Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It is the new book by physiologist J. Scott Turner, author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself.
The book may make some “skeptics” uncomfortable, but maybe they should read it anyways.
From the book:
I have come to believe that there is something presently wrong with how we scientists think about life, its existence, its origins, and its evolution.
Without a coherent theory of life, whatever we think about life doesn’t hold water. This applies to the major contribution we claim that the modern science of life offers to the popular culture: Darwinism.
… there sits at the heart of modern Darwinism an unresolved tautology that undermines its validity.
… do we have a coherent theory of evolution? The firmly settled answer to this question is supposed to be “yes” …
I intend to argue in this book that the answer to my question might actually be “no.”
Darwinism is an idea of intoxicating beauty, and yet there has been for many years a muddle at the heart of it, at least in its modern form.
… what it cannot explain is coming into stark relief, making it impossible any longer to ignore the muddle.
The problem for modern Darwinism is, I argue, that we lack a coherent theory of the core Darwinian concept of adaptation.
This type of reasoning is known formally as a tautology…
For Darwinism to make sense (and I want deeply for it to make sense), the tautology somehow needs to be resolved.
… the obstacle to resolving the tautology is not that we know too little — far from it — but that we aren’t thinking properly about what we do know. In short, the obstacle is largely philosophical, and the stumbling block is the frank purposefulness that is inherent in the phenomenon of adaptation.
… the uncomfortable question is this: what if phenomena like intentionality, purpose, and design are not illusions, but are quite real — are in fact the central attributes of life? How can we have a coherent theory of life that tries to shunt these phenomena to the side? And if we don’t have a coherent theory of life, how can we have a coherent theory of evolution?
– Turner, J. Scott. Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. HarperCollins. 2017.
Biology, we have a problem. He wants Darwinism to make sense, but the book just doesn’t start out well for the Darwin disciples. Maybe someone else here will actually read it and explain how misguided this poor author is. He’s a Christian. Maybe he’s just lying for Jesus.
Another nail in the coffin.
Yes, a coffin would be a good place for that nail.
What is the alleged tautology? It’s mentioned several times in your excerpts, but you don’t tell us what it is.
Thanks.
The boring question, anyway.
The intentionality, purpose, and design of P. falciparum?
What a false dilemma, too, either intentionality, purpose, and design are real and central to life (I’m aware of the weaseling, but he’s conflating the two), or they’re illusions. I don’t think they’re illusions, no reason to think that they belong to anything but the appropriate organisms themselves.
Glen Davidson
Survival of the fittest, perhaps?
Yeah you managed to quote a lot of stuff about this big problem, but never explain what the big problem is. I guess we’re supposed to buy the book to find out. zzZZz
Also, what is this stuff about intentionality, purpose and design? Some organisms have intentions, they do things that appear to be for some purpose? (built a nest for the purpose of procreation?) Sure, and?
How is this an issue with evolution by natural selection?
That’s because what makes something alive is a matter of subjective definition. Is it life? Dunno, define life.
The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, it doesn’t decide what counts as being alive. Are viruses alive? Viruses evolve regardless of whether you think they count as life.
I once entertained the idea of creating a website that scoured the internet for every time the phrase ‘final nail in the coffin’ was used in relation to evolution.
It was going to be the skeleton of Darwin (with a beard) inside a giant coffin covered in nails. Your mouse would be a little hammer and tapping on one of the nails would reveal the quote and its web address.
But then I had flashbacks of Dembski’s Judge Jones Flash thingy and I snapped out of it.
Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer both praised this book.
Kind of says it all.
Glen Davidson
That poor cat only has 9 lives. It cannot withstand the comparison with evolution.
I do not plan to buy this book.
I can’t vouch for the accuracy but this comes from the only Amazon review….
Look on the bright side. At least this time, the book Mung talks about is actually trying to put a nail in the coffin. His last nail was Jonathan Losos, an actual evolutionary biologist who was only demonstrating that evolution works just a bit faster than Darwin might have thought. I’m about 2/3 of the way through that book, and not a nail in sight so far.
