Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Questions and Comments on Darwin and Lewontin (Don't post on Wilder here!)

Note:  for next week your reading assignment is Darwin, chapters 7-8, and Lewontin, pages 1-58.

Post your questions/thoughts as comments to this post.  Again:  a paragraph is fine, or a couple if you feel so moved.  You are posting on a question, problem or topic of your choice.  Citing a particular passage is recommended but not required.

16 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the chapter entitled “A Reasonable Skepticism,” Lewontin argues that a “third view” is needed to study science with (Lewontin, 15). He believes that interactions, not individual parts should be the basis of discussion and that the isolation of individual parts is simply a useless result of society’s current mindset. However, Lewontin also argues that all cases in science are different. Why, then, should the same method of study be applied to them all? Perhaps in some cases studying specific parts would be better, in others studying the whole would be beneficial, and in others still, studying interactions would be the most helpful. Lewontin may be ignoring this fact in an attempt to convince us of the validity of his own view.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The question of time is brought up by Lewtontin a lot. Whether it is of the 19th century, or of some old book, time changes social conditions, which are said to be linked to science very deeply by Lewtonin. All this he takes into account when discussing society, revolutions, and social Darwinism. There is one concept influenced by time that only readers nowadays can take into consideration that Lewtonin cannot, the now fully sequenced human genome. Because Lewtonin was before the time of mechanized gene sequencing and advanced laboratories, he could not have known what the sequencing of the genome has done to science. What he says it will do (which may be sarcastic or not, that is my question) is figure out the natural inequalities in the human race and it will determine what biology itself is. It will bring a large understanding to the table that was never there before. Little did he know when he wrote the book, the human genome is complex and confuses scientists as to what gene codes for what and how changes in sequence effect phenotype. The sequencing of genes in the human body has actually brought a lot of confusion and further questions. This is one example of how the old books and people Lewtonin refers to can be somewhat applied to his book, because it too has become older than the sequencing of the genome. Time is also at work on not just society or science, but Lewtonin as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I found that just reading the first chapter, "A Reasonable Skepticism", really interested me due to the complexity and vast amounts of information it contained. I found that the first paragraph on page fourteen was very interesting, "Genes make individuals and individuals make society and so genes make society,". I understood that everyone had different genes but I didn't know that individuals in a society have similar genes to one another. I think biology is very fascinating so this entire first section of reading really intrigued me. I also really enjoyed the addition of Darwin into Lewontin's writings. It really helped me compare "Biology as Ideology" and "The Voyage of the Beagle".

    ReplyDelete
  5. I find a particular passage in Lewontin’s “A Reasonable Skepticism” (page 8) that really stuck out when I read it. The second paragraph on this page is a ramble on how science is more “legitimate” than both religion and politics in society. He uses strong phrases like “science to replace religion” and “science was superior to all other obligations” that really pile onto other aspects of the world. I believe in this argument Lewotin is overlooking that science is set to discover truth about nature whereas religion and politics don’t really intertwine in that field. Sure, religion somewhat can cross that line at times when referring to history and evolutionary theories, etc. As strong as the paragraph is and while his support is solid, with a little more thought, I noticed that Lewotin might be a little to hell bent on making science to superior to everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In what I have read so far in Lewontin's book, the idea that I have liked the most is nature vs. nurture. That has been a topic of debate for decades, and from what I gather, it appears that Lewontin makes an implicit yet firm stance on it. He argues that nature will always overcome nurture. The blood in someone is a better indicator of how they will act than the environment in which they were raised. One strong example he lists is "He [Daniel Deronda] falls in love with a Jewish woman, studies the Talmud, and converts. The reader will not be surprised to learn that he is the son of a Jewish actress whom he has never seen but whose blood tells" (Lewontin 24). He also uses Oliver Twist, someone who grew up in an orphanage yet has perfect speech, as another example. Both defy what would seem to be their tendencies had they observed and accepted the ideas with which they were presented. This is due to their predisposition, their nature.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although both focused on science, Darwin and Lewontin take on very different perspectives. Darwin, more specific to his own observations, very strictly notices what is occurring around him. Lewontin, however, seems to be more intent on arguing a point and using other scientists to back him up. For example, Lewontin even brings up Darwin and his Theory of Evolution. The feeling of Darwin's writing is much more in-the-moment whereas Lewontin's writing is very logical and precise. I find this interesting because I, not being a science person, categorized it as something that is factually based and can not be argued.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I find it interesting how Lewotin discusses how scientific views have changed based on cause and effect in the first chapter "A Reasonable Skepticism." He talks about Darwin's view that organisms are influenced by the environment around them. Humans cannot influence the outside world so they must adapt or die. In modern science, this theory is reversed. Today humans are thought to be determined by internal factors, or genes. On the top of page 14 Lewotin states, "Genes make individuals and individuals make society, and so genes make society." Instead of society shaping individuals, individuals now shape society.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is the only time I'm going to admit this and I will deny I posted this in class but I love "Biology as Ideology"! I did enjoy "The Voyage of the Beagle" or rather it was easy to read through and I think the main component is both authors style. In both book's cases the author focuses on their interests- Darwin with nature and Lewontin with biology. I think this is significant in how they portray their ideals, both with scientific accuracy and an equal amount of passion. I think it's especially interesting in "Biology as Ideology" Lewontin's key points about Darwin determining the theory of "survival of the fittest" due to social economical standards of the time period. Darwin to me is now viewed as much more conservative and almost regulated- studies whereas Lewontin has no problem speaking his mind. However as much as Lewontin seems to want to separate himself from Darwin they are very much the same- stylistically speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's been a pretty interesting read so far, something that caters more to my interests, especially considering the (somewhat) unique perspective this author has on things. Something that was especially interesting to me was the part on using science to justify racism and discrimination. Whereas the belief back then was that your genes and ancestry determined your intelligence, the author raises the idea of the environment being more influential: "A change in environment, in this case of cultural environment. can change abilities by many orders of magnitude." (29) Of course, this then raises the issue/question of if there can be cultures that are "superior" to others.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Throughout the reading of Lewontin, I’ve struggled with understanding the argument. Initially, I was under the impression that Lewontin is arguing that science, like religion, has been adopted as a tool of societal legitimation, and that a better understanding of science could undermine its use as such. However, the introductory chapter ends on the distinction between the dissection and partialization of our understanding of the world and the holistic, mystical interpretation of things. Here Lewontin stresses the importance of reconciliation between the two views. Lewontin’s criticism of the Human Genome Project and hybrid produce seem to corroborate the former argument, which further clouds my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Lewontin is pretty interesting reading, especially for those of us who may be taking biology, or some related class right now. I think we as readers (and authors too, of course) can sometimes get caught up in the stigma that this type of reading has to be dense, wordy, and boring. However, one thing I appreciated that really challenges these stigmas is Lewontin poking fun at us right off the bat when he writes, "(Like professors who are invited to give lectures on the radio and turn them into books)", in reference to the people who have "control over the conditions of their own lives, work, and time," (Lewontin 5). This is obviously a reference to himself, and one that almost serves a sort of reassurance that there is a personality behind the pages rather than a mere reiteration of facts. Personally, I really appreciated this-- especially having it so early on in the book.

