J. Scott TurnerRecensioni
Autore di The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself
3+ opere 133 membri 5 recensioni
Recensioni
Segnalato
Razinha | 2 altre recensioni | Apr 19, 2020 | I love this book. The book is extremely interesting, brilliantly written with relevant illustrations. I learned lots of new things and gained a new perspective on the complex relationship between physiology, evolution, design and intent. The author has a sense of humour and assumes that his readers have brains - no baby language.
PS: It is not a religious book or an Intelligent Design book or anything like that. It's science.
PS: It is not a religious book or an Intelligent Design book or anything like that. It's science.
Segnalato
ElentarriLT | Mar 24, 2020 | This book is unfortunate in that it turns to the sort of defunct mode of explanation that drove mystical factions of biology in the 19th century. Namely, it is a return to vitalism; the primary difference it that only a part of the soul, intentionality (what cognitive scientist’s would license just at the level of cognitive systems), is called for (rather than the whole -mind or -soul force).
However, just as early 20th century scientists were able show mystical thinking to be the only real explanation for fandom over the idea that a whole -mind or -soul force pervades the order of our biosphere (the way electricity or gravity does our universe), our scientists have been able to show that intentionality is a higher order, psychological affair that supervenes on organic functions, which are more complex than anything that happens at the level of the gene. The book gets this and the order of explanation backwards: whereas science is progressively more fundamental as we go from sociology and psychology through biology and into physics, Mr. Turner regressively appeals to the subject matter of a less basic science, psychology, to explain phenomena at a more basic level of explanation.
The end goal of a fully unified science is to be able to parse each science in terms of the next more basic science, because we believe reality is fundamentally understandable. It does biology no more good to say that life or genes are essentially minded (i.e. intentional) than it did to say that biology is undergirded by a life force. At present, the least popular metaphysical theories of minds in cognitive science are forms of dualism. These state that minds exist quite apart from the physical bodies that have them. Yet, those are the sorts of minds that would make it plausible to say that genes or primitive lifeforms (cauliflower) have intentionality, for they do not depend on the complex organic systems that ground minds in the vastly more complex animals that can actually be claimed to have intentionality. Good science unifies; Mr. Turner’s would do the opposite (and may really be no more a science that was the mysticism promulgated by his deluded 19th century brethren).
More concretely, Doctor Turner ascribes desire to genes, bacteria, and other less animate phenomena to explain the stability of physical or behavioral traits, which are the actual basis of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the way natural selection works. His evidence ranges from microscopic biology to what can be said of whole animals, and he supports his theories with figures and graphs of body traits and scientific formulas, constantly citing behavior (or seeming behavior) of things that scientists do not ordinarily take to be cognitive systems. Overall, he claims scientists do not base modern Darwinism on natural selection and, further, that the promoters who say that it does do not recognize the way culture and religion accounts for evolution. Turner cherry picked a mixture of scientific theories, theological ideas, and philosophical concepts that are most beneficial for support, but fails to provide in-depth discussion or follow a set of principles that unify science. That he should appeal to culture and religion to find explanans for his explanandum betrays a lack of integrity. He has been quite rightly called out for misplacing sound motivation for misbegotten creationism: The whole work smacks of his hidden agenda and tenuous grasp of modern cognitive science. Footnotes, endnotes and an index are included.
I received this book through a Goodreads giveaway. Although encouraged, I was under no obligation to write a review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
However, just as early 20th century scientists were able show mystical thinking to be the only real explanation for fandom over the idea that a whole -mind or -soul force pervades the order of our biosphere (the way electricity or gravity does our universe), our scientists have been able to show that intentionality is a higher order, psychological affair that supervenes on organic functions, which are more complex than anything that happens at the level of the gene. The book gets this and the order of explanation backwards: whereas science is progressively more fundamental as we go from sociology and psychology through biology and into physics, Mr. Turner regressively appeals to the subject matter of a less basic science, psychology, to explain phenomena at a more basic level of explanation.
The end goal of a fully unified science is to be able to parse each science in terms of the next more basic science, because we believe reality is fundamentally understandable. It does biology no more good to say that life or genes are essentially minded (i.e. intentional) than it did to say that biology is undergirded by a life force. At present, the least popular metaphysical theories of minds in cognitive science are forms of dualism. These state that minds exist quite apart from the physical bodies that have them. Yet, those are the sorts of minds that would make it plausible to say that genes or primitive lifeforms (cauliflower) have intentionality, for they do not depend on the complex organic systems that ground minds in the vastly more complex animals that can actually be claimed to have intentionality. Good science unifies; Mr. Turner’s would do the opposite (and may really be no more a science that was the mysticism promulgated by his deluded 19th century brethren).