Here we have a nut who knows little about evolution and understands less and who’s going to revolutionize the field. Not quite a nail; more of a post-it note smeared with grape jelly.
So did the Wright brothers.
Is that why we evolved brains?
Glen Davidson
“I think I can” destroys “Darwinism.”
Glen Davidson
Me too.
🙂
There are reasons to be wary of vitalism (as the Amazon page suggests Turner endorses), but the deeper problem there is with what might called a commitment to “compositionalism”: something is what it is because of what it is made from or composed out of. That assumption obscures the idea that there can be ontological novelty due to changes in arrangement, structure, or form.
Frankly, this book strikes me as grounded in a correct intuition but that it goes off the rails early on because the author hasn’t read enough philosophy of mind and philosophy of biology.
The conceptual problem in biology has been that, in our supposed ‘overcoming’ of Aristotle, we find ourselves in a forced choice between mechanism and intellectualism: everything is either a machine (though I worry that not enough thought has gone into explaining what exactly ‘mechanistic’ means) or a fully-fledged epistemic agent (with belief-desire psychology).
As we know, Descartes tried pushing mechanistic explanation as far as he could, but he balked when it came to epistemic agents because he desperately wanted to retain the belief in free will. With far greater consistency, Spinoza realized a mechanistic metaphysics entails that choice is an illusion because we are ignorant of the (efficient) causes of our desires and beliefs.
There are philosophers who have tried to really overcome the mechanism/intellectualism dichotomy that pervades modern thought: Dewey, Merleau-Ponty, Hans Jonas, Francisco Varela (also a theoretical biologist), and a few others. This morning I’m reading an article just published in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association called “Natural Agency: The Case of Bacterial Cognition” by Fermin Fulda. Here’s the abstract:
By contrast, I worry that Turner both correctly realizes that mechanism won’t work as a theory of life, but is still imprisoned within the Cartesian dichotomy and therefore concludes that cognition and intentionality must be true of all life. If that’s right, then I’d suggest he ends up in vitalism because he hasn’t seen his way to rejecting the entire Cartesian dichotomy — he just rejects one side of it and ends up endorsing the other.
By the way: although I do think that there’s something basically right about understanding living things as agents, that has nothing to do with whether Darwinism is a correct theory of how life evolves.
Kantian Naturalist,
I’m puzzled. What is the definition of “mere machine” that means that it can’t have adaptive behavior? What is this argument really about?
Mung:
Your allusion to Apollo 13 was hilarious.
Thanks for the laugh.
“The problem for modern Darwinism is, I argue, that we lack a coherent theory of the core Darwinian concept of adaptation.
What the hell is he talking about? We have theory of giraffe’s long neck adaptation…which states that giraffe needed long neck to survive…The giraffes with short necks did’s survive because they couldn’t see the predators coming early enough as the ones that stretched their necks…
This type of reasoning is known formally as a tautology…
People like Joke Filistine would never do that…
For Darwinism to make sense (and I want deeply for it to make sense), the tautology somehow needs to be resolved.
O’RLY?
I’ve read there’s an element of sexual selection. There’s pronounced sexual dimorphism in giraffes. They also look a bit like okapis!
J-Mac,
J-mac please use fellow members correct titles.
That’s a good question, and one that I do worry about myself. I think the concern is that ‘mere machines’ are automata, and automata can’t have intrinsic goals.
Now I have to ask what that means. What are automata? Why can’t they have intrinsic goals? It seems to me that the notion of “machine” being used here is of something that does one thing, with only internal causation: the clock ticks because of gears and springs and such interacting in its internal workings. There is no variation in response to external stimuli (well, there isn’t supposed to be). But that’s a false model of the general “machine”, and has been false at least since the invention of the steam engine governor. Perhaps DesCartes had his view because clocks were his model, and he hadn’t seen machines that incorporated feedback. Machines are capable of modifying their behavior in response to environmental changes, some of them in quite complex ways. How is that different from what organisms do?
Can I instead use the same “titles” and pictures your fellow members use toward me?
J-Mac,
Just use fellow members correct titles, thanks in advance.
I guess you sympathize with your fellow members…
J-Mac,
This is a moderation issue. If you want to argue about it, take it up n the moderation issues thread.
Moved a comment to guano. Moderation issues, moderation issues thread.
Moved another comment to guano. Moderation issues, Moderation Issues thread.
A tautology is not “a form of reasoning” (either formally or informally).
Not that you’re ever interested in learning anything….
J-Mac is quoting from Scott Turner, so the error is Turner’s, not J-Mac’s. It goes to my point earlier that Turner should have read a lot more philosophy before trying his own hand at it.
From what little I could tell (from the Preface available on Amazon’s Look Inside feature) Turner isn’t actually talking about a tautology in the technical sense.
Instead he’s claiming that contemporary biology is conceptually flawed because it does not accommodate our pre-theoretic intuition that there is a difference of kind between living things and non-living things.
If Turner had known a bit more psychology he might have asked himself whether this “intuition” is anything more than a feature of the conceptual models that we use to navigate the world. We don’t expect physicists to accommodate our folk-physical intuition that objects are solid — we expect them to explain why we have the intuition that we do, even though it’s false. So we should expect the same sort of thing from biologists: explanations of why we have the intuitions about life that we do, even if those intuitions are false.
Or more precisely: explanations of why these intuitions are false to the extent that they are. Of course if the intuitions were completely false they couldn’t function as the mostly useful, rough-and-ready heuristics that they are!
KN, quoting Fermin Fulda:
Folks who make arguments like that generally underestimate the capabilities of “mere machines”.
I just don’t see the point.
Are self-driving cars adaptive agents, cognitive agents, or “mere machines”? Who cares? The only obvious qualitative difference would seem to be consciousness, which I suspect that our robots fail to have (not the right interactions). Huge difference, but not one that directly matters to capabilities.
Glen Davidson
The definition of alive is that which Lamarkianism is.
More specifically:
Turner:
Oh, fercrissakes. This is just a slight variation on the same stupid tautology argument that IDers and creationists have been making for decades: “Who survives? The fittest. Who are the fittest? Those who survive.”
Mung,
So Turner is confused between “adaptation” used as a noun, and “adaptation” used as a verb. And he takes his confusion to imply that Darwin was confused.
No, keiths, it’s not a variation on the “survival of the fittest” tautology. That’s just a knee-jerk reaction. You’re smart enough to know better.
No, Neil, it has nothing to do with Darwin being confused. You don’t plan to buy the book and that’s probably a good thing. You’ll be less likely to butcher it.
OK.
Ehhh.
I can see natural selection as the cause of adaptation, but not the outcome.
Maybe he’s thinking that because the products of natural selection (adapted organisms) go on to form part of the environmental selection pressure….then that’s tautological, rather than just a regular feedback loop?
Not sure what he’s getting at.
Neil:
“Adaptation” is not a verb, Neil.
Woodbine:
Judging from the quote that Mung supplied, Turner actually thinks that he’s spotted a definitional circularity:
It’s just as goofy as the claim that Darwinism boils down to “survival of the fittest”, where the fittest are defined as “those who survive.” Survival of those who survive.
Likewise, “Adaptation is the product of natural selection”, and “Natural selection is the outcome of adaptation.” Adaptation is the result of adaptation.
Again, I’m just judging from the quote that Mung supplied. But unless there’s some exonerating context, Turner should be very embarrassed.
keiths,
No thinkers have overcome that tautology problem yet keiths.
Why don’t you post a review of the relevant literature? Give us an annotated bibliography, at least.
Evolutionary processes as problem solving.