From: "Dimitris Papadopoulos" <papado-AT-zedat.fu-berlin.de> Subject: BHA: RE: Re: <fwd> S.J. Gould on new genome findings Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:04:12 +0100 Where has been published the Gould-text? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of > catweasle > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:41 PM > To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu; > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Cc: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Subject: BHA: Re: <fwd> S.J. Gould on new genome findings > > > Gould's Shameful Schadenfreude. - A Rant. > > Catweasle: > There is something amusing and sad about the reaction of > people like Gould > who begins the Darwin's Birthday address by telling his > students that they > are sharing a great day in the history of science and of > human understanding > in general, and yet obviously can't wait to gleefully pass on the > information that the genome count was not as high as had been > expected. For > it seems his barely concealed schadenfreude over the > so-called 'hubris' of > the scientific community obviously outweighs the benefits for > the rapid > easement of human suffering that a simple reductionist > outcome would have > provided. By the tone of his piece one cannot escape the > conclusion that he > is GLAD that the number was so low, and that it is 'one in > the eye' for the > white-coated ones, and to hell with cancer cures and an end > to alcoholism. > Like sly circling hyenas or silently circling yellow-eyed > vultures these > spiritualist scavengers at the table of progress swoop down > at the slightest > sign of weakness ready to gorge themselves in a feeding frenzy of > transcendentalist hyperbole and psychic barf. > This serio-comic response to temporary scientific > postponements is typical > of the mystics and obfuscationists throughout the ages, and > similar smug > overreaction to apparent setbacks in medical science are > typical of the > introduction of many new methods or treatments - such as vaccination, > immunisation, chloroform, etc - in fact any advance by which > human suffering > is expeditiously eliminated which precludes the afflicted > from grovelling > piteously at the feet of smelly priests begging them to > intercede with God > to assuage their affliction. > > OK, maybe I am overstating my case, for I'm sure even Gould > would not be the > first to rejoice if the painkilling drugs used in dentistry > or child-birth > or cancer or any other of the benisons of reductionism were suddenly > pronounced to be harmful to the body and banned, or the > religious opponents > of the cow-pox serum had been listened to and his child had > died for the > want of that particular treatment. What price a Gouldian > snigger at the > imagined 'hubris' of his benefactors? > > Gould: > The implications of this finding cascade across several realms. The > commercial effects will be obvious, as so much biotechnology, > including the > rush to patent genes, has assumed the old view that "fixing" > an aberrant > gene would cure a specific human ailment. The social meaning > may finally > liberate us from the simplistic and harmful idea, false for many other > reasons as well, that each aspect of our being, either physical or > behavioral, may be ascribed to the action of a particular > gene "for" the > trait in question. > > Catweasle: > But why does he obviously revel in his premature conclusion? > Why is it a > good thing to be 'liberated' from the simplistic idea that > each aspect of > our existence, either physical or behavioural, may be > ascribed to the action > of a particular gene "for" the trait in question? And why was/is it a > harmful idea, false for many other reasons as well? What are > these reasons, > and why if the main thrust of the project is to alleviate > human suffering > and prolong the lives of our loved ones - why is it harmful? > We don't need > a crystal ball to see that any harm in a rapid breakthrough that the > 'reductionist' outcome would have delivered, would be to Gould's own > preconceived ideas and outdated mindset - in other words - to Gould's > hubris - the very hubris that he identifies in the scientific > community. > > Gould: > But the deepest ramifications will be scientific or > philosophical in the > largest sense. From its late 17th century inception in modern > form, science > has strongly privileged the reductionist mode of thought that > breaks overt > complexity into constituent parts and then tries to explain > the totality by > the properties of these parts and simple interactions fully > predictable from > the parts. ("Analysis" literally means to dissolve into basic > parts). The > reductionist method works triumphantly for simple systems predicting > eclipses or the motion of planets (but not the histories of > their complex > surfaces), for example. > > Catweasle: > Gould ignores the fact that these systems were not always > seen as 'simple.' > Before the reductionist astronomers of the 17th century, (leaving poor > gagged Galileo aside,) humanity was brainwashed with a > puerile astrological > mystical mishmash of 'the music of the spheres' and of an irritable > greybeard at the centre of a concentricity of rings - and > crap about the > stars influencing the course of a person's life. But for the > analysis and > reductionism of the scientists who Gould so vilifies, we'd > still be using > priests to sprinkle water on us to ease the sprouting buboes of our > plague-ridden bodies, rather than have an efficient nurse in > a white coat > inject our arm with a life-saving serum. > > Gould: > But once again and when will we ever learn? We fell victim