Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 14:21:35 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"

    Hi David,

    As an economist, I could address this. Not that my training makes me an expert.
    because there could be other economists who disagree. But, you are suggesting
    that research funding is dictating the direction of science in the biological
    community. This is very possible in the short-term. But economic theory would
    suggest in the long run it would be the utility of an idea --or cash value--
    that wins out. One hundred and fifty years would certainly qualify as the long
    run. I am also sure that Sheldrake has had an outside source of funding for his
    research at some time. Funding is something we should watch, but I think it is
    a stretch to think that some outside influence has dictated the use of Darwinism
    in biology over some other theory. Naive, to say the least. The utility,
    usefulness, or cash-value of any idea will ultimately decide which idea wins in
    a community of researchers.

    Thanks,
    Andy

    > Jonathna
    > Sure, Darwinian research programme is
    > interesting, let it keep going, but I am concerned
    > that not enough people/research funds are thinking
    > out of this box.
    >
    > DM
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:25 AM
    > Subject: RE: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
    >
    >
    > > Hi Scott, Andy, Dave M. and all,
    > >
    > > SCOTT said:
    > > I don't know of a single case where one species has been
    > > observed to come into existence due solely to random genetic mutation and
    > > natural selection. In fact, I doubt that one could ever determine that:
    > the
    > > doubter could always say, how do you know there were no other factors
    > > involved?
    > >
    > > JONATHAN replies:
    > > Clearly, Scott seems to be under a misconception as to how species "come
    > > into existence".
    > > The idea that species definitions are inherent in nature though, is
    > > completely wrong. What constitutes a species, and when a "new" species
    > > should be recognised is a decision taken by consensus of the biological
    > > research community. The biological literature is full of this. I just did
    > a
    > > search for the keyword "new species" in the PubMed database, and came up
    > > with over 4000 hits, 177 of them papers published this year (2003).
    > > The fact that genetic mutation and selection occur is indisputable - both
    > > have been observed and documented.
    > > IMNSHO, this provides a perfectly adequate basis for understanding how
    > > biological diversity arises.
    > >
    > > DAVID M.
    > > No evolution without Darwin this is just bad information,
    > > check your history of science, e.g. A.R.Wallace. There have also been many
    > > other evolutionary theorists. See Peter Bowler's book on the history of
    > > evolution. Darwin is only a few
    > > chapters. Sure Darwin is almost the only game in town now, and this is
    > > causing a great stagnation in thinking.
    > >
    > > JONATHAN replies:
    > > According to Occam's razor, Darwin's model is the winning paradigm - this
    > is
    > > the model that biologists have accepted by consensus, and I know of no
    > > simpler or more persuasive explanation. Rather than "causing a great
    > > stagnation in thinking", the opposite is true - there has been a
    > tremendous
    > > flowering in biology since Darwin, that was boosted enormously by Watson
    > and
    > > Crick's discovery of a hereditary mechanism. Without the double helix (or
    > > something similar), Darwin may well have ended up in the scientific
    > dustbin,
    > > but without Darwin, Watson and Crick would have been a mere blip on the
    > > landscape of structural chemistry.
    > >
    > > Jonathan
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 14:22:21 BST