More concretely, Doctor Turner ascribes desire to genes, bacteria, and other less animate phenomena to explain the stability of physical or behavioral traits, which are the actual basis of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the way natural selection works. His evidence ranges from microscopic biology to what can be said of whole animals, and he supports his theories with figures and graphs of body traits and scientific formulas, constantly citing behavior (or seeming behavior) of things that scientists do not ordinarily take to be cognitive systems. Overall, he claims scientists do not base modern Darwinism on natural selection and, further, that the promoters who say that it does do not recognize the way culture and religion accounts for evolution. Turner cherry picked a mixture of scientific theories, theological ideas, and philosophical concepts that are most beneficial for support, but fails to provide in-depth discussion or follow a set of principles that unify science. That he should appeal to culture and religion to find explanans for his explanandum betrays a lack of integrity. He has been quite rightly called out for misplacing sound motivation for misbegotten creationism: The whole work smacks of his hidden agenda and tenuous grasp of modern cognitive science. Footnotes, endnotes and an index are included.
I received this book through a Goodreads giveaway. Although encouraged, I was under no obligation to write a review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
Segnalato
bemislibrary | 2 altre recensioni | Jan 6, 2018 | Purpose and Desire is the opposite of Chance and Necessity (Jacques Monod, 1972). So it’s a biology in-joke. In order to enjoy Purpose and Desire, you must buy into Scott Turner’s initial premise that biology is in crisis, a Hobson’s Choice over intentionality. If you believe it is critical and essential that life in all its forms is intentional, it changes your entire outlook on life, the universe and everything. If intentionality does not keep you up nights, you might not like this book.
The cognitive dissonance grows as you must then accept Turner’s definition of homeostasis as “life as a persistent dynamic disequilibrium”, as opposed to my understanding of it as a mean, a target range to which life forms constantly revert. (Three quarters through, Turner switches to this definition, which he admits works better, and which originated with Claude Bernard, which I did not know.)
Turner keeps referring to real scientists as reductionists – those who seek a one point connection between cause and effect. But reductionism is discredited in favor of systems, which encompass numerous inputs and outputs in the working of an entire system or network. He can beat up reductionists all he wants, but he’s late to that party.
After much rehashing of evolutionary dead ends and wrong turns by various philosophers and scientists, the actual biology lesson begins. Turner’s arguments rest on lifeforms’ cognition - their ability to recognize their situation and act according to the successes of past generations. Right down to simple bacteria. With that in place, it is not much of a leap to posit that every lifeform therefore exhibits intention/desire. Turner believes this is the key to evolution – the intention to succeed.
For Turner, there are two components to life: hereditary memory, and homeostasis. He says one can’t exist without the other and therefore one could not have preceded the other. Ergo, some external being must have put them together. He does not prove this argument – for me at least. I have no problem envisioning the hereditary memory of the single-celled beast building out the homeostasis infrastructure.
He then turns to birds. Their feathers were originally heat management tools, but deep down birds wanted to fly. Well, so does Man, and likely moreso than birds, but….
So I had great difficulty buying into Turner’s arguments. (I guess that makes me an unreconstructed Darwinist. Oh well.) But if this is the state of the art, then Turner’s first accusation is correct: biology is in crisis.
David Wineberg
The cognitive dissonance grows as you must then accept Turner’s definition of homeostasis as “life as a persistent dynamic disequilibrium”, as opposed to my understanding of it as a mean, a target range to which life forms constantly revert. (Three quarters through, Turner switches to this definition, which he admits works better, and which originated with Claude Bernard, which I did not know.)
Turner keeps referring to real scientists as reductionists – those who seek a one point connection between cause and effect. But reductionism is discredited in favor of systems, which encompass numerous inputs and outputs in the working of an entire system or network. He can beat up reductionists all he wants, but he’s late to that party.
After much rehashing of evolutionary dead ends and wrong turns by various philosophers and scientists, the actual biology lesson begins. Turner’s arguments rest on lifeforms’ cognition - their ability to recognize their situation and act according to the successes of past generations. Right down to simple bacteria. With that in place, it is not much of a leap to posit that every lifeform therefore exhibits intention/desire. Turner believes this is the key to evolution – the intention to succeed.
For Turner, there are two components to life: hereditary memory, and homeostasis. He says one can’t exist without the other and therefore one could not have preceded the other. Ergo, some external being must have put them together. He does not prove this argument – for me at least. I have no problem envisioning the hereditary memory of the single-celled beast building out the homeostasis infrastructure.
He then turns to birds. Their feathers were originally heat management tools, but deep down birds wanted to fly. Well, so does Man, and likely moreso than birds, but….
So I had great difficulty buying into Turner’s arguments. (I guess that makes me an unreconstructed Darwinist. Oh well.) But if this is the state of the art, then Turner’s first accusation is correct: biology is in crisis.
David Wineberg
Segnalato
DavidWineberg | 2 altre recensioni | May 16, 2017 | Only just popular science because of the maths.
A wonderful insight into such strange things as where an organism stops and its environment begins, scuba diving spiders, mud and worms, singing crickets, social insects etc.
Clear and witty writing brings these topics to life and helps you appreciate just how far science has come from the days of "it's a miracle of god". If you are religious then of course you can now say "Evolution - it's a miracle of god".
If you are interested in Biology then worth a read. If you are interested in evolution then this is a must.
