stinking functionalists

t byfield tbyfield at panix.com
Thu Oct 7 08:12:00 PDT 1999



> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:03:29 -0400
> From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>


> > the meaning of 'trait' is hardly self-evident. a hand with
> > an opposable thumb is a trait, as are the convolutions in
> > your brain, as is a latent characteristic, as is DNA that
> > serves no known purpose, or maybe serves no purpose at all.

<...>
> Charles: What is your meaning of "trait" ?

i trait is a distinguishing characteristic, which in this case is probably inherited. but traits are expressions of the interaction between an organism and its environment, not inevitable expressions of genes. a good example would be average height, which varies considerably according to historical changes in diet among a given people.


> > i think darwin was more interested in theorizing the
> > machanisms that govern historical morphology than in
> > justifying the entire world, of which random mutation
> > is only a subset.

<...>


> Oh and where do you infer that I think Darwin is justifying the
> entire world ? If you are proving that I am so wrong, such an
> obviously inaccurate portrayal of what I say makes it easy to
> demonstrate your comments don't touch what I say. <...>

you had asked...


> > > Purely contingent on what ? Random mutations ? Is
> > > "preordained" the logical equivalen of your "teleology" ?

i meant to point out, which i could have done more clearly, that traits are the result of environmental factors as well as mutations. darwin wasn't theorizing 'why' environmnental factors--potentially the entire world--are what they are.


> > > Charles:> But once a trait arises as an expression of genes, it's
> > > recurrence is not contingent, but determined. There is no
> > > need for positing God/Goddess for this.
>
> > it's not at all determined: genetic expression is hardly
> > as mechanical as you make out--it's contingent on count-
> > less factors, as is the interaction between the results
> > of that expression and its environment.


> Charles: I didn't say fully determined by genes, oh genius.

well, 'determined' doesn't mean much when it stands in for 'determined by contingent factors,' does it?


> Charles: Carrol and I talk about this all of the time.

good to know that you're responding to the person isntead of what she write.

cheers, t



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list