to > hubris, as we > imagined that, in discovering how to unlock some systems, we > had found the > key for the conquest of all natural phenomena. > > Catweasle: > Will we ever learn? I hope like hell that we never learn to think like > Gould - for that would mean we simply sat back on our > haunches and watched > our buboes spurt their foul liquor over others and infect > them too as we > fell backwards in death. No, we must never stop trying to > improve our lot > and the lot of others, and if it is human hubris that is the > engine of this > drive to improve medicine and find out how things work - then > so be it - it > is a small price to pay, and it is a tab that most of us are only too > willing to pick up. > > Gould: > Will Parsifal ever learn that only humility (and a plurality > of strategies > for explanation) can locate the Holy Grail? > > Catweasle: > Stuff the Holy Grail! Humility my ass! Humility equals > Christian bonfires > and Nazi ovens and guys having their legs sawn off without chloroform. > Plurality of strategies for explanation? Rubbish! A physical > law operates > with known mechanisms that can be predicted. There is only > room for one > 'explanation' of this phenomenon and that is a concept whose > truth can be > proved by scientific verification. In the 1920s religious > nuts influenced 20 > state legislatures to debate antievolution laws, and four > states--Arkansas, > Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee-to their everlasting > shame prohibited > the teaching of evolution in their public schools. A spokesman for the > antievolutionists was William Jennings Bryan; three times the > unsuccessful > Democratic candidate for the presidency, which said in 1922, > "We will drive > Darwinism from our schools. " > > Gould: > The collapse of the doctrine of one gene for one protein, and > one direction > of causal flow from basic codes to elaborate totality, marks > the failure of > reductionism for the complex system that we call biology and > for two major > reasons. > > Catweasle: > But it was never a 'doctrine' - a 'belief' (or system of > beliefs) accepted > as authoritative by some group or school - it was no more than a > 'supposition' hyped by the media and based on the perfectly > understandable > extrapolation that the more complex the organism the greater > the number of > genes required to run the reproductive programme. > Darwin gathered much evidence in support of natural section, but the > evidence has accumulated continuously ever since, derived from all > biological disciplines and arrived at analytically through the painful > scrutiny and reduction of facts. Whilst Heidegger and > company sat on their > asses mooning on about Falsein and other transcendentalist > fictions the > authenticity of the evolutionary origin of organisms was > being established - > a scientific conclusion grounded with the kind of certainty > attributable to > such scientific concepts as the roundness of the Earth, the > motions of the > planets, and the molecular composition of matter. > > This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is > implied when > biologists say that evolution is a "fact"; virtually every > biologist accepts > the evolutionary origin of organisms. But the theory of > evolution goes much > beyond this first issue, the general affirmation that > organisms evolve. The > second and third issues involve seeking to ascertain the evolutionary > relationships between particular organisms and the events of > evolutionary > history, as well as to explain how and why evolution takes > place. That the > scientists in the case of the genome project allegedly > underestimated the > gene count in humans was in one way forgivable but on the other hand > strange, for surely they must have considered the fact that > nature is a > great economiser - a miser where energy is concerned and an > enthusiast for > symmetry. If a job can be carried out in the simplest way > using the minimum > amount of materials and energy Mr Nature is your man. These > modifications > of scale are not only things which happen in the long-term > development of > physiological systems either, for in my own case, because I > am a life-long > vegetarian and completely clear of cholesterol grunge my arterial and > vascular systems allow unrestricted flow for my bloodstream - > result? My > heart has slowed down to less than the average meat-eaters > rate, for the > cardiac muscle does not need to pump so hard to move the venous blood > through unpolluted plumbing passageways. Is it not obvious > that a similar > rationalisation of process will have taken place in the tiny > 'message in a > bottle' of the DNA spiral? Is it not obvious that in the > course of a couple > of million years or so the organism will have discovered by > trial and error > more expeditious ways of packaging and simplifying the unpacking of > information codes? I must admit although I am a life long and > enthusiastic > reductionist that I was surprised that the white coat brigade > hadn't latched > on to this and anticipated a more combinatorial outcome with > more mutual or > reciprocal interactions; with combinings and affiliatings > engendered by > fewer units of code. > Jealous snide attacks and jibes like Gould's (mainly from > the religiously > motivated,) started during Darwin's lifetime. > Until Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950; > "Of the Human > Race") acknowledged that biological evolution was compatible with the > Christian faith, the theory of evolution was seen as incompatible with > religious beliefs, particularly those of Christianity. The > first chapters of > the book of Genesis describe God's creation of