I hope he writes more.½
A wonderful insight into such strange things as where an organism stops and its environment begins, scuba diving spiders, mud and worms, singing crickets, social insects etc.
Clear and witty writing brings these topics to life and helps you appreciate just how far science has come from the days of "it's a miracle of god". If you are religious then of course you can now say "Evolution - it's a miracle of god".
If you are interested in Biology then worth a read. If you are interested in evolution then this is a must.
I hope he writes more.½
Segnalato
psiloiordinary | Mar 30, 2008 | Questo sito utilizza i cookies per fornire i nostri servizi, per migliorare le prestazioni, per analisi, e (per gli utenti che accedono senza fare login) per la pubblicità. Usando LibraryThing confermi di aver letto e capito le nostre condizioni di servizio e la politica sulla privacy. Il tuo uso del sito e dei servizi è soggetto a tali politiche e condizioni.
I do read now and then the fun stuff that tries and fails to point out failures in so-called Darwinism. It can be hard to debunk clever gobbledygook. Martin Gardner did it elegantly, and politely, sometimes with subtle snark but always with verifiable refutations. Michael Shermer carried on his legacy, even going so far as to agree to “debate” Duane Gish (the quotes are there because Galloping Gish never debated... he shotgunned a bunch of nonsense and then more when anyone called him on any of it; quite practiced at BS, that one was). And then there are the rest of the cranks over there at the Discovery Institute, the Templeton Foundation and theri pet endorsements: creation “scientists”, rebranded IDers, who want their unnatural claims to be taken seriously (presumably to indoctrinate people against perceived indoctrination) so they language them up. And Turner is pretty good at that - though he disingenuously appeals to his target by calling epistemology a “ten-dollar word”. Got a laugh from me...who doesn’t know what that means? Oh...sorry target audience. I didn’t see you there. So, yes, Turner is clever.
And full of cognitively aware manure. Wait? What? Cognitively aware, you say? Turner, as I said is quite clever. He manipulations real definitions to fit his argument and he makes up his own: "An individual nerve cell is cognitively aware of the fluid environment in the brain in which it bathes,..." Yes, he did say that. He also argues, I should advise that I have an undergraduate and masters degree in mechanical engineering and took lots of thermodynamics classes on both levels. Curiously, we never studied a Fourth Law...because there is none. Turner says "So there is a deep thermodynamic similarity between the two." Fuzzy scientists should not try to use science to explain their fuzziness...necessitates the addition of quotes to their “science”. Now, I should further advise that I am not an evolutionary biologist, but neither is Turner, and he demonstrates a lack of understand of evolution throughout this entire book. Or, he cleverly obfuscates his actual understanding with his agenda, which is endorsed by ID entities. He eventually drops the charade and starts talking about his intelligent creator as the only possible answer to how life could have originated, but he starts with his conclusion: See? Clever. And sneaky. Darwinism does not posit those origins, rather how species can evolve. Ignorantly obtuse or deliberately obfuscatory? I must not really understand because fecundity is not the end, rather survival through reproduction. Lots of offspring may or may not be better. More sneakiness: Who does he fool with this? The quoted statement may be clumsy but it is just repeating itself! And he is misrepresenting what is is saying. Read that again: adaptations are the products of,... and the response to, natural selection. Now, adaptation is something that occurs, naturally selected or not. Survival of an adaptation demonstrates natural selection. And as only in his pseudoscience world do things stop there, more adaptations springing from those survivors can happen, to survive further or not. He calls his framed argument a tautology, and it is, but that is not what was said nor what scientists understand evolution to be. Clever twisting on his part.
He thinks because we may not yet understand how life came to be, we can't have a coherent theory of life (well, actually...) and "And if we don’t have a coherent theory of life, how can we have a coherent theory of evolution?" Clever. I know I keep using that word, but I do think it means what I think it means. He's coupling two things that may one day fit together, but we can have a true scientific theory of evolution - the mechanisms of evolution and adaptation, with genetic random variations included - that doesn't necessarily need to explain something before the starting point. Scientists can imagine what happened before the Big Bang, but it is speculation and may mean nothing (which the universe certainly could have come from - see Lawrence Krauss and others). In the case of life, it came about within our universe's existence, so scientists can determine how. To borrow from James Morrow, "Science does have all the answers. We just don't have all the science." Turner says "Darwinian evolution therefore relies upon a coherent theory of adaptation." But really, it relies on a theory that adaptation occurs. Mechanisms are still be learned.
This book is a mess of jargon and subtle and not so subtle misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. He reveals his agenda many times: And, Impossible for him (and his target audience) to imagine. Amazing ability to cobble together such science to bend to his agenda, and yet crippled with a lack of imagination. Okay, it's clear in one respect he's highly imaginative. Actually more than one...he did imagine a Fourth Thermodynamic Law. But here's one to chew on: Cute hypothesis, but that’s not what happened on this planet, silly pseudoscientist! He claims "The idea of life originating on a planetary scale is odd enough." Really? But...it did. Here's where he jumps the rails: