On Weird Theories

AUTHOR: Allen MacNeill

SOURCE: Original essay

COMMENTARY: That's up to you...

"... say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
- Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski (1998)

I had a next-door neighbor who worked for an aerospace company. One summer afternoon we were sitting beside his barbeque in his back yard, having one of those stream-of-consciousness conversations that often accompanies the guzzling of a six pack or two (his brand was Pabst Blue Ribbon™). I don't remember how the subject came up, but somewhere along the line I must have done what my wife calls "hitting the core-dump button." And he did; for the next couple of hours I listened in semi-horrified fascination as he expounded on his "theory" of reality. Basically, it was a weird variant on the "eagle and snake" mythology of the Aztecs, except that in his own weird theory the snake was the major icon. He went on and on about how the world (and time and everything else) was, at some much deeper level of reality, a snake. Ouroboros and the Midgard Serpent and Satan in the Garden of Eden and Freud's phallic symbols and the Caduceus and on and on and on...it was all tied together in a huge, complicated, and ultimately deranged web of relationships. It clearly was very meaningful to him; at times he seemed on the verge of tears. He showed me a medal of the Aztec eagle-and-snake image, which he wore around his neck at all times (even to bed and in the shower). He told me how it got him through some bad times in Vietnam, and later when he almost broke up with his wife. The emotional connections were so intense that he was shaking at times, and there was a catch in his voice.

This wasn't the first (or the last) time something like this has happened to me. Several times – on the bus or in the bus terminal, on a long car trip with a friend, at the airport, over lunch, at a picnic for work or a fraternal organization – someone hears or thinks of the word or phrase that "hits the core-dump button" and out it all comes. You sit there, in awe and trepidation, while the core-dumper gives you their entire "weird theory" of reality, all in one huge, steaming, highly charged, stream-of-consciousness pile. Sometimes it's clear that they have never articulated this before to anyone. Other times it's clear that they've been working on this particular monolog, maybe for years, and have already "gifted" others with a very similar version. Every time it's always intensely emotional for them, as the whole weird mess unspools and they search your face for some sign of recognition, of empathy, of understanding.

And, with me at least, they don't get that. I listen politely, trying not to look perplexed or horrified, waiting for the whole thing to come tumbling out, and hoping for something to then divert us – the burgers starting to burn or the bus arriving or the teller asking for my driver's license. I nod sometimes, and grunt in what I hope is a non-judgmental way, and quietly wish for someone or something to intervene before the core-dumper realizes that, not only to I not empathize, I think they're nuts.

Because they are, at some very deep level. Almost all of us are; completely whacked. What we almost all have, buried deep in our psyche, is what I call a "weird theory of reality," in which we believe passionately, and into which we shoehorn almost every perception we have about reality. Furthermore, it's clear to me that people have always had such "weird theories" about reality. Today it's alien abductions or UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis. Yesterday it was angels and demons, fairies, gnomes, trolls, heaven and Hell, transubstantiation, faith healing, walking on water, flying, and speaking in tongues. Tomorrow...well, I can't say for sure, but I am sure it will be something weird.

What makes modern "weird theories" different from those of the past is that today everyone has their own "weird theory". When people lived in small agricultural villages or even smaller hunter-gatherer groups, people had weird theories, but these were pretty similar within those groups. Heresy was difficult, if not virtually unthinkable, because everyone in a particular group was in constant verbal and emotional contact with virtually everyone else, and there was a strong incentive to conform to group norms of belief.

This pattern persisted into historic times with the establishment and enforcement of "state religions" - that is, weird theories of reality that had the force of political coercion behind them. People may have had personally idiosyncratic versions of the group's weird theory, but they generally kept these to themselves. These "group weird theories" (GWT) were the mythologies that held such groups together, that gave them a sense of shared experience and shared purpose, and that facilitated group coordination. This was often a good thing, but sometimes a bad thing: it made possible group coordination in agriculture and response to natural disasters, but also facilitated warfare and small-scale genocide.

What characterizes us now is that our weird theories are almost entirely idiosyncratic, especially in the First World. We have largely given up the large-scale group mythologies and religions of the past, and replaced them with what could be called "personal mythologies and religions". That Protestantism is the most influential religion in America today is precisely because it isn't a single religion: it's thousands, even millions of little idiosyncratic religions, with some shared similarities. Schism, right down to the individual level (and even within individuals at different times in our lives) is the norm, and so our weird theories are not only weird, they're mutually incomprehensible.

So, are the various sciences also "weird theories"? Anyone acquainted with the current state of quantum physics would almost certainly agree, as would most evolutionary biologists. But, it's not really the same, because although there are many weird theories in science, there is also an underlying agreement that is deeply "unweird" – the idea that empirical verification and logical inference is the basis for all of our weird theories.

Ultimately, the difference between non-scientific and scientific "weird theories" is that eventually the latter become generally accepted by the scientific community in the same way that the grand overarching religious weird theories of past centuries were. Yes, there are still schisms in science (think of the controversies surrounding punctuated equilibrium versus phyletic gradualism), but in the long run these schisms tend to heal themselves. Thomas Kuhn described this process well, but he also asserted (and most scientists would agree) that eventually the various scientific communities agree on their dominant paradigms. Science, in other words, tends to become more unified over time, as deep connections between the various weird theories stitch them together into "grand unified theories".

