>
>
> Rose's critique of Weismann induced me to read Peter Bowler's short history
> for the non specialist The Mendelian Revolution. At present, I am quite
> uncomfortable with what seems to me to be a one sided critique of ultra
> darwinism and reductionism, though as you note in the review the scientific
> findings that Rose uses to make his argument are often beautifully
> developed and presented (e.g. how totipotency undermines Weismann's dogma).
> What he does endeavor to show is that certain methodologies and theories,
> retained for ideological reasons, are quite unable to provide satisfactory
> explanations for the actual complexity of the natural world.
Which is the way any criticism of these issues should proceed. Objecting to genetic determinism for political reasons says nothing about the truth of gd. Even though genetic determinism may amount to capitalist ideology, this does not make genetic determinism false.
> So he may not
> have an ideological axe to grind, as you suggest. But then what counts as a
> good explanation?
A good explanation should facilitate understanding. Simplicity, internal consistency and how well the explanation matches reality are usually given as criteria but are equally nebulous concepts.
>
>
>
> At any rate, while granting the insight gained by Maynard Smith's game
> theoretic derivation of evolutionarily stable strategies, Rose then
> presents a critique of Smith for downplaying group selection mechanisms.
I'm not sure game theory is consistent with the kind of holism that Rose defends. GT assumes ignorance on behalf of the participants i.e. it abstracts from the totality of social relations in which people are embedded. It is impossible to understand behavior isolated from the social whole because behavior is determined by both the whole and the part. Moreover, game theory in its one-shot as opposed to iterative form does not match reality very well. Game theory is bean bag social science. Individual vs. group selection is a philosophical controversy much like the one between methodological indivualists and holists. Individual selection is chosen because of parsimony. George Williams _Adaptation and Natural Selection_ is the locus classicus of this view. He gives the examples of a deer outrunning a bear. A slow herd will become extinct, a fast one will survive. He distinguishes between an adaptive herd of deer and a herd of adaptive deer. The single deer's adaptation benefits it as an individual as well as the herd. The benefits that accrue to the group are only the statistical aggragate of individual behavior. A question I have is are there examples of group selection that cannot be explained in terms of individual selection? Elliot Sober gave of few examples like female biased sex ratios.
J.L. Mackie in his paper "The Law of the Jungle" follows Dawkins in argueing that there are only 3 kinds of people; cheaters (psychological egoists), suckers (altruists) and grudgers (reciprocal altruists). Grudging is the only evolutionary stable strategy which is why most people are reciprocal altruists or so he argues. In a Hobbesian world of cheaters, the human race would die out. If most people were suckers a cheater could invade and because of the cheaters superior evolutionary fitness defeat the suckers. Altruists can only survive in groups with other altruists. Again, Sober has done a lot of work on the group selection of altruism.I'm still waiting for his latest book in the mail.
>
> That leaves me me with more questions about this gene centered view--so
> JMS's unopened textbook on evolutionary genetics is staring at me. It's
> interesting that Rose cites Mayr in support here. At any rate, I just
> don't think this stuff breaks down by ideological lines--I mean Rose and
> Mayr are about as far apart ideologically as can be from what I have heard,
> and here they are beating up together on Maynard Smith. Plus, Galton was
> a reactionary, but he did create some openings for the study of heredity
> outside of the developmental paradigm, as Bowler notes.
Generally, this stuff does go along ideological lines. Maynard Smith was a Marxist and CPGB (Communist party of Great Britain not the NYC nightclub) member like his teacher and friend J Haldane until he discovered game theory. I would mention J.B.S. Haldane who was a strong supporter of the gene centered view and a Marxist (and a Stalinist).As Rose points out, some of Haldane's work was developed by Hamilton into the theory of kin selection which forms the bedrock of Wilson and Dawkins. Haldane also held some controversial (at least among Marxists) views, to wit, that genetic differences account for at least some of the differences in economic wealth and social status. People who hold the gene centered view believe that poverty is a matter of where you end up on the genetic roulette wheel. Indeed I don't see how genetic determinists could believe any differently. Chomsky is a genetic determinist, though he believes that feelings for freedom and equality are hardwired.
I think it is noncontroversial among most biologists that natural selection is not the sole force in evolution.
Listers might be interested in the excellent paper by Phil Gasper on Marxism and Science at:http://www.littleprints.free-online.co.uk/pubs/isj79/bookwatc.htm
Sam Pawlett