Incommensurability in Evolutionary Biology - EES verses the MS

Incommensurability is a concept introduced by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It refers to the idea that competing scientific paradigms are not simply different ways of explaining the same phenomena, but rather that they are so fundamentally different that they cannot be directly compared or contrasted.

Kuhn argued that scientific paradigms are more than just theories; they are also sets of shared assumptions, concepts, and methods that define how scientists see the world and practice their science. As a result, scientists working within different paradigms often have different ways of understanding and explaining the same phenomena.

Kuhn's thesis of incommensurability has been controversial, but it has also been highly influential. It has challenged traditional views of scientific progress as a linear accumulation of knowledge. Instead, Kuhn argues that scientific progress is more like a series of revolutions, each of which involves a shift to a new and incompatible paradigm.

Here are some of the implications of Kuhn's thesis of incommensurability:

  • It is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively compare and contrast competing scientific paradigms.

  • Scientific progress is not a linear accumulation of knowledge, but rather a series of revolutions.

  • Scientists working within different paradigms may have different ways of understanding and explaining the same phenomena.

  • It is important to be aware of one's own paradigm and how it shapes the way one sees the world and practices science.

Kuhn's thesis of incommensurability is a complex and nuanced one, and it has been the subject of much debate and discussion among philosophers of science. However, it is a highly influential concept that has helped to change the way we think about scientific progress.

Epigenetics is the cornerstone of the EES. Over 137,000 articles in the last 10 years opposed to 267 on the MS. 

In the journal article "Incommensurability in Evolutionary Biology: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Controversy," authors argue that the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) is incommensurable with the traditional modern synthesis (MS) of evolutionary biology. Incommensurability is a philosophical concept that refers to the inability of two theories to be compared or evaluated on common grounds. Arthors argue that the EES and MS are based on different sets of assumptions and concepts, and that these differences make it impossible to compare them directly.

One of the key differences between the EES and MS is their view of the role of development in evolution. The MS views development as a relatively constrained process, while the EES sees it as a more open and dynamic process. This difference in perspective has led to different views on a number of topics, such as the role of epigenetics in evolution and the relationship between genes and culture.

Another key difference between the EES and MS is their view of the role of chance in evolution. The MS sees chance as a relatively minor factor in evolution, while the EES sees it as a more important factor. This difference in perspective has led to different views on a number of topics, such as the role of genetic drift in evolution and the importance of rare events.

They argue that the differences between the EES and MS are so great that it is impossible to compare them directly. They argue that the two theories are incommensurable, and that each theory must be evaluated on its own terms.

The EES controversy is a complex and ongoing debate. There is no consensus among evolutionary biologists about whether the EES is incommensurable with the MS. However, the EES controversy has raised important questions about the nature of scientific knowledge and the relationship between different scientific theories.

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) is a theoretical framework that seeks to expand the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. The EES was first proposed in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci, and it has since been adopted by a number of other evolutionary biologists.

The EES is based on the following key premises:

  • Development is a central evolutionary process.

  • Chance is an important factor in evolution.

  • Epigenetics plays a role in evolution.

  • Culture and evolution are intertwined.

The EES has been controversial since its inception. Some evolutionary biologists have argued that the EES is unnecessary and that it undermines the modern synthesis. Others have argued that the EES is a necessary step forward in evolutionary biology.

Modern synthesis (MS) is the dominant theoretical framework in evolutionary biology till now. The MS was developed in the mid-20th century by a number of evolutionary biologists, including Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and Julian Huxley.

The MS is based on the following key premises:

  • Natural selection is the primary evolutionary force.

  • Genes are the units of heredity.

  • Populations are the units of evolution.

The MS has been very successful in explaining a wide range of evolutionary phenomena. However, it has also been criticized for its narrow focus on natural selection and its neglect of other evolutionary processes, such as development, chance and epigenetics.

The Incommensurability Controversy

The authors argue that the EES is incommensurable with the MS. Incommensurability is a philosophical concept that refers to the inability of two theories to be compared or evaluated on common grounds. They argue that the EES and MS are based on different sets of assumptions and concepts, and that these differences make it impossible to compare them directly.

They identify a number of key differences between the EES and MS, including:

  • Their view of the role of development in evolution.

  • Their view of the role of chance in evolution.

  • Their view of the role of epigenetics in evolution.

  • Their view of the relationship between genes and culture.

They argue that these differences are so great that it is impossible to compare the EES and MS directly. They argue that the two theories are incommensurable, and that each theory must be evaluated on its own terms.

The EES controversy is a complex and ongoing debate. There is no consensus among evolutionary biologists about whether the EES is incommensurable with the MS. However, the EES controversy has raised important questions about the nature of scientific knowledge and the relationship between different scientific theories.

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) is a theoretical framework that seeks to expand evolution past the MS.

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