    ReplyDelete
  13. At first I thought that Lewontin would be a very dull reading. However, I'm finding it to be pretty interesting. He provides plenty of examples to his claims and arguments. Being a student leaning towards a political science major (and someone who is not at all a fan of biological siences), I did not think this book would provide any content that would interest me. But I was pleasantly surprised to see parallels in Lewontin writing to topics that have been discussed in all of my other classes such as race in Cultural Anthropology and societal structure in Western Civilizations. I do find myself getting lost in the scientific discussion he offers and had to reread statements to get a grasp of what he is arguing. I really enjoyed the chapter "Causes and Their Effects" as Lewontin showed his logic behind the idea that TB is not caused by the actual bacteria but by the conditions in which the person was in that made it possible to contract it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I really enjoy the new Lewontin reading, and I think he has a very valid point, but I do not think he stresses the counter argument enough in his first chapter. I do think science is undoubtable influenced by social constructs. We study the things that we get funding and recognition for. My dad talks about it all the time working as an engineer. Also I think our education shapes what we perceive as facts. There is also most defiantly bias in experiment. So I do agree we let society dictate to much on objective studies, but at the same time you can't say it's entirely wrong.What is so wrong with studying things that will impact our society most? I know it adds probably more bias to experiments, but if we studied all areas equally we would never get specific enough to ever cure cancer or increase food production.
    Also he takes a critical stance on analog being converted to digital. yet doesn't address the perks of digital. He just say "We no longer think, as Descartes did, that the world is like a clock. We think the world is a clock" (14). I get his point we need to appreciate analog, but without digital we'd be screwed. Time, measurements, music, traffic lights they all r digital for a reason. Can you imagine if traffic lights faded from one color to the next, or trying to follow a recipe? It would be a disaster. To apply this to science every good experiment should be able to be recreated if you follow correct measurements and have low error. This experiments if able to be repeated several times are not coincidences. digital allows for good communication of specifics.
    I did like his ideas on genetics though especially because I studied epigenetic a lot in high school.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have to say that my perception of the book changed after reading its back cover. At first I was apprehensive that it would be either extremely boring, or about a scientist’s ideas that were too complicated to understand. After reading the back cover, however, I became more interested in what insights the book offered. It may be as simple as the fact that I’m extremely interested in genetics and cells overall, but I definitely became more excited and ready to begin the book. Without wasting time, Lewontin gets the ball rolling immediately, and his ideas are fluid and seamless, connecting his examples to the overarching theme of biology being an ideology. What I found most interesting was his explanations as to what Darwin connected in his theory of evolution, whether consciously or otherwise. Lewontin says that Darwin’s experiences helped shape his theory because he expanded his personal knowledge from his own life and applied it to nature as a whole. He says, “What Darwin did was take early-nineteenth-century political economy and expand it to include all of natural economy” (10). This is because Darwin had already economically ‘survived’ through his livelihood of investments. The economy is a tough game to play, and Darwin had already shown that he was ‘fit’ enough to do well. As to whether or not Darwin connected his life to that of nature is not quite certain, but it is definitely an interesting and compelling argument that society affects science.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was really surprised by how interested I was in Lewontin's work. After being slightly bored with Darwin's work, this book was a refreshing change. I really connected with the part in the beginning where Lewontin says "by convincing people that the society in which they live is just and fair, or if not just and fair then inevitable," I think that this is such a true statement. It just made a lot of sense to me. I think the fact that Lewontin could make a book about science so interesting is great. I really enjoyed this read.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.