File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0306, message 10


Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: shiv kumar <iconoclast2050-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: BHA: 'Genes of genes'


--0-364753111-1054676968=:42641


Tim,

Reckoning with Carroll’s comments, I have structured the discussion. I have prefixed your comments, arguments, et al. by Q and my responses, thereof, by A. 

A prefatory remark: Just to stay on course, I may mention that the context was provided by Baudrillard’s article on terrorism. I articulated the view that the underlying mechanisms are genes. Mervyn said why confine it to terrorism and aggression, to which I agree. Yet discussion on genes is not an end in itself. It is seeking to resolve philosophical conundrums and is an attempt towards enlightenment and reducing illusion (whether it does so is another matter). The poser was—if philosophy cannot provide answers, then we have to do something about it. We can’t go down the history lane repeating what others said. We are where we are, in part, due to what these philosophers said. In others words, a leap of imagination is required and this is how science figured in. And, that is why I have changed the subject to a phrase you had employed.

Q. ‘Dolly was a mess with early geriatric symptoms in adolescence. It was achieved by a combination of high skill and a blind trick. Certain procedures occasionally (<1%) result in cloning but the very detailed biochemical mechanism is not understood…’

A. Your comments are correct. Let me qualify them. They are correct for June 2003. I am looking beyond, say, 2050, 2100. We have to raise transfactual questions. Remember the Wright brothers about a century ago; ponder over how long their ‘Kitty Hawk’ flew! Compare this with the contemporary period, when Pioneer has transcended the solar system. Think of Galileo and his telescope. Compare this with where we have reached now. If Ian Wilmut (who cloned Dolly), is sceptical of cloning, let him be. Science is a collective effort. It is likely tomorrow someone may find a better way to clone. Science is cumulative.

 

Q. ‘Take two normal identical twins’ and rear them in different ways in society to emphasize the effects of society and de-emphasize the role of genes…

A. You are suggesting a ‘thought experiment’ which essentially remains in the realm of the imagination. I suggest to you something of a ‘social experiment’. Please read ‘Twins: Genes Environment and mystery of identity’ by Lawrence Wright who explains the significance of Darwinian evolution. Besides, some of the people who were behind September 11 were, as per reports, well educated. They were taking higher education in Germany and other countries. The people who knew some of them, said they seemed just like the person next door—plain and simple. Here, I am not making a direct argument for their genetic makeup, but this is a concrete, substantive case of counter-arguing what you are saying about societal conditioning. And, the issue that arises is if societal conditioning has less explanatory power, then why not examine from a different explanans. Theories can be transitive, right?

 

Q. ‘…Apart from some strange pathologies, highly complex social behaviour... is not in the genes... simple behaviour may well be but terrorism is not simple’

A. You are creating a dichotomy of simple and complex behaviour. Can you please cite specific cases of simple and complex behaviour and, how do you demarcate them and on what bases? I propose this dichotomy is in your meta-description. I treat the being in its composite nature. In its functioning, it is we who are devising these categories more as heuristic devices. Mervyn had remarked why should genes emphasize aggression only, why not love and other facets of life. I agree for a theory to be complete, it has to be comprehensive, hence, the distinction between complex and simple behaviour is tenuous. 

Q. ‘The designer of Lego plastic bricks can also have opinions on the artistic merits of works of art constructed from Lego…are these two things implicate in Lego bricks?’ So what? 

A. In responding to this, the linguistic barrier shows its clear manifestation. All languages are pre-scientific; much language is metaphorical. Hence, the propensity to provide analogies. As believers in realism, we must ensure that the analogies are real and do not merely approximate. This analogy approximates, as it is correct to the extent that one can cite views on the ethical issue of genetic discoveries and related issues. Yet it does not provide a substantive argument to counter what I had stated—the workings of the mechanisms can only be described by scientists and not by metaphysicians. In an earlier mail, I had questioned the analogy of H2O for emergence. The same arguments hold here.

Q. ‘Craig Venter is a dodgy guy... (maybe if we study his bit we will find that dangerous greedy selfish unethical capitalist "science" is actually a genetic disease amplified by environmental factors like drinking Coca-Cola and watching Fox TV :)’

A. Don’t you think you are conceding the point here. I am alluding to Richard Dawkin’s ‘selfish gene’ theory. Besides, we should not be concerned with his idiosyncrasies in this specific argument, lest we be accused of fallacy of argumentum ad hominen or attacking the person, rather than the main argument that is under discussion. Newton’s diatribes against Leibniz are too well-known, as also the manipulation at Royal Society when it came to giving credit to who had discovered the theory of evolution—Darwin or Wallace. I would say these are distractions from the main course. 

