Darwin and Lamarck are "Incommensurabe"


Kuhnian incommensurability is a term used in the philosophy of science to describe the idea that different scientific paradigms are not commensurable, or comparable. This means that it is not possible to translate the terms of one paradigm into the terms of another in a way that preserves their meaning.

The term was coined by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argued that scientific progress is not a linear process of accumulating knowledge, but rather a series of revolutions in which old paradigms are overthrown and replaced by new ones. When this happens, the terms of the old paradigm become meaningless in the new one.

For example, the Ptolemaic and Copernican paradigms of astronomy are incommensurable. In the Ptolemaic paradigm, the Earth was at the center of the universe and the planets revolved around it. In the Copernican paradigm, the Sun was at the center of the universe and the planets revolved around it. The terms "planet" and "universe" have different meanings in these two paradigms. In the Ptolemaic paradigm, a planet is a celestial body that orbits the Earth, while in the Copernican paradigm, a planet is a celestial body that orbits the Sun.

Kuhn's theory of incommensurability has been controversial. Some philosophers of science argue that it is incompatible with the idea of scientific progress. Others argue that it is a useful way of understanding the history of science.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the relationship between Kuhnian incommensurability and the problem of scientific disagreement. Some philosophers argue that Kuhnian incommensurability can help to explain why scientists sometimes disagree about the interpretation of scientific evidence. Others argue that Kuhnian incommensurability is not a necessary condition for scientific disagreement.

The article "Incommensurability in Evolutionary Biology: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Controversy" by Juan Gefaell and Cristian Saborido examines the debate between the Modern Synthesis (MS) and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) in light of the concept of incommensurability developed by Thomas Kuhn.

The MS is the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was developed in the mid-20th century and is based on the theory of natural selection. The EES is a more recent framework that challenges some of the assumptions of the MS. It emphasizes the role of non-genetic factors, such as environment and behavior, in evolution.

Gefaell and Saborido argue that the MS and the EES are incommensurable. This means that they use different concepts, methods, and assumptions, making it difficult to compare them directly. They suggest that this incommensurability is the source of the current controversy between the two frameworks.

The authors also discuss the implications of incommensurability for scientific change. They argue that incommensurability does not mean that there is no rational way to choose between competing theories. Instead, it means that rational theory comparison must be done within the context of a particular paradigm.

The article concludes by discussing the future of evolutionary biology. Gefaell and Saborido suggest that the debate between the MS and the EES is likely to continue for some time. However, they also argue that this debate is healthy and necessary for the progress of evolutionary biology.

Here are some additional thoughts on the article:

  • The article raises important questions about the nature of scientific change. Incommensurability is a complex concept, and there is still much debate about its implications. However, the article provides a valuable contribution to this discussion.

  • The article also has implications for the study of evolutionary biology. It suggests that the MS and the EES are not simply two different versions of the same theory. Instead, they are two different paradigms with different ways of understanding evolution. This has important implications for how we study and teach evolutionary biology.

Overall, the article is a well-argued and thought-provoking contribution to the debate about incommensurability and scientific change. It is a valuable resource for anyone interested in these topics.

Link




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more