Australian philosopher Michael Devitt (CUNY - NYC) has a
new book with the same title as mine (Oxford University Press):
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/biological-essentialism-9780198840282
If you search "biological essentialism" on
Amazon, you get a book about Chinese Volleyball as a top suggestion! One book by Michael Devitt, which does relate
to our topic, does appear in the search results - Biological Essentialism. The
point is that few books supporting the
traditional view of biological essentialism shows up on the list. That is, basic types of life exhibit limited
change - the true UnDarwinism. Two books
that I would have hoped for would be Real
Essentialism by David Oderberg and Aristotle’s
Revenge by Edward Feser.
Bio-essentialism does not deny the variety in the created
order. Devitt quotes Oderberg: "As
a general principle essentialism is wholly compatible with substantial change,
a phenomenon continuously exhibited in the inorganic world. It is an elementary
mistake to think that fixed essences exclude substantial change” (Biological Essentialism - Devitt, p. 87). For example, a false killer whale (genus Pseudorca) may cross with a dolphin
(genus Tursiops), both in the family Delphinidae. Hence, the label "wholphin."
Language
and Reality from a Naturalistic Perspective by Devitt is also on
Amazon's list, but is much more narrow than the overarching questions ...
How many kinds
of plants are there?
What are the
distinct natural kinds of animals?
However, Language
and Reality, which tackles linguistics, reference, meaning (Boswell any1?),
methodology, metaphysics and counters Chomsky, does relate to the issue of
human exceptionalism. Is "human
nature" a thing? Mathematician
David Berlinski (Ph.D., Princeton) says, "YES" and wrote a whole book
on it:
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-David-Berlinski/dp/1936599716
Berlinski (Tour of
the Calculus) has taught philosophy and #Maths in France & the USA. He lives just blocks from the Notre Dame
cathedral.
.jpg)
On the other hand, when you search "biological
essentialism" (without quotes) on Barnes & Noble, my book Biological Essentialism is #1 ‼ Devitt's tome is second #IM_2nd ... Please get a copy for yourself, your fam/friends/NME's
and other sentient beings (Vulcans any1?) today:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320
Naturalist* Michael Devitt studied under Willard Van
Orman Quine (tracer of lost essences?) at Harvard. Devitt's first book, Designation (1981) covers the “theory of reference” as popularized
by the logician Saul Kripke. To the best
of my knowledge, Devitt's initial book is not on the same route as the
action-packed #SciFi adventure Designation
of Origin - The Earth (2015) directed by Dorian Sanz (Tantalus):
https://en.kinorium.com/1450946/
According to Willard Quine (d. 2000), "... there is
nothing more basic to thought and language than our sense of similarity; our
sorting of things into kinds." [1]
Are you down with the Kripke and Putnam Revolution? Kripke (1980) and Putnam (1975) apply rigidity
to natural kinds:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/
#LetsGo_RigidDesignatorz ‼
There is a Putnam, Texas (originally known as Catclaw)
which is named after General Israel Putnam of the American Revolution. Interestingly, there exists a Krupki (Krupka,
Крупки) in Belarus - the Yiddish version is "Kripke." These towns were named at some points by
humans. How did "Cat" get its
name?
Alexander Bird and Emma Tobin bring out the key importance
of the work of philosophers Saul Kripke (b. 1940) and Hilary Putnam (d. 2016)
as it relates to Essential Types of Life (ETL's): "One may ... argue that
the arguments of Kripke, Putnam, and others do appeal to intuitions concerning
the nature and/or identity of natural kinds [or rather ETL's], and so the
inferences to essentialism from claims about necessity are legitimate in these
cases." [2]
Writing in the Croatian
Journal of Philosophy, Zdenka Brzović is willing to give Devitt the time of
day:
In this paper I examine
Michael Devitt’s version of essentialism, a view that stirred a lot of debate
amongst philosophers of biology by going against the mainstream view of “death
of essentialism” in evolutionary biology. So far, much more attention was directed
to refuting Devitt’s view then to analyzing what his essentialism consists in.
I go through the main tenets of the essentialist view, examine the relation
between Devitt’s view and the so-called traditional essentialism ...
"Devitt’s Promiscuous Essentialism" by Zdenka
Brzović, Croatian Journal of Philosophy:
Volume > 18 > Issue: 2
I am very comfortable calling my view "traditional
essentialism," that is, Aristotle's Biology. Armand Leroi (The Lagoon) has a mondo vid on Aristotle's Biology from *Serious
Science* >>
The Lagoon:
Devitt makes his essential thesis clear:
What is it to be a member of
a particular taxon [e.g. horses, hydras & humans]? ... The consensus answer in the philosophy of
biology, particularly for taxa that are species, is that the essence is not in
any way intrinsic to the members but rather is wholly relational, particularly,
historical. ... In "Resurrecting
Biological Essentialism" (2008), I rejected the consensus. I presented an argument that there is an
intrinsic component to a taxon's essence and responded to the well-known
objections to such a view: that it is at odds, first, with the relational
nature of species according to current "species concepts" and,
second, with the variation and change that are central to Darwinism.
"Historical biological essentialism" by Michael
Devitt, Studies in History and Philosophy
of Science (Part C), Vol. 71, OCT 2018, p. 1.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-S1369848617301887/first-page-pdf
We read this from the Introduction of Devitt's book on
#BioEss ...
The idea that biological
natural kinds, particularly a species like dogs, have intrinsic underlying
natures is intuitively appealing. It has been shown to be widespread even among
children (Keil 1989). It was endorsed by a great philosopher, Aristotle. Under
the influence of the logical positivists, Popper (1950), Quine (1960), and
others, it fell from philosophical favor in the twentieth century until revived
by Saul Kripke (1980), Hilary Putnam (1975), and David Wiggins (1980). Many
philosophers probably now take the view for granted. If so, they are right out
of touch with biologists and, especially, philosophers of biology. For, the
consensus among philosophers of biology, and a widespread view among
biologists, is that this sort of “Aristotelian essentialism” is deeply wrong,
reflecting “typological” thinking instead of the recommended “population”
thinking ... I shall defend intrinsic
biological essentialism. I think that the children are right and the
philosophers of biology, wrong.
Devitt discusses species in the context of horses and
zebras (Biological Essentialism - Devitt,
p. 16). ETL's are generally tagged at
the Family level of classification. Of
course, the human species is a key exception.
I place horses (including zebras, donkeys, 3-toed etc.) in one ETL.
Devitt goes into great detail in outlining various
opposing methods to tag species and how to proceed with biological
classification (species, genus, family ...).
Let's consider a simpler alternative.
Pulitzer Prize winning Gödel,
Escher, Bach is a thoughtful work from Douglas Hofstadter which lays out
the connections between these powerful creators:
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/reading-through-a-pandemic/godel-escher-bach
The cover has a cubic block of wood carved so that the
shadow makes a "G" or an "E" or a "B" depending
on the direction of the light. So, when
asked about this cube we should take a Both/And approach, it's G&E, E&B
and B&G. This is my view on how we
define ETL's which has three main components:
1) similar body
parts and functions
2) you are what
your father was
3) you are what
your mother was.
Thus, a mule, the cross between a female horse and a male
donkey is part of the horse ETL.
Likewise, a hinny which derives from a female donkey and a male horse. Donkey Hodie would also be part of the
"horse" natural kind. ☺
Richard Van Gelder (d. 1994), former Curator with the
Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York,
said this regarding hybrids:
I have somewhat arbitrarily
selected the production of a living offspring as the criterion for
acceptability in an intergeneric cross.
It seems to me that if the chromosomes of two taxa are compatible enough
to develop a fetus to term, then the parents would seem to be more closely
related than generic separation would suggest. [3]
I am thrilled that Devitt referenced my History of
Science Prof, David B. Kitts (pp. 6,
95). David Kitts (d. 2010) was the
curator of the University of Oklahoma’s (OU) Stovall Museum (now the Sam Noble
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History).
Kitts was a Professor in both the Geology and the History of Science departments. Despite being a victim of polio, Kitts was an
avid cyclist, riding in England, France and Oklahoma. On October 7th, 1981, I interviewed him on
the topic of evolution. He regarded the
proposal that basic categories of organisms have remained constant as a legitimate
scientific question:
Aristotle, to a greater
extent than almost anyone we know about, relied upon his observations. He observed that individual members of a
species do not persist but kinds [or rather ETL's] do persist. That is a pretty obvious fact about the
world. If there is abundant empirical
support for the view that species persist, why do evolutionists suppose they do
not persist? Evolutionists have a very elaborate
abstract theory that compels us to suppose that species do not persist. Our reason for thinking that species do not
persist is not our observation that they do not persist, but it is a theory
that requires them not to persist. ...
Whatever the observations that support evolutionary theory are, they are
not the observations that one species [or rather ETL's] turns into another. [4]
Here is the interview on "UToob" >>
Here is a summary of my book Biological Essentialism, chapter by chapter:
[1] What is Biological Essentialism? - Cats are cats,
bats are bats and apes and people do not have a common ancestor. Horses, hydras and humans are examples of
Essential Types of Life (ETL's).
[2] The Darwin Limited - Biological stasis keeps
variation in check. Plant breeders know
that Darwinism is not all powerful.
[3] Species Do Not Exist - We should drop the term
"species" in favor of ETL's.
The origin of "species" goes back to Genesis.
[4] Is Your Nature Human? - Human Exceptionalism is real. Mankind has a unique intrinsic nature.
[5] Some Men I Know are Really Women - Are Gender Fluid
alternatives legitimate? Is Milo
confused?
[6] Show Natural Kindness to Every Kind! - How do we
determine the boundaries of ETL's? What
about slime molds?
[7] Dawkins vs. Dawkins - Is Richard Dawkins pro-Darwin
or anti? A survey of the famous 1986
debate (Dawkins vs. Wilder-Smith).
[8] Seas of Wisdom Twelve - Focusing on 12 champions of
bio-essentialism: Aristotle, Mendel,
Berlinski, Hutton, Cuvier, Cotter etc.
[9] Is it Illegal to Question Evolution? - Will the
plague of net censorship soon attack origins discourse? Highlighting government leaders and scholars
who doubt Darwin.
[10] Darwin's Downers - Can Darwin tell us the Meaning of
Life? Are babies people too? How do evolutionists view the future?
[11] Is Your Worldview Biased? - Does propaganda for
evolution fairly represent the facts?
Aliens, volleyball, time travel and conversion therapy.
[12] Implications of Biological Essentialism - How do
bio-essentialists deal with endangered species?
Biological Essentialism implies Catastrophism and a new geology.
When you get the book, your feedback, pro or con, is most
welcome:
https://totalyouth.us/contact-us
Biological
Essentialism explains Essential Types of Life (ETL's),
such as bears and penguins - these are distinct kinds of organisms that do not
have a common ancestor and organic variation has limits. Would you like to learn more about human
exceptionalism, the fruit of evolution and the meaning of life? If so, this book is for you! Get your copy today:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320
#NaturalKinds #worldview #Aristotle
* Not in the Literature sense (Call of the Wild), but in the sense that evolution explains
origins.
Notes:
1) quoted in Biological
Essentialism by Jay L. Hall (True Truth Productions, Big Spring, TX, 2021),
p. 167.
note: True Truth Productions is now in OKC.
2) Ibid., p. 43.
3) Ibid., p. 40.
4) Ibid., pp. 12,13.
No comments:
Post a Comment