Q. ‘That there is a mind matter continuum I would not doubt but to say that genes "cause" all phenomena of mind is not an explanation any more than the total annual production of Lego bricks implies a 1 to 1 scale model of mount Everest. These things have to be strongly qualified. Yes genes may build a substrate of neurological tissues and psychological mechanisms but…’

A. I suggest we await results of the experiments that are taking place. Yet to comment philosophically and from a realist perspective, I can say that if we augur transphenomenality and counterphenomenality, then this issue presents a strong case for consideration. We have to be realists in both ‘nocturnal’ and ‘diurnal’ philosophy. Otherwise, the views end up being too anthropomorphic. 

Your comment also raises a question for methodology and ontology. Hypothetically, I may agree with you, ‘It’s not in the genes’! Fine! Now, if I further ask, Tim, ‘does this work’? How will you demonstrate it? That’s the crux of the issue—how to demonstrate it? In its absence, it is like saying, it’s not in the genes, and it is only in principle that it holdsw. I mean, you have to devise a method to propound and corroborate your assumption/conclusion. 

Q. ‘Wittengestein …epistemological relativism and ontological reality. If this were the 50s... would you be a behaviourist?’

A. Sorry, I don’t follow this one. Can you please elaborate in what sense a behaviourist? Are you referring to ‘reflection’ or ‘introspection’ in the manner which Skinner had referred to?

 

Q. ‘Shiv Perhaps dismissive and opinionated is too strong a term. It is true that given the dumbing down in education and the media most people do not have the information or language with which to discuss these issues meaningfully and it is true that they may fall back on superstition or fear or prejudice or a half educated macho techno-economic enthusiasm but that is hardly their fault since they are only allowed to be a node in the "Matrix". These days knowledge is such that all of us are lay people in most areas’. 

A. I am in complete agreement with you on this point. Well said! It is precisely of this that I am also saying that if we hold opinions, that is fine to an extent, but the real part has to be demonstrated by the ones who are engaged in dissecting the mechanisms and properties of genes. Won’t you agree on this then? Put differently, there can be no premature closure. You would agree doxa cannot override episteme. Realists must reject ‘doxosophists’. 

Q. ‘If you have a good look at this stuff it is mostly ideology dressed up in scientific language. Ventnor is the free market poster child of the trend in the commercialisation of biotechnology and the high priest of the new genetics is E. O. Wilson. Whilst many disease specific genetic defects have been identified, so far most of the illusions that have been unveiled are those of the traditional varieties be they of magic or religion or the false and ideological conclusions drawn by those who prematurely close the "science" of genetics. How sweet it was to see the wonder on the faces of some of these hard line reductionist geneticists when they discovered that the human genome only has less than half of the expected component of genes and much less variation than they had "hoped" for (needed?) to vindicate their ideology. 

A. Let us leave ideology for some time. Let science perform its task. Mere ideology, it won’t be, if in another half a century Watson or his followers demonstrate conclusively that they alter behaviour permanently by manipulating genes and putting once and for all where psychoanalysis belongs—the antique museum!

As for the wonder, it should be there, for it only affirms that there is ‘irreducible complexity’. That means the next layer has to be pealed. The time for that has come.

Q.‘The left was right all along and the right was left with an open mouth. For example I have a friend who has recorded 50 separate scientific papers in which "the gene" or "the genes" for a common mental illness have been "discovered". 50 papers and 50 different genes for one condition. Sure it could be all 50 in some cases and one or more than one in others but then the researchers have not have shown what they tried to show. They are too enthusiastic for a narrow mechanistic target and they like to think that complex abnormal mental states’.

A.I admit the temptation is strong for mechanistic target, but I hope they will learn. All the same, I may mention that despite chastening positivism and reductionism (its another debate which I don’t want to enter here and distract from the main issue), the day Alzheimer’s disease, and other problems are cured, it would be due to a science that is positivistic and reductionist. They can’t cure it now, as they don’t know to which mechanism to pin it to. To qualify, I maintain that reductionism and emergentism go hand in hand. In peeling one layer, we find many others, and so it goes on.

