Evolving Thoughts


Friday, June 03, 2005

The evolution of ruling myths

It's funny how myths get started in science. As I continue to slog my way through various eras in search of the Giant Elusive Species Concept (it's in there somewhere. I can hear it rustling around), I come across what seem to be really useful sources. One of them is a classic paper by Conway Zirkle:

Zirkle, C. (1959). "Species before Darwin." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103(5): 636-644.

According to him, species were not regarded as fixed before they were declared to be so by Linnaeus in the late 17th century. He adduces all kinds of sources, including Aristotle (of course), a bunch of late Classical writers, Augustine, Aquinas and so on. But I was a little bemused at the way he treated Aristotle, and so when he said "Theophrastus devoted almost an entire book (Enquiry into Plants Bk II) to describing how plants changed their species", I was suspicious. I had finished a review of how Theophrastus, the founder of botany (unless Aristotle did it first as rumour has it) and a student of Aristotle, had treated species in Book I, and it didn't seem to gel.

Off to the library, returning with the Loeb edition (Greek and English), and Theophrastus' De Causis Plantarum for good measure. [If ever I win a lottery, I intend to order the entire Loeb classical library.]

Guess what? Zirkle is, so far as I can tell, almost complete wrong. Theophrastus is concerned with how to propagate plants by seed, by cuttings, by grafting and so on, and apart from repeating Aristotle's belief in spontaneous generation, which I outline here, he is entirely sensible about it. He doesn't think plants or animals suddenly change their species (they do, of course, change their form, especially in metamorphosis). Like any good horticulturist, such stupidity is ruled out by a vast experience. Kudos to Theo...

Why the mistake? Well Zirkle is reading his sources through a particular lens - that of the post-Darwinian period. So he either has complete fixism of species (which, to be fair, Linnaeus did have, at least in the standard works; later he noted a case of speciation by hybridisation in the genus Pelor), or he has transmutation of species. But that isn't the right contrast for the material - its either a rigid fixism, or a rough and ready maintenance of kinds. Not "species"; at least not in the sense a modern would use it.

Originally, "species" was the "special" term divided out from a broader "general term" - "a genus". So both genus and species were "kind terms". Locke made the suggestion that we think of them as "kind" for genus and "sort" for species. In the middle ages and earlier, that's a pretty good translation. So if something changes from one sort to another, has it changed species? Not necessarily.

Anyway, it's fun getting into the mindsets of the ancients. And as I do, yet again, I realise they are not stupid or blind. Calling Captain Obvious...

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

A gulag? Or just a concentration camp?

The Washington Post recently complained that the Amnesty Internation Report on human rights abuses was being unfair in comparing the Guantanemo Bay camp to the Soviet gulags. Many others have joined in, and today Prez Shrub dismissed it as "absurd" and written by "people who hate America". Well, not yet, George, but keep at it and we may all yet.

What did the report say? Actually the reports themselves were fairly measured in their tone. The "gulag" comment came from the Introduction by the Secretary General of Amnesty, Irene Khan:


Emphasis mine. The Wash Post, which I expected better of, complained that the gulags were a chain of detention camps, while Gitmo is only one. That makes me feel a whole lot better. Hell, they even deplore the same things mentioned in the Amnesty report. Is there anything in the comments by Khan here that one can sensibly object to? A gulag, according to the Wikipedia article, is in "the original Russian abbreviation, never in plural, described not a single camp, but the government institution in charge of the entire camp system". What is Gitmo? Well, it's the focus of an entire system of detention of unfriendly, or seen to be unfriendly, or might have been unfriendly in the view of the local military commander, persons in countries where the US doesn't have the unfettered right to do with these folk whatever it deems necessary. It's run by direct government dictate.

Is it unfair to call this a gulag? Is it unfair to compare the loss of human rights, ignorance of all the relevant international conventions, the physical mistreatment, isolation from their family and friends, denial of access to the due process of law, the public show trials, and so on of Guantanemo Bay to the Gulag? Gee, forgive me if I don't think so.

One other thing - the report outlines again and again that countries who have a drug export problem are tying it in with the "war on terror" (how does one fight an emotional reaction, I wonder?), and following the United States' example. Just as the Introduction notes, it has set a very bad example. And relating anything one happens to have a campaign against with this "war" allows the denial of rights and legal recourse for anyone the administration or its arms chooses to deny them to.

Gulag. Say it loud. It's Gulag.

Embryos and evolution



AU - Amundson, R.
PY - 2005
CY - New York
PB - Cambridge University Press
SN - 0521806992 (alk. paper)
KW - Evolution (Biology) Philosophy.
Developmental biology Philosophy.
Embryology Philosophy.










Strongly recommended.

Monday, May 30, 2005

So Corby was convicted

OK, Schapelle Corby got convicted by the Indonesian court in Bali for drug smuggling. Predictably, the media and pundits are having a field day - the Indonesian system is wrong, the country is dangerous, blah, blah.

At the same time, nine Australians were caught with heroin strapped to their bodies. But they are either Asian or ugly. Corby was cute, and not Asian. So we don't worry about them - they get what they deserve. We worry about the "former beauty queen". And at the same time, we get to diss the Indonesians. Isn't a free media wonderful?

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the (French-inspired) presumption of guilt legal system is so great, but it can work. I think it worked here, and by reports those reporters who spent time covering the trial thought so too. But their bosses like cute video, so this is not the spin that was spun.

Corby probably was guilty, and yes, she'd probably get off in Australia. Of course, we don't have a death penalty (which I think is a Good Thing), perhaps we should have their system, and they ours. But notwithstanding, the judges didn't apply the death penalty, and from an Indonesian perspective, that's a big thing.

So, let's all sit back and watch Australia and others denigrate the rule of law in Indonesia. It's only something to be cherished in the west, after all. Especially if the "victim" is cute and white. In the meantime, let's all act like the colonials we are at heart, and insist that local laws don't apply to us Australians.

Late note: I have been informed in the comments that the European legal system does not presume guilt. I apologise to all Europeans and former colonies...