[lbo-talk] Altruism & Evolution?

[ravi]

Miles Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, ravi wrote:
> 
>> given the significance of altruism as a trait, i think it is
>> important to demonstrate either that a) it did not evolve in
>> response to selection pressures (or is a side effect of other
>> traits that did) or b) it can be reconciled with the model (perhaps
>> genotype propagation) in some way: wilson/sober, for instance, use
>> a group selection model to demonstrate the feasibility of
>> altruistic traits and their continued occurence.
> 
> 
> But how do we "demonstrate" either of these points?  Justin has made 
> this point before: sure, we can create a just-so group selection 
> story to explain how altruism persists, but that does not meet the 
> threshold of scientific evidence in even "soft" sciences like 
> psychology.  For instance, if I want to study the effects of 
> cognitive behavioral therapy on anxiety disorders, I can set up a
> rigorous experimental study to assess the claim that cognitive
> behavioral therapy reduces anxiety symptoms.
> 
> In contrast, making up just-so stories is speculation, not scientific
> research.  And the statistical modelling does not resolve the
> problem: demonstrating that altruism could be produced via natural
> selection is not compelling evidence that it actually was produced
> via natural selection in human history.
> 

Miles Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
> 
>> Exactly.  And some behavioral speculations are just as well-founded
>> as any relating directly to anatomical features like hearts and
>> hands.  No one denies this until we start talking about people.
> 
> Well, I for one think it's sloppy biology when biologists do it, just
> as it's sloppy psychology when psychologists do it.  C'mon guys, this
> is Philosophy of Science 101: speculation is fine, it generates
> potentially useful theories.  However, if there is no meaningful way
> to empirically test the speculation, we're not doing science.
> 

fair enough, but isn't it also phil.sci 101 that very few scientific
theories actually proceed (or are validated) in this orderly way
(empirical tests)? be that as it may, perhaps my choice of the word
"demonstrate" is incorrect. as CB has pointed out, is there conclusive
empirical data (fossil record?) to establish that the giraffe's neck
grew taller in response to selection pressures? speculation is not an
unimportant affair (even in science) and a compelling argument that
captures public attention (such as dawkins' "selfish gene" did) can have
serious consequences (in public policy and in science). in the absence
of concrete scientific consensus, just-so stories can (IMHO) hold
considerable sway, and (again IMHO) the dominant just-so story in
biology (and behavioural psychology(?)) is neo-darwinian
(ultra-darwinism, darwinian fundamentalism, etc).

i do not disagree with what i understand as your basic point regarding
the [tall] claims (or wide leaps) of evolutionary psychology. hence my
forward of the fodor piece.

	--ravi