Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Biologist David Sloan Wilson on social science, economics and evolution


"Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms" Series

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms I: How Wide is the Gap?

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms II: The Case of the Allais Paradox

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms III: The Case of Norms

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms IV: The Limiting Factor of Cultural Evolution is not Origin but Spread

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms V: The Invisible Hand Meets Multilevel Selection

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms VI: Elinor Ostrom–Evolutionist

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms VII: Lin Ostrom’s Recipe for Success

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms VIII: A Vigorous Hybrid of Liberal and Conservative Principles

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms IX: Consilience in Action

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms X: The Ultimate-Proximate Distinction and Why it Matters

Evolution and Economics as Different Paradigms XI: Market Fundamentalism

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms XII: Behavioral Economics, or will the real Homo sapiens please stand up?

Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms XIII: May the Best Paradigm Win


"What's Evolution Got To Do With It?" Series

What’s Evolution Got To Do With It? I. Four Reasons to Ignore the E-word

What’s Evolution Got To Do With It? II. The Other Tinbergen and His Four Questions

What’s Evolution Got To Do With It? III. Design Thinking Requires Knowledge of the Designing Process

What’s Evolution Got To Do With It? IV. The Problem With Merely Studying What Is

What’s Evolution Got To Do With It? V. The Case of Social Psychology


"The Nature of Regulation" Series

The Nature of Regulation I: Breaking Out of Our Narrative Prisons

The Nature of Regulation II: Regulate or Die


Other Posts By David Sloan Wilson

The Invisible Hand Is Dead

Science, Evolution, and Current Human Affairs

Evolution Begins to Occupy Center Stage in Economic Debates

Are Liberals and Conservatives Different Species? The Answer is Yes

David Sloan Wilson uses evolutionary theory to explain all aspects of humanity in addition to the rest of life, as he recounts for a general audience in Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin´s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives (Bantam 2007). He is a distinguished professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York. He publishes in anthropology, psychology, and philosophy journals in addition to his mainstream biological research. His academic books include Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (with Elliott Sober, Harvard 1998), Darwin´s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (Chicago, 2002), and The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (co-edited with Jonathan Gottschall, Northwestern 2005). Wilson also directs EvoS, a campus-wide program that uses evolutionary theory as a common language for the unification of knowledge.

6 comments:

Major_Freedom said...

When you say David Sloan "uses evolutionary theory", does "uses" mean that evolutionary theory was a means for Sloan to achieving a goal of teaching others something they might not have already known?

When you say David Sloan uses evolutionary theory to "explain all aspects of humanity", does "explain" mean that Sloan is presupposing some common ground of understanding between people, that he is a priori assuming something about the structure of the minds of his readers, without which his "explanation" won't make any sense to his readers?

---------------

If I said his written words are nothing but random symbols and scribbles, selected according to apes flinging poo at a dart board and selecting the letter in the alphabet that corresponds to those numbers (with circling back to A and continuing if necessary), then would I be objectively wrong in making this statement? In other words, would it possible that I am right that Sloan isn't writing what he seems to present himself as ostensibly writing? If it is possible, then why should I accept any of it? Given your answer, why should I accept what you type, given that it might also be the result of monkeys flinging poo at a dart board?

Matt Franko said...

MF,

wtf?

Tom Hickey said...

@ Major Freedom

Maybe you should read what DSW actually wrote before commenting.

Major_Freedom said...

Matt Franko:

wtf?

Problem?

Tom Hickey:

Maybe you should read what DSW actually wrote before commenting.

I have read David Sloan. In fact, I even read one of the articles you posted.

Maybe instead of inferring I did not read Sloan on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you could realize that my questions were directed to you?

Tom Hickey said...

@ MF

Fair enough

When you say David Sloan "uses evolutionary theory", does "uses" mean that evolutionary theory was a means for Sloan to achieving a goal of teaching others something they might not have already known?

