November 09, 2012
Justin E. H. Smith responds to the article below: A Tasty Treat for the Slime-Mold: More Inane Reporting on Animal Cognition
Justin E. H. Smith in his blog:
It's been a busy few weeks for announcements about how smart non-human life-forms are. First there was the talking beluga in California, then there was the elephant in Korea who could articulate a few words, then, finally, the report on a lowly slime mold's ability to make sophisticated decisions. All three of these reports repeated many of the conventional tropes for talking about animal intelligence; both trumpeted as wholly new and unheard-of the sort of data that have long been a staple of science reporting; and both are sure to leave everything exactly the same: with anti-anthropocentrists shouting see! See!, and with those who believe that human beings are something special in the cosmic scheme insisting that anything they are shown can be explained in terms of mimicry, stimulus, and other automatisms.
The irrelevance of empirical data for deciding the matter, in fact, long precedes the very existence of science journalism: it defines a clear rift already in 17th-century philosophy, while the 'new' discoveries themselves are for the most part only variations of what was already well documented in Aristotle's Historia animalium. And yet, the journalists always report as if until yesterday we were all fully committed to a hardcore version of the bête-machine doctrine. At the same time, however, they ensure that the topic will remain perpetually new by reinforcing, willy-nilly, the very doctrine their news item is supposed to be calling into question.
What do I mean by this? Consider the report from the New York Daily News, in which Koshik the Korean elephant is described as 'parroting' human speech.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 09:10 AM | Permalink
Comments
@ Justin,
I, too, am wary about the conventions we have for talking about science, particularly in matters of evolution and evolutionary biology. Scientists who should know better appear to forget that evolution is adaptation to local conditions, and litter their lectures with words of intention. We hear phrases like:
- "They developed wings in order to..."
- "The organisms developed such-and-such so they could..."
- "Nature gave us a brain so we could..."
And on and on.
More than a few times I opened up a TED video in the hope of listening to something important in the study of evolution or other interesting topic in the life sciences, only to close the video before it even got off the ground. Yes, I could stay with it and compensate, in my own mind, for the wrong-headed use of explanations of intention, purpose, and goals in evolution.
The major problem, from a societal and education perspective, is that the wrong ideas of intention, direction, and purpose in evolution are what fuel misconceptions and opposition to teaching the science of evolution in our schools. If you accept the 'common sense' notion of direction in evolution, then it makes sense to ask, "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"
We can laugh at the exposure of the critic's lack of understanding, even stupidity, concerning the science of evolution. But, the casual stupidity of our scientists and science writers who sprinkle 'cutesy' and 'intention' onto substantive topics, like salt onto french fries, need a good whack upside the head.
Posted by: Norman Costa | Nov 9, 2012 10:09:29 AM
Careful Norman. You're veering uncomfortably close to "They developed wings and then discovered that they could fly with them."
Posted by: Carlos | Nov 9, 2012 10:17:51 AM
It is chic and fashionable to forget the greatest evolutionary concepts, in terms of time, which is the evolution of machines.
That abiotic evolution began some 13.75 billion years ago.
The most primitive biotic evolution only began some 3.54 billion years ago.
Homo sapien evolution began some 200 thousand years ago.
Why major in the minors by not discussing the 10.21 billion years of abiotic evolution that preceded biotic evolution?
Posted by: Dredd | Nov 9, 2012 11:05:24 AM
@ Dredd:
What is the definition of abiotic evolution?
Is there a meaningful definition of evolution that would apply to both biotic and abiotic spheres?
Is there a deficiency or failing, here, in not including abiotic evolution along side biotic evolution in a discussion of conventions for talking about and writing about science?
Posted by: Norman Costa | Nov 9, 2012 11:24:14 PM
Post a comment