the world, the > plants, the > animals, and man. A literal interpretation of Genesis seems > incompatible > with the gradual evolution of humans and other organisms by natural > processes. The Christian believes in the immortality of the > soul and in man > as "created in the image of God" so presumably God has genes > as well - the > same number as me - from whom did he/she inherit these genes? > Pope John Paul II stated in an address to the Pontifical Academy of > Sciences: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of > the universe and > its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific > treatise, but in > order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the > universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that God > created the > world, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself > in the terms of > the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. Any other > teaching about the > origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions > of the Bible, > which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but > how one goes to > heaven." > > His argument was clearly directed against Christian > Fundamentalists who see > in Genesis a literal description of how the world was created by God. > Biblical Fundamentalists make up a minority of Christians, > but they have > periodically gained considerable public and political influence in the > United States and the evil bacillus has recently crossed the > Atlantic and > infected Britain. > > Gould: > First, the key to complexity is not more genes, but more > combinations and > interactions generated by fewer units of code and many of > these interactions > (as emergent properties, to use the technical jargon) must be > explained at > the level of their appearance, for they cannot be predicted from the > separate underlying parts alone. > > Catweasle: > Utter rubbish! The modus operandi of a reductionist scientist is to > analysis the chemical soup of the combinations and to > separate them out into > their constituent parts. This shouldn't take long - and it > won't be to long > either before Gould is eating Hubris/Humble Pie. > > Gould: > So organisms must be explained as organisms, and not as a summation of > genes. > > Catweasle: > Organisms come into existence because the codes written into their DNA > deemed it that way - they also carry within them the > information necessary > to have themselves cloned or reproduced in concert with another donor. > > Gould: > Second, the unique contingencies of history, not the laws of > physics, set > many properties of complex biological systems. > > Catweasle: > But what are Gould's " unique contingencies of history?" > other than results > the laws of physics? > An earthquake that wipes out an emergent species? A > meteorite that wipes > out the dinosaurs? > > Gould: > Our 30, 000 genes make up only 1 percent or so of our total > genome. The rest > including bacterial immigrants and other pieces that can > replicate and move > originate more as accidents of history than as predictable > necessities of > physical laws. Moreover, these noncoding regions, > disrespectfully called > "junk DNA, " also build a pool of potential for future use > that, more than > any other factor, may establish any lineage's capacity for further > evolutionary increase in complexity. > > Catweasle: > This merging of matter, the symbionetic, mutually > advantageous reciprocally > beneficial interdependence has been going on in the micro and > macro-world > since time began - man uses bacteria - bacteria uses man - > man uses dog - > dog uses man - parasites live on a host - the host gets > protection from the > parasite - sharks have fish that clean their teeth - the fish > get a free > ride and free food and so on. There is nothing mysterious in > this for we all > have bacteria living in our gut, which help us digest our > food whilst they > enjoy a free meal ticket. > > Gould: > The deflation of hubris is blessedly positive, not cynically > disabling. The > failure of reductionism doesn't mark the failure of science, > but only the > replacement of an ultimately unworkable set of assumptions by more > appropriate styles of explanation that study complexity at > its own level and > respect the influences of unique histories. Yes, the task will be much > harder than reductionistic science imagined. But our 30, 000 > genes in the > glorious ramifications of their irreducible interactions have made us > sufficiently complex and at least potentially adequate for > the task ahead. > > Catweasle: > Here Gould lays down a conciliatory marker for the time when the > reductionists finally crack the problem - this is no 'failure of > reductionism' but a mere blip on the way to success. > > Gould: > We may best succeed in this effort if we can heed some memorable words > spoken by that other great historical figure born on Feb. 12 > on the very > same day as Darwin, in 1809. Abraham Lincoln, in his first Inaugural > Address, urged us to heal division and seek unity by > marshalling the "better > angels of our nature" yet another irreducible and emergent > property of our > historically unique mentality, but inherent and invokable all > the same, even > though not resident within, say, gene 26 on chromosome number 12. > > Catweasle: > This invocation of Lincoln is reminiscent of the better days > of vaudeville - > like the comedian ending on a serious note or with a > patriotic song. The > illusion to Gould's performance in this remark is deliberate, and the > article will not do his reputation much good at all - > especially in the long > run. > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005