When you say David Sloan uses evolutionary theory to "explain all aspects of humanity", does "explain" mean that Sloan is presupposing some common ground of understanding between people, that he is a priori assuming something about the structure of the minds of his readers, without which his "explanation" won't make any sense to his readers?

Yes, DSW wrote "Evolution for everyone" as a popular explanation of evolutionary science and its implication. I believe he targeted the Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms at economist that don't understand the science and its implications for economics.

When you say David Sloan uses evolutionary theory to "explain all aspects of humanity", does "explain" mean that Sloan is presupposing some common ground of understanding between people, that he is a priori assuming something about the structure of the minds of his readers, without which his "explanation" won't make any sense to his readers?

LIke all writers, he presumes understanding of the language, sufficient education to grasp the concepts, and enough cultural agreement to be open to the receiving the message. Religious fundamentalists are unlikely to be receptive.

On a deeper level, the question is whether DSW or science presuppose natural order, design, or other aprioris having to do with the world. The only apriori is logic as a formal system. Most Westerners use a two value logic. Orientals not so much. Which is a reason it is difficult to translate between cultures, and why Western people have a difficult time understanding where Orientals are coming from unless they have studied the language in context.

Major_Freedom said...

Tom Hickey:

"When you say David Sloan "uses evolutionary theory", does "uses" mean that evolutionary theory was a means for Sloan to achieving a goal of teaching others something they might not have already known?"

"When you say David Sloan uses evolutionary theory to "explain all aspects of humanity", does "explain" mean that Sloan is presupposing some common ground of understanding between people, that he is a priori assuming something about the structure of the minds of his readers, without which his "explanation" won't make any sense to his readers?"

Yes, DSW wrote "Evolution for everyone" as a popular explanation of evolutionary science and its implication. I believe he targeted the Economics and Evolution as Different Paradigms at economist that don't understand the science and its implications for economics.

You do realize that everything you are saying here is completely consistent with praxeology. You are interpreting DSW's behavior as intending to do something. That is a teleological inference. You are not inferring from his behavior some kind of automatic response to some prior set of causes according to constancy in causal operations as such. You did not say something like "DWS uttered these sounds and physically formed these words because variables X, Y, and Z applied to his body in the past, such that it was scientifically necessary that the outcome would be these words we see today."

No, you used teleology to understand his behavior. To reconstruct his past choices and then answer my question.

LIke all writers, he presumes understanding of the language, sufficient education to grasp the concepts, and enough cultural agreement to be open to the receiving the message. Religious fundamentalists are unlikely to be receptive.

How about praxeologists? I'm very receptive.

On a deeper level, the question is whether DSW or science presuppose natural order, design, or other aprioris having to do with the world. The only apriori is logic as a formal system.

What about that statement itself? What about "The only apriori is logic as a formal system." Is that an a priori? Or is it an empirical statement subject to falsification?

Sooner or later you're going to realize the, how shall I say this, untenability of your position. It has just too many internal inconsistencies.

You keep making attacks against the very presuppositions you are making. Maybe it takes an outside observer to show you what you are doing, or maybe you are just thinking about certain things so that you can appear as an authority, I don't know. But what I know is that contrary to your attempts to make me question my certainty, I am even more certain than I was before. Every critic of my philosophy makes the same misteps in logic, and I think it is because they don't do enough self-reflection.

Most Westerners use a two value logic. Orientals not so much. Which is a reason it is difficult to translate between cultures, and why Western people have a difficult time understanding where Orientals are coming from unless they have studied the language in context.

Then how to you explain the ability of Westerners and Orientals to engage in argumentation at all? To trade with each other, to talk to each other, and so on? You're overstating the extent of the differences, and you're ignoring the common ground.

Multi-value logic is just an offshoot of two value logic anyway. That's why there can be meaningful argumentation at all. If Oriental brains were not so constructed in two value logic, of true and false, it would be impossible to communicate.