Tuesday, August 1, 2023

Biological Essentialism vs. Biological Essentialism (Devitt v. Hall)


 

Australian philosopher Michael Devitt (CUNY - NYC) has a new book with the same title as mine (Oxford University Press):

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/biological-essentialism-9780198840282

If you search "biological essentialism" on Amazon, you get a book about Chinese Volleyball as a top suggestion!  One book by Michael Devitt, which does relate to our topic, does appear in the search results - Biological Essentialism.  The point is that few books  supporting the traditional view of biological essentialism shows up on the list.  That is, basic types of life exhibit limited change - the true UnDarwinism.  Two books that I would have hoped for would be Real Essentialism by David Oderberg and Aristotle’s Revenge by Edward Feser. 

Bio-essentialism does not deny the variety in the created order.  Devitt quotes Oderberg: "As a general principle essentialism is wholly compatible with substantial change, a phenomenon continuously exhibited in the inorganic world. It is an elementary mistake to think that fixed essences exclude substantial change” (Biological Essentialism - Devitt, p. 87).  For example, a false killer whale (genus Pseudorca) may cross with a dolphin (genus Tursiops), both in the family Delphinidae.  Hence, the label "wholphin."

 

Language and Reality from a Naturalistic Perspective by Devitt is also on Amazon's list, but is much more narrow than the overarching questions ...

   How many kinds of plants are there?

   What are the distinct natural kinds of animals?

However, Language and Reality, which tackles linguistics, reference, meaning (Boswell any1?), methodology, metaphysics and counters Chomsky, does relate to the issue of human exceptionalism.  Is "human nature" a thing?  Mathematician David Berlinski (Ph.D., Princeton) says, "YES" and wrote a whole book on it:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-David-Berlinski/dp/1936599716

Berlinski (Tour of the Calculus) has taught philosophy and #Maths in France & the USA.  He lives just blocks from the Notre Dame cathedral.


 

On the other hand, when you search "biological essentialism" (without quotes) on Barnes & Noble, my book Biological Essentialism is #1 ‼  Devitt's tome is second #IM_2nd ...  Please get a copy for yourself, your fam/friends/NME's and other sentient beings (Vulcans any1?) today:

www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320

 

Naturalist* Michael Devitt studied under Willard Van Orman Quine (tracer of lost essences?) at Harvard.  Devitt's first book, Designation (1981) covers the “theory of reference” as popularized by the logician Saul Kripke.  To the best of my knowledge, Devitt's initial book is not on the same route as the action-packed #SciFi adventure Designation of Origin - The Earth (2015) directed by Dorian Sanz (Tantalus):

https://en.kinorium.com/1450946/

According to Willard Quine (d. 2000), "... there is nothing more basic to thought and language than our sense of similarity; our sorting of things into kinds." [1]


 

Are you down with the Kripke and Putnam Revolution?  Kripke (1980) and Putnam (1975) apply rigidity to natural kinds:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/

  #LetsGo_RigidDesignatorz ‼

There is a Putnam, Texas (originally known as Catclaw) which is named after General Israel Putnam of the American Revolution.  Interestingly, there exists a Krupki (Krupka, Крупки) in Belarus - the Yiddish version is "Kripke."  These towns were named at some points by humans.  How did "Cat" get its name?

Alexander Bird and Emma Tobin bring out the key importance of the work of philosophers Saul Kripke (b. 1940) and Hilary Putnam (d. 2016) as it relates to Essential Types of Life (ETL's): "One may ... argue that the arguments of Kripke, Putnam, and others do appeal to intuitions concerning the nature and/or identity of natural kinds [or rather ETL's], and so the inferences to essentialism from claims about necessity are legitimate in these cases." [2]

 

Writing in the Croatian Journal of Philosophy, Zdenka Brzović is willing to give Devitt the time of day:

 

In this paper I examine Michael Devitt’s version of essentialism, a view that stirred a lot of debate amongst philosophers of biology by going against the mainstream view of “death of essentialism” in evolutionary biology. So far, much more attention was directed to refuting Devitt’s view then to analyzing what his essentialism consists in. I go through the main tenets of the essentialist view, examine the relation between Devitt’s view and the so-called traditional essentialism ...

 

"Devitt’s Promiscuous Essentialism" by Zdenka Brzović, Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 2

https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/browse?fp=croatjphil&fq=croatjphil%2FVolume%2F8982%7C18%2F8998%7CIssue%3A+2%2F


 

I am very comfortable calling my view "traditional essentialism," that is, Aristotle's Biology.  Armand Leroi (The Lagoon) has a mondo vid on Aristotle's Biology from *Serious Science* >>

https://youtu.be/frVUd4V5ZTk

The Lagoon:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Lagoon-How-Aristotle-Invented-Science-Pre-Owned-Paperback-9780143127987-by-Armand-Marie-Leroi/3942175510

 

Devitt makes his essential thesis clear:

 

What is it to be a member of a particular taxon [e.g. horses, hydras & humans]? ...  The consensus answer in the philosophy of biology, particularly for taxa that are species, is that the essence is not in any way intrinsic to the members but rather is wholly relational, particularly, historical. ...  In "Resurrecting Biological Essentialism" (2008), I rejected the consensus.  I presented an argument that there is an intrinsic component to a taxon's essence and responded to the well-known objections to such a view: that it is at odds, first, with the relational nature of species according to current "species concepts" and, second, with the variation and change that are central to Darwinism.

 

"Historical biological essentialism" by Michael Devitt, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part C), Vol. 71, OCT 2018, p. 1.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-S1369848617301887/first-page-pdf

 

We read this from the Introduction of Devitt's book on #BioEss ...

 

The idea that biological natural kinds, particularly a species like dogs, have intrinsic underlying natures is intuitively appealing. It has been shown to be widespread even among children (Keil 1989). It was endorsed by a great philosopher, Aristotle. Under the influence of the logical positivists, Popper (1950), Quine (1960), and others, it fell from philosophical favor in the twentieth century until revived by Saul Kripke (1980), Hilary Putnam (1975), and David Wiggins (1980). Many philosophers probably now take the view for granted. If so, they are right out of touch with biologists and, especially, philosophers of biology. For, the consensus among philosophers of biology, and a widespread view among biologists, is that this sort of “Aristotelian essentialism” is deeply wrong, reflecting “typological” thinking instead of the recommended “population” thinking  ... I shall defend intrinsic biological essentialism. I think that the children are right and the philosophers of biology, wrong.

 

Devitt discusses species in the context of horses and zebras (Biological Essentialism - Devitt, p. 16).  ETL's are generally tagged at the Family level of classification.  Of course, the human species is a key exception.  I place horses (including zebras, donkeys, 3-toed etc.) in one ETL.


 

Devitt goes into great detail in outlining various opposing methods to tag species and how to proceed with biological classification (species, genus, family ...).   Let's consider a simpler alternative.  Pulitzer Prize winning Gödel, Escher, Bach is a thoughtful work from Douglas Hofstadter which lays out the connections between these powerful creators:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/reading-through-a-pandemic/godel-escher-bach

 

The cover has a cubic block of wood carved so that the shadow makes a "G" or an "E" or a "B" depending on the direction of the light.  So, when asked about this cube we should take a Both/And approach, it's G&E, E&B and B&G.  This is my view on how we define ETL's which has three main components:

  1) similar body parts and functions

  2) you are what your father was

  3) you are what your mother was.

Thus, a mule, the cross between a female horse and a male donkey is part of the horse ETL.  Likewise, a hinny which derives from a female donkey and a male horse.  Donkey Hodie would also be part of the "horse" natural kind. ☺    

 

Richard Van Gelder (d. 1994), former Curator with the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said this regarding hybrids:

 

I have somewhat arbitrarily selected the production of a living offspring as the criterion for acceptability in an intergeneric cross.  It seems to me that if the chromosomes of two taxa are compatible enough to develop a fetus to term, then the parents would seem to be more closely related than generic separation would suggest. [3]

 

I am thrilled that Devitt referenced my History of Science Prof, David  B. Kitts (pp. 6, 95).  David Kitts (d. 2010) was the curator of the University of Oklahoma’s (OU) Stovall Museum (now the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History).  Kitts was a Professor in both the Geology and the History of Science departments.  Despite being a victim of polio, Kitts was an avid cyclist, riding in England, France and Oklahoma.  On October 7th, 1981, I interviewed him on the topic of evolution.  He regarded the proposal that basic categories of organisms have remained constant as a legitimate scientific question:

 

Aristotle, to a greater extent than almost anyone we know about, relied upon his observations.  He observed that individual members of a species do not persist but kinds [or rather ETL's] do persist.  That is a pretty obvious fact about the world.  If there is abundant empirical support for the view that species persist, why do evolutionists suppose they do not persist?  Evolutionists have a very elaborate abstract theory that compels us to suppose that species do not persist.  Our reason for thinking that species do not persist is not our observation that they do not persist, but it is a theory that requires them not to persist. ...  Whatever the observations that support evolutionary theory are, they are not the observations that one species [or rather ETL's] turns into another. [4]

 

Here is the interview on "UToob" >>

https://youtu.be/TmF7Y3kpucU


 

Here is a summary of my book Biological Essentialism, chapter by chapter:                                            

[1] What is Biological Essentialism? - Cats are cats, bats are bats and apes and people do not have a common ancestor.  Horses, hydras and humans are examples of Essential Types of Life (ETL's).         

[2] The Darwin Limited - Biological stasis keeps variation in check.  Plant breeders know that Darwinism is not all powerful.

[3] Species Do Not Exist - We should drop the term "species" in favor of ETL's.  The origin of "species" goes back to Genesis.

[4] Is Your Nature Human? -          Human Exceptionalism is real.  Mankind has a unique intrinsic nature.

[5] Some Men I Know are Really Women - Are Gender Fluid alternatives legitimate? Is Milo confused?

[6] Show Natural Kindness to Every Kind! - How do we determine the boundaries of ETL's?  What about slime molds?

[7] Dawkins vs. Dawkins - Is Richard Dawkins pro-Darwin or anti?  A survey of the famous 1986 debate (Dawkins vs. Wilder-Smith).           

[8] Seas of Wisdom Twelve - Focusing on 12 champions of bio-essentialism:  Aristotle, Mendel, Berlinski, Hutton, Cuvier, Cotter etc.

[9] Is it Illegal to Question Evolution? - Will the plague of net censorship soon attack origins discourse?  Highlighting government leaders and scholars who doubt Darwin.

[10] Darwin's Downers - Can Darwin tell us the Meaning of Life?  Are babies people too?  How do evolutionists view the future?

[11] Is Your Worldview Biased? - Does propaganda for evolution fairly represent the facts?  Aliens, volleyball, time travel and conversion therapy.

[12] Implications of Biological Essentialism - How do bio-essentialists deal with endangered species?  Biological Essentialism implies Catastrophism and a new geology.

 

When you get the book, your feedback, pro or con, is most welcome:

https://totalyouth.us/contact-us

 

Biological Essentialism explains Essential Types of Life (ETL's), such as bears and penguins - these are distinct kinds of organisms that do not have a common ancestor and organic variation has limits.  Would you like to learn more about human exceptionalism, the fruit of evolution and the meaning of life?  If so, this book is for you!  Get your copy today:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320

#NaturalKinds #worldview #Aristotle

 

* Not in the Literature sense (Call of the Wild), but in the sense that evolution explains origins.

 

Notes:

1) quoted in Biological Essentialism by Jay L. Hall (True Truth Productions, Big Spring, TX, 2021), p. 167. 

note: True Truth Productions is now in OKC.

2) Ibid., p. 43.

3) Ibid., p. 40.

4) Ibid., pp. 12,13.

No comments:

Post a Comment