N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,09:39) | | N.Wells, please explain your vested interest in this research program that has rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry. |
Already mostly answered.
| Quote | My assessment about the Templeton grant is that those folk are arguing against a strawman-version of evolutionary biology (implying that they don't know their fundamentals or are overhyping their research and are therefore NOT exemplars of excellence), and that they are at risk of wanting to prove some strongly desired conclusions. The first part is consistent with what I've said to you and many times previously when we were both on ARN, that natural selection is very well documented but it is not the alpha and omega of evolutionary biology.
Those objections aside, the bulk of the grantees' scientific programs appear to be involve good scientific procedures such as documenting evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses. I'm perfectly happy to have their ideas investigated scientifically, as I'm sure we still have stuff to learn about non-Darwinian processes in evolutionary change, so if Templeton wants to throw such a large amount of its money, I'm not strenuously objecting. The grantees have a much better chance of doing something worthwhile than you do, so the money is better spent on them than on you. This has nothing to do with you not being an academic, and everything to do with you not having many clues about what you are doing. |
However, since you asked......
For background, read http://www.nature.com/news.......1.16080
My opinion is that Gregory Wray is far more correct in that exchange, but my opinion does not and should not determine funding decisions. Clearly, more than a little expert opinion favors Laland's side, so the whole thing constitutes a legitimate controversy, which justifies funding and further investigation of the subject. However, that does not yet mean that this project by these people is the best way to proceed.
The specific subjects