Ravi, the quoted statement directly contradicts the statement with which you say you disagree:
That the theory is true doesn't mean
> that it does, can (or
> has to) explain everything.
Of course not. I said so. I endorsed the existence of spandrels. That contradicts the idea that the theory explains everything.
Something about this discussion is making people illiterate. Please, don't make me explain why the straw man objections that you could avoid if you read and thought fora moment about what I said don't apply. This goes also for
(a) the several people who have objected to my theory on the grounds that it commits me to Panglossian adaptationism, the idea that everything is optimally adaptive -- an idea I have expressly rejected at least twice if not more in this discussion and which is obviously inconsistent with my theory, and
(b) the anti-evolutionist (de facto pro creationist) objection that evolutionary explanations like this are objectionable because they are just so stories that violate Popper's falsification criterion for something to count as a scientific explanation -- if accepted this idea would take out the whole theory of evolution by natural selection.
I am sorry I am getting annoyed. But some people here are being annoying just now for no good reason.
--- ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> At around 23/1/07 1:41 pm, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
> >
> > Since the theory is true, the _presumption_ is
> that
> > any given trait had an explanation saying that it
> > originated because it was adaptive in some
> > environment. The hypothesis that a trait is a
> > spandrel is fallback of desperation, when no
> > adaptationist explanation seems to be available.
> >
>
> I disagree. That the theory is true doesn't mean
> that it does, can (or
> has to) explain everything. That I have short nails
> today, for instance,
> need not be reconciled with the theory of evolution.
> I just cut them
> yesterday. The proximal explanation suffices (of
> course it is possible
> that nail-cutting has a fitness advantage and has
> been selected as a
> trait ;-)). The "spandrel" explanation is not just a
> fallback (leave
> alone a desperation). It is rooted in physiological
> data and in that
> sense is more atomic and authoritative than
> adaptationist explanations,
> which are both higher-level and in need of external
> validation. The
> problem with adaptationism is that similar to
> religion it asks an
> elaborate question which it claims to hold the sole
> answer for. Fodor,
> whom we discussed recently, argues similarly
> (similar to me here, that
> is) against adaptationist triumphalism in the issue
> of the mind.
>
> Try it out. In the absence of other evidence, which
> one sounds more
> parsimonious:
>
> a) the male nipple and the female clitoris are where
> they are because
> they share a developmental path with a corresponding
> organ in the
> opposite gender which has clear functional
> advantage.
>
> b) the male nipple exists because it provided a
> selection advantage for
> individuals possessing it, over non-nippled males,
> perhaps to keep baby
> occupied as the Bushmen do today.
>
> My (b) is not analogous to or a caricature of your
> "clitoris as male
> quality selection mechanism" theory (which is
> coherent) but rather is an
> example of any version of anti-"spandrel" story that
> has to be offered
> about the male nipple.
>
> --ravi
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited