Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:40:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: evolutionary/economic analogy?



I'm not endorsing "rational choice" evolutionary theory in the manner of
J.M. Smith, just remarking that it exemplifies the role of analogy, or a
role for analogy, in the exact sciences. Lisa asks what I mean by sating
that the "economic: analogy is constitutive of this approach, which
basically takes over the tools of RCT and applies them to biological
entities taht cannot even have beliefs, desires, utility functions, and so
forth because they have no mental states. What I mean is that these tools
are applied to such organisms by anlogy, or, as Lisa puts it, "as if"
plants or flies or micro-organisms were trying to maximize fitness. (In
fact the theory only applies by analogy to people as biological organisms,
because while we do have mental states it's absurd to say that as a matter
of empirical fact anyone tries to maximize evolutionary fitness.) The
point is that the analogy is constitutive of the structure of the theory.
No analogy, no theory. Whether this is a good theory is something on which
I am not qualified to comment. I have noted your exchanges but they are
beyond my competence.

--Justin

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Lisa Rogers wrote:

> 
> >>> Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>  4/10/96, 
> Hesse points out that analogies are at the heart of many scientific
> theories, even in the excat sciences. It might not be overstating the
> point to say that the analogies are in some cases partly constitutive
> of the theories. To take one example that Lisa will like: consider
> thea pplication of "rational choice theory" to evolutionary biology,
> treating organisms (even plants) as if they were economically
> rational agents.
> ****
> Justin,
> I am very interested!  This is one of the things that Terrence
> McDonough has been wacking me for, because he thinks it's an
> inappropriate analogy, or he calls it a metaphor.  Did you catch our
> exchange on that in some of the mail I forwarded to the list?  I want
> to know what you think.
> 
> I wouldn't say that 'economic rationality' or 'optimization' is at
> the _heart_ of evolutionary theory, but it's a very useful set of
> mathmatical methods and terminology, at least.  It is due to the
> nature of natural selection that it creates lifeforms that 'act as
> if' they are allocating scarce resources in ways likely to maximize
> their own survival and reproduction.  [Is that clear enough, or what
> could I add?]
> 
> Do you really think that the economic 'analogy' is 'constitutive' of
> such evolutionary theory?  What do you mean by that?
> 
> Regards,
> Lisa
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---