tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6453531027071704519..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The "Mutationism" Myth I. The Monk's Lost Code and the Great ConfusionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13277696114054378402010-06-21T16:09:56.350-04:002010-06-21T16:09:56.350-04:00Thank you, Arlin, for your explanation. You are us...Thank you, Arlin, for your explanation. You are using an scholarly usage of "Myth". OK.<br />I don't deny that usage. The Myth of Eternal Return, for example; The universe is supposed to recur infinite times; true or false? that's not the point! I think I understand. <br /><br />But, sorry, it seems to me that even in scholar works, the term "myth" is used a lot of times with the meaning of "false", larguely "wrong" belief, uncritically -your word- held and repeated. Except, of course, when they talk about the myths of... Mythology -discussing their falsehood would be time-wasting. <br /><br />Also, I didn't mean to associate you with the creationists in any sense! So, if "The Myth of Evolution" example er... leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you can replace it with The Myth of Creationism. Or with The Myth of the Noble Savage, The Myth of Man the Killer, The Myth of Cultural Homogenization, the Myth of Western Superiority, The Myth of Black inferiority, The Myth of Matriarchy, The Myth of Monogamy, The Myth of Primitive Societies, The Myth of Postmodern University, The Bonobo Myth, Etc.El PaleoFreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11323149141956089390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-385815298316409992010-04-06T14:05:03.364-04:002010-04-06T14:05:03.364-04:00Thanks to you all for the comments posted while I ...Thanks to you all for the comments posted while I was on vacation. <br /><br /><b>Anonymous</b>, as stated in the introduction, my main focus is on clarifying theoretical problems, not "campaigning" for a particular view of how evolution works in reality. So, I'm not necessarily trying to lead you somewhere in that sense. If you were waiting for me to propose "neo-Mutationism" as "the Next Synthesis" (or something like that), you are going to be disappointed. At the end of dissecting the Mutationism Myth, we will have achieved a deeper understanding of two major issues in evolutionary thinking, one of which is how to think about the role of variation in evolution, and the other of which is the problematic reinvention of "Darwinism". <br /><br /><b>Paleofreak</b>, I'm not exactly blown away by your research skills, nor by the guilt-by-association argument linking me with creationists who have used the word "myth". In the future, please try harder, or write less. Scholarly usage of "myth" or "mythology" (which is a topic of study for cultural anthropologists) clearly corresponds to the kind of explanation that I gave, in which the truth or falsity of a story is not the key to its mythic status. To quote wikipedia on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth" rel="nofollow">myth</a>,<br /> <br /><i>"The term 'myth' is often used colloquially to refer to a false story; however, the academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity."</i><br /><br />If you are not accustomed to scholarly writing and "myth" leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then feel free to substitute "legend" or "story". Whatever the terminology, the point is that the mutationism { myth, tale, legend, story }, like an urban legend, is re-told uncritically. It is the pattern of re-telling, rather than anything else, that makes a verbal construction a myth. <br /><br />And yes, specific elements of the mutationism myth, duly illustrated in passages that I quoted already, will be shown to be largely false.Arlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03243864308260498878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60638485554483026152010-04-01T08:56:33.592-04:002010-04-01T08:56:33.592-04:00"The neo-Darwinian theory of the geneticists ..."The neo-Darwinian theory of the geneticists is no longer tenable"<br /><br />This is Goldschmidt himself. It's difficult not caricaturize his ideas a bit ;o)El PaleoFreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11323149141956089390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18253866934431712372010-03-31T09:20:49.050-04:002010-03-31T09:20:49.050-04:00Alexander says,
... it suggests that there is som...Alexander says,<br /><br /><i>... it suggests that there is something about the Modern Synthesis that was conducive to reinterpreting past controversies to make MS look great.</i><br /><br />Bingo! Give the man a prize.<br /><br />This is the point that Gould made in <i>The Return of the Hopeful Monster</i> where he defended some of the views of Richard Goldschmidt. <br /><br />Gould said,<br /><br /><i>I want to argue that defenders of the synthetic theory made a caricature of Goldschmidt's ideas in establishing their whipping boy.</i><br /><br />They did the same with mutationism in order to purify the modern synthesis and make it seem very simple.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16389744534843370182010-03-31T06:38:47.261-04:002010-03-31T06:38:47.261-04:00"The defining characteristic of a myth is not..."The defining characteristic of a myth is not that it isn't literally true, but that it isn't told for reason of being literally true, but for reason of being meaningful or poignant"<br /><br />Sure? There are lots of things written about "evolution myths" and "science myths", and the word always mean a false belief held by many. There are also titles like "The Myth of Evolution", "The Myth of Darwinism" etc. <br />I have just checked the meaning of "myth" in several English dictionaries and, well... it means commonly a false belief. That "defining characteristic" of being "meaningful or poignant" is difficult to find. I think that the use of the word "myth" in these contexts is purely a sophism. We don't like how a science issue is being explained or popularized, and then we call it a "myth".<br />So, where is the "mutationism myth"? We'll find it in the secnd part of the Mutationism Myth, I suppose...El PaleoFreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11323149141956089390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42271696388178285692010-03-31T05:51:49.108-04:002010-03-31T05:51:49.108-04:00Larry, is there any way you could tag these posts ...Larry, is there any way you could tag these posts as "The Curious Disconnect" or something else distinctive? Would greatly help with the searching + referencing! Thanks =DPsi Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10829712736757471647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60096050852017676242010-03-30T23:56:38.572-04:002010-03-30T23:56:38.572-04:00I'm intrigued by your evolving series of posts...I'm intrigued by your evolving series of posts but utterly baffled at this point regarding where you intend to take us. Is your beef with the historians of science or scientists (e.g., Mayr) themselves, or will you lead into a campaign to resurrect the notion of mutational bias as a mechanism of evolutionary change? I suspect it is the latter, a suspicion based both on your own published work and in the preceding post in this series, but for those late to the game (and even to this reader who was happy to see a second post from an old friend-- think Iowa, Joes Place)), the present screed offers no guidance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82129157652469948212010-03-30T23:40:37.516-04:002010-03-30T23:40:37.516-04:00This is interesting because it establishes the exi...This is interesting because it establishes the existence of this myth, but I'm curious about real evidence as to what the mutationists believed. I was under the impression that at least in Darwin's own lifetime there existed people who actually believed what the myth says mutationists believed. I seem to remember reading Darwin criticizing macromutationism on the grounds that it is so improbable as to be a miracle claim, so unless he was making shit up there must be some truth to the story. But of course that's what myths are built on.<br /><br />A very similar case (of Modern Synthesis mythology) occurs when people talk about Fleeming Jenkin, whose objection to natural selection (assuming blending inheritance, new variants would blend with the common phenotype and thus wouldn't be significantly perpetuated) supposedly stumped Darwin and his fans up until the Synthesis. This turns out to be totally wrong, as can be seen if you look at what Jenkin wrote and at Darwin's correspondence and his comments in subsequent editions of the Origin. But it suggests that there is something about the Modern Synthesis that was conducive to reinterpreting past controversies to make MS look great.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908428123363294967noreply@blogger.com