 

Shiv 





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
--0-364753111-1054676968=:42641

HTML VERSION:

Tim,

Reckoning with Carroll’s comments, I have structured the discussion. I have prefixed your comments, arguments, et al. by Q and my responses, thereof, by A.

A prefatory remark: Just to stay on course, I may mention that the context was provided by Baudrillard’s article on terrorism. I articulated the view that the underlying mechanisms are genes. Mervyn said why confine it to terrorism and aggression, to which I agree. Yet discussion on genes is not an end in itself. It is seeking to resolve philosophical conundrums and is an attempt towards enlightenment and reducing illusion (whether it does so is another matter). The poser was—if philosophy cannot provide answers, then we have to do something about it. We can’t go down the history lane repeating what others said. We are where we are, in part, due to what these philosophers said. In others words, a leap of imagination is required and this is how science figured in. And, that is why I have changed the subject to a phrase you had employed.

Q. ‘Dolly was a mess with early geriatric symptoms in adolescence. It was achieved by a combination of high skill and a blind trick. Certain procedures occasionally (<1%) result in cloning but the very detailed biochemical mechanism is not understood…’

A. Your comments are correct. Let me qualify them. They are correct for June 2003. I am looking beyond, say, 2050, 2100. We have to raise transfactual questions. Remember the Wright brothers about a century ago; ponder over how long their ‘Kitty Hawk’ flew! Compare this with the contemporary period, when Pioneer has transcended the solar system. Think of Galileo and his telescope. Compare this with where we have reached now. If Ian Wilmut (who cloned Dolly), is sceptical of cloning, let him be. Science is a collective effort. It is likely tomorrow someone may find a better way to clone. Science is cumulative.

 

Q. ‘Take two normal identical twins’ and rear them in different ways in society to emphasize the effects of society and de-emphasize the role of genes…

A. You are suggesting a ‘thought experiment’ which essentially remains in the realm of the imagination. I suggest to you something of a ‘social experiment’. Please read ‘Twins: Genes Environment and mystery of identity’ by Lawrence Wright who explains the significance of Darwinian evolution. Besides, some of the people who were behind September 11 were, as per reports, well educated. They were taking higher education in Germany and other countries. The people who knew some of them, said they seemed just like the person next door—plain and simple. Here, I am not making a direct argument for their genetic makeup, but this is a concrete, substantive case of counter-arguing what you are saying about societal conditioning. And, the issue that arises is if societal conditioning has less explanatory power, then why not examine from a different explanans. Theories can be transitive, right?

 

Q. ‘…Apart from some strange pathologies, highly complex social behaviour... is not in the genes... simple behaviour may well be but terrorism is not simple

A. You are creating a dichotomy of simple and complex behaviour. Can you please cite specific cases of simple and complex behaviour and, how do you demarcate them and on what bases? I propose this dichotomy is in your meta-description. I treat the being in its composite nature. In its functioning, it is we who are devising these categories more as heuristic devices. Mervyn had remarked why should genes emphasize aggression only, why not love and other facets of life. I agree for a theory to be complete, it has to be comprehensive, hence, the distinction between complex and simple behaviour is tenuous.

Q. ‘The designer of Lego plastic bricks can also have opinions on the artistic merits of works of art constructed from Lego…are these two things implicate in Lego bricks?’ So what?

A. In responding to this, the linguistic barrier shows its clear manifestation. All languages are pre-scientific; much language is metaphorical. Hence, the propensity to provide analogies. As believers in realism, we must ensure that the analogies are real and do not merely approximate. This analogy approximates, as it is correct to the extent that one can cite views on the ethical issue of genetic discoveries and related issues. Yet it does not provide a substantive argument to counter what I had stated—the workings of the mechanisms can only be described by scientists and not by metaphysicians. In an earlier mail, I had questioned the analogy of H2O for emergence. The same arguments hold here.

Q. ‘Craig Venter is a dodgy guy... (maybe if we study his bit we will find that dangerous greedy selfish unethical capitalist "science" is actually a genetic disease amplified by environmental factors like drinking Coca-Cola and watching Fox TV :)’

A. Don’t you think you are conceding the point here. I am alluding to Richard Dawkin’s ‘selfish gene’ theory. Besides, we should not be concerned with his idiosyncrasies in this specific argument, lest we be accused of fallacy of argumentum ad hominen or attacking the person, rather than the main argument that is under discussion. Newton’s diatribes against Leibniz are too well-known, as also the manipulation at Royal Society when it came to giving credit to who had discovered the theory of evolution—Darwin or Wallace. I would say these are distractions from the main course.

Q. ‘That there is a mind matter continuum I would not doubt but to say that genes "cause" all phenomena of mind is not an explanation any more than the total annual production of Lego bricks implies a 1 to 1 scale model of mount Everest. These things have to be strongly qualified. Yes genes may build a substrate of neurological tissues and psychological mechanisms but…’

A. I suggest we await results of the experiments that are taking place. Yet to comment philosophically and from a realist perspective, I can say that if we augur transphenomenality and counterphenomenality, then this issue presents a strong case for consideration. We have to be realists in both ‘nocturnal’ and ‘diurnal’ philosophy. Otherwise, the views end up being too anthropomorphic.

Your comment also raises a question for methodology and ontology. Hypothetically, I may agree with you, ‘It’s not in the genes’! Fine! Now, if I further ask, Tim, ‘does this work’? How will you demonstrate it? That’s the crux of the issue—how to demonstrate it? In its absence, it is like saying, it’s not in the genes, and it is only in principle that it holdsw. I mean, you have to devise a method to propound and corroborate your assumption/conclusion.

Q. ‘Wittengestein …epistemological relativism and ontological reality. If this were the 50s... would you be a behaviourist?

A. Sorry, I don’t follow this one. Can you please elaborate in what sense a behaviourist? Are you referring to ‘reflection’ or ‘introspection’ in the manner which Skinner had referred to?

 

Q. ‘Shiv Perhaps dismissive and opinionated is too strong a term. It is true that given the dumbing down in education and the media most people do not have the information or language with which to discuss these issues meaningfully and it is true that they may fall back on superstition or fear or prejudice or a half educated macho techno-economic enthusiasm but that is hardly their fault since they are only allowed to be a node in the "Matrix". These days knowledge is such that all of us are lay people in most areas’.

A. I am in complete agreement with you on this point. Well said! It is precisely of this that I am also saying that if we hold opinions, that is fine to an extent, but the real part has to be demonstrated by the ones who are engaged in dissecting the mechanisms and properties of genes. Won’t you agree on this then? Put differently, there can be no premature closure. You would agree doxa cannot override episteme. Realists must reject ‘doxosophists’.

Q. ‘If you have a good look at this stuff it is mostly ideology dressed up in scientific language. Ventnor is the free market poster child of the trend in the commercialisation of biotechnology and the high priest of the new genetics is E. O. Wilson. Whilst many disease specific genetic defects have been identified, so far most of the illusions that have been unveiled are those of the traditional varieties be they of magic or religion or the false and ideological conclusions drawn by those who prematurely close the "science" of genetics. How sweet it was to see the wonder on the faces of some of these hard line reductionist geneticists when they discovered that the human genome only has less than half of the expected component of genes and much less variation than they had "hoped" for (needed?) to vindicate their ideology.

A. Let us leave ideology for some time. Let science perform its task. Mere ideology, it won’t be, if in another half a century Watson or his followers demonstrate conclusively that they alter behaviour permanently by manipulating genes and putting once and for all where psychoanalysis belongs—the antique museum!

As for the wonder, it should be there, for it only affirms that there is ‘irreducible complexity’. That means the next layer has to be pealed. The time for that has come.

Q.‘The left was right all along and the right was left with an open mouth. For example I have a friend who has recorded 50 separate scientific papers in which "the gene" or "the genes" for a common mental illness have been "discovered". 50 papers and 50 different genes for one condition. Sure it could be all 50 in some cases and one or more than one in others but then the researchers have not have shown what they tried to show. They are too enthusiastic for a narrow mechanistic target and they like to think that complex abnormal mental states’.

A.I admit the temptation is strong for mechanistic target, but I hope they will learn. All the same, I may mention that despite chastening positivism and reductionism (its another debate which I don’t want to enter here and distract from the main issue), the day Alzheimer’s disease, and other problems are cured, it would be due to a science that is positivistic and reductionist. They can’t cure it now, as they don’t know to which mechanism to pin it to. To qualify, I maintain that reductionism and emergentism go hand in hand. In peeling one layer, we find many others, and so it goes on.

 

Shiv




Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). --0-364753111-1054676968=:42641-- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005