By contrast, the non-scientific "weird theories" schism and schism and schism, until they become the incomprehensible idiosyncratic messes that one taps into when one hits the "core-dump button". Indeed, one of my personal weird theories is that this is a good way to distinguish between useful (i.e. "true") and pointless (i.e. "false") weird theories: the former tend to unify your ideas with those of the other members of your community, whereas the latter tend to separate us to the point of mutual incomprehensibility.

Hence, the quote from The Big Lebowski: say what you say what you like about the tenets of (insert scientific discipline here), Dude, at least it's an ethos.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Shermer, M. (2002) Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. Holt, New York, NY, ISBN #0805070893 ($17.00, paperback), 384 pages. Available here.

Sowin, J. (2008) 25 reasons people believe weird things. Pseudoscience, Life, Science, Religion, 28 April 2008. Available online here.

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Are Adaptations "Real?"

AUTHOR: Allen MacNeill

SOURCE: Original essay

COMMENTARY: That's up to you...

In an ongoing thread at Design Paradigm, Salvador Cordova wrote:

“There are many designed features in biology that make no sense in terms of natural selection but make complete sense in terms of design.”

This statement demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of both the concept of “design” and of “natural selection,” a misunderstanding which lies at the heart of the evolution/design debate. What is “design” anyway? Note that I’m not asking the question that Dr. Dembski thought he was answering, i.e. how can we tell if something has been designed. Before one can even ask that question (much less attempt to answer it), one must first agree on what “design” is.

This is not a trivial problem. Michael Ruse, in Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?, asserts that one of the most important contributions of Darwin’s theory was that it put “design” back into nature (from which it had been removed by the “Newtonians”). To Ruse, “design” is essentially equivalent to “adaptation,” in that adaptations “solve” problems of biological function.

But the problem here is one that Lewontin and Gould addressed almost 30 years ago in their landmark paper “The Spandrels of San Marco...”. Lewontin and Gould pointed out two things: (1) not all of the characteristics of living organisms are adaptations (i.e. some of them are the result of pure “chance,” not necessity), and (2) even the characteristics that are clearly adaptive don’t have to have arisen because they are adaptive, nor will they continue to exist for the same reason. They coined the term “exaptation” to refer to characteristics of organisms that are not necessarily adaptive, but which nonetheless are biologically significant.

I would go much further than Lewontin and Gould: just as Darwin suggested (but did not come right out and say) that there are no such things as “species” (see "Origin of the Specious" in this blog), I believe that in nature there are no such things as “adaptations,” at least not insofar as such "adaptations" are "solutions" to biological "problems." That is, although there are characteristics of organisms that are correlated with relatively high reproductive success (and would therefore be considered by most evolutionary biologists to qualify as “adaptations”), it becomes problematic to decide exactly which of those characteristics are the “real” adaptations and which are merely “accidental.” Indeed, if one is serious about the variation/inheritance/fecundity/differential reproductive success model of evolution (i.e. the genuine article, not the RM+NS straw-man attacked by most IDers), then all of the characteristics of living organisms are “accidental” insofar as their origin cannot be shown to have been “intended” or “pre-destined” ahead of time.

Here is the real crux of the disagreement, as PvM has pointed out: what qualifies as an “adaptation” in biology can only be determined retrospectively, insofar as it has the practical result of causing increased relative survival and reproduction. No characteristics of living organisms can be shown to have come into being because they would eventually have that result; indeed, I would assert that to even make this claim is non-sensical in the extreme. What characteristics of living organisms currently alive will eventually result in their assendance or demise? We have absolutely no way of knowing, nor even of imagining a way of knowing. At some point in the future, we can look back and say “son-of-a-gun, those funny looking scales are correlated with increased survival and reproduction because they allow the animals that have them to fly, and therefore escape predators and capture prey more effectively,” but until this actually happens (and absolutely nothing in nature guarantees that it will), we can’t make any statements about the “value” of any of the characteristics of organisms now living.

This, rather than the rather vapid speculations Salvador cited for the future of genetic engineering, is the real value of genetic engineering to evolutionary biology (and vise versa). We now have the ability to selectively delete individual characteristics from many different organisms. This makes possible something that natural selection does not: the precise determination of the selective “value” of particular characteristics. This has already been done, and the surprising outcome has been that even some gene sequences that were thought to have been very important in selection (due to having been “conserved” over deep evolutionary time) are apparently insiginificant or even useless. We know this because knocking them out of the genome has no discernible effect on the survival or reproduction of the “knock-out” progeny. If one is the kind of “pan-adaptationist” that Lewontin and Gould criticized, this outcome should come as a severe shock, as it should to every IDer. But, if one is a true “Darwinian” (i.e. a devotee to that tradition which questions absolutely all assumptions, including the very existence of “adaptations” and “species”), it should come as no surprise at all.

--Allen

REFERENCES CITED:

Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1974) "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique Of The Adaptationist Programme" Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No. 1161, pp. 581-598.