Evolution’s Puzzle & Trans-Evolutionary Change

In lead-up to the recent Royal Society’s “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosophical and Social Sciences Perspectives” meeting in London, which courted the terms ‘extension,’ ‘replacement’ and ‘amendment’ in regard to the (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary ‘Modern Synthesis’ in biology, as presented by active and leading members of the (mainly Anglo-American) biological scientific community as well as philosophers (and a couple of largely physical rather than cultural anthropologists), including several members of The Third Way of Evolution, this was one of a few trans-evolutionary change preparations aimed at liberating the social sciences and humanities from positivist, reductionist, evolutionist, atomist & naturalist (PREAN) ideologies (none of which, of course, refers to a single soul at TSZ because almost everyone here is – by definition of being a ‘skeptic’ – skeptical about even their own admittedly personal ideologies that are often so easily identifiable by their words made in public?), which display hegemonic tendencies by capital-capture political positioning scholars & dehumanising ‘public understanding’ gurus coming from oftentimes highly specialised natural-physical sciences fields that have become an unfortunate burden in collaborative science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse, to everyone.

Cheers to moving beyond (neo-)Darwinian evolutionism with trans-evolutionary li-ber-a-tion!

27 thoughts on “Evolution’s Puzzle & Trans-Evolutionary Change

  1. Gregory:

    In lead-up to the recent Royal Society’s “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosophical and Social Sciences Perspectives” meeting in London,

    an unfortunate burden in collaborative science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse, to everyone.

    Do you say that sentence in one go, without taking a breath in the middle? If so, awesome!

    And while we’re liberating the social sciences from bad influences from evolutionary biology, are we also liberating evolutionary biology from evolutionary biology?

  2. In lead-up to the recent Royal Society’s “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosophical and Social Sciences Perspectives” meeting in London, which courted the terms ‘extension,’ ‘replacement’ and ‘amendment’ in regard to the (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary ‘Modern Synthesis’ in biology, as presented by active and leading members of the (mainly Anglo-American) biological scientific community as well as philosophers (and a couple of largely physical rather than cultural anthropologists), including several members of The Third Way of Evolution, this was one of a few trans-evolutionary change preparations aimed at liberating the social sciences and humanities from positivist, reductionist, evolutionist, atomist & naturalist (PREAN) ideologies (none of which, of course, refers to a single soul at TSZ because almost everyone here is – by definition of being a ‘skeptic’ – skeptical about even their own admittedly personal ideologies that are often so easily identifiable by their words made in public?), which display hegemonic tendencies by capital-capture political positioning scholars & dehumanising ‘public understanding’ gurus coming from oftentimes highly specialised natural-physical sciences fields that have become an unfortunate burden in collaborative science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse, to everyone.

    One sentence.

    Gordon Kairosfocus would be proud.

  3. Is this Gregory’s entry for the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest (purple prose category)?
    Not too shabby, although it could run on more.

  4. Erik:
    Towards the end he uses, approvingly, a Russian word.

    Be very afraid.

    Do you know which one and what it means?

    (I haven’t listened to it yet myself.)

  5. Kantian Naturalist: Do you know which one and what it means?

    At 13:15 mark he says “Mutual aid or vzaimopomosch”. That’s what vzaimopomosch means – mutual aid or mutual help. He pronounced it correctly too.

  6. Erik: At 13:15 mark he says “Mutual aid or vzaimopomosch”. That’s what vzaimopomosch means – mutual aid or mutual help. He pronounced it correctly too.

    Surely a reference to the work of Peter Kropotkin?

  7. John Harshman: Surely a reference to the work of Peter Kropotkin?

    I believe so. Gregory refers to Kessler and Kropotkin in his paper.

    I’m a huge fan of Mutual Aid myself.

  8. Joe Felsenstein,

    “Do you say that sentence in one go, without taking a breath in the middle? If so, awesome!”

    Well, it’s in one sentence, yes. But might need a breath ; )

    “And while we’re liberating the social sciences from bad influences from evolutionary biology, are we also liberating evolutionary biology from evolutionary biology?”

    Hah, yes, I suppose that needs addressing too. As you know, and as the video repeats: this is about evolutionism in social sciences and humanities. I’m aware that for quite a few people, that itself broadcasts: “Not important!” or “Not listening!”. Thankfully, such persons aren’t really the audience.

  9. keiths,

    Hi.

    Okaaaay. Decent production value. I agree that “evolution” is perhaps an overly broad term, or at least needs contextual qualification. I’m just not seeing it impinging on non-biological disciplines the way Gregory is suggesting. If Trans-evolutionary Change is better, it will make better models and give better predictions. like ID, it needs to do the work before looking to be popularized.

    I found this: https://socialepistemologydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/sandstrom_trans_change.pdf

    Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_mind_thesis appears to be a crock.

  10. must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…
    must… resist… derping…………………………………..

  11. Gregory,

    Is there any way you could summarize your ideas in 4 sentences? I mean sentences of reasonable length that don’t include terms of your own creation.

    BTW, Were you a frequent commenter at UD a few years ago under the name “Gregory” ?

  12. Richardthughes,

    Thanks for most of this. As for “not seeing it impinging on non-biological disciplines,” there’s a blind spot among many and among many it is also willful.

    “make better models and give better predictions”

    Yes, I agree. And it’s nothing like Discovery Institute’s IDism, of course.

    “Russian novelists have been known to write whole long novels in Russian.” – Joe

    Yeah, I don’t do that in Russian, thanks. Linguistic respect nod to Erik for his attempts, successes & failures, from whatever native tongue he here suggestively displays. I orally defended my dissertation at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Russian, if that helps with levelling language, and the term vzaim(n)opomosh was actively explored in both of those texts.

    ETA: I’ve heard some use it with an ‘n’ as well, though that seems to be more Ukrainian, e.g. like some do with Theodosius Dob(r)zhansky too.

  13. Gregory,

    I think my point is that neither TEC or ID is excluded from the table – they’ll get there with models, research and results. No bakery gets good reviews before if makes its first loaf, and people and right to be skeptical until they taste it.

  14. Richardthughes: I’m just not seeing it impinging on non-biological disciplines the way Gregory is suggesting.

    In my perception, it felt problematic something like 20 years ago, more acute before that. Especially look for theories with “behaviourism” in it. For example, the theses of behaviorist psychology.

    – All behavior is learnt from the environment
    – Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking and emotion
    – There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals
    – Etc.

    See where it’s coming from and where it’s heading?

    But their high point seems to have passed this century. It’s subsiding as we speak. Instead, veiled transhumanism in sciences and policies seems to be making headway.

Leave a Reply