result
of the temporal proximity of those ideas with the discoveries and
revelations involving DNA and genes (biochemistry sense), there had been
sufficient influence from one to the other such that 'leaky
abstractions' had been carried across into the abstract level theory.
Certainly it is true that the simple and highly abstract character of a
'gene' in the Theory sense, that being a 'Replicator' does appear to
make it pretty much impossible that significant 'leaky abstractions'
made the transition. However.....there are two other ways that leaky
abstractions may have affected things:
- As a source of unhelpful 'diversity' of how the concepts were
understood between the individual minds of scientists and thinkers. It
makes sense that the better and best thinkers would not have fallen prey
to 'leaky abstractions' but that a large bulk of less
committed/rigourous thinkers might have done. The ramification of this
wouldn't be all that interesting if one considers that most progress
probably comes from the better/best thinkers. However...by the same coin
you may value Dawkins for adding clarity and accessibility to the
gene-centric view, presumably you personally would regard any effects
that had clouded progress and understanding, say by causing distractions
and unpromising debates and exchanges, as having significant negative
value (e.g. on the understanding of what the implications of the
gene-centric theory actually were).
- The other possibility would arise if the subsequent history had indeed
been clouded by blind-alley debates largely deriving from misconceptions
among the less committed/rigourous scientists about the distinction of
genes biochemistry sense and genes abstract theory sense (replicators).
It would then be possible that the better/best thinkers would come to
lump together 'issues' of the form "does some recent discovery in DNA
cause problems for abstract theory', and go too far in doing so....say
by coming to see all such 'issues' as wrong at the category level. If
the best thinkers did that, then by implication they would be tacitly
including EVEN THEIR OWN conjectures regarding possible such 'issues',
and as such would possible become disinclined to 'keep up' with
discoveries in DNA with a view to explicitly comparing such developments
against theory on a regular basis.
And *that* would be a problem, if potentially important insights and
conjectures were missed that otherwise would not have been.
Just an example of how the detail of historical relationships and
influences can prove significant (i.e. if you thought Dawkins came up
with the idea in the late 1970's you probably wouldn't think of 'leaky
abstractions' deriving from the gene-centric view emerging on the back
of the discovery of DNA/Genes in the 1950's. Leaky abstractions are much
more likely in the 'heat' of the moment of exciting breakthrough
moments).
of the gene-centric view could prove important, would be if as a result
of the temporal proximity of those ideas with the discoveries and
revelations involving DNA and genes (biochemistry sense), there had been
sufficient influence from one to the other such that 'leaky
abstractions' had been carried across into the abstract level theory.
Certainly it is true that the simple and highly abstract character of a
'gene' in the Theory sense, that being a 'Replicator' does appear to
make it pretty much impossible that significant 'leaky abstractions'
made the transition. However.....there are two other ways that leaky
abstractions may have affected things:
- As a source of unhelpful 'diversity' of how the concepts were
understood between the individual minds of scientists and thinkers. It
makes sense that the better and best thinkers would not have fallen prey
to 'leaky abstractions' but that a large bulk of less
committed/rigourous thinkers might have done. The ramification of this
wouldn't be all that interesting if one considers that most progress
probably comes from the better/best thinkers. However...by the same coin
you may value Dawkins for adding clarity and accessibility to the
gene-centric view, presumably you personally would regard any effects
that had clouded progress and understanding, say by causing distractions
and unpromising debates and exchanges, as having significant negative
value (e.g. on the understanding of what the implications of the
gene-centric theory actually were).
- The other possibility would arise if the subsequent history had indeed
been clouded by blind-alley debates largely deriving from misconceptions
among the less committed/rigourous scientists about the distinction of
genes biochemistry sense and genes abstract theory sense (replicators).
It would then be possible that the better/best thinkers would come to
lump together 'issues' of the form "does some recent discovery in DNA
cause problems for abstract theory', and go too far in doing so....say
by coming to see all such 'issues' as wrong at the category level. If
the best thinkers did that, then by implication they would be tacitly
including EVEN THEIR OWN conjectures regarding possible such 'issues',
and as such would possible become disinclined to 'keep up' with
discoveries in DNA with a view to explicitly comparing such developments
against theory on a regular basis.
And *that* would be a problem, if potentially important insights and
conjectures were missed that otherwise would not have been.
Just an example of how the detail of historical relationships and
influences can prove significant (i.e. if you thought Dawkins came up
with the idea in the late 1970's you probably wouldn't think of 'leaky
abstractions' deriving from the gene-centric view emerging on the back
of the discovery of DNA/Genes in the 1950's. Leaky abstractions are much
more likely in the 'heat' of the moment of exciting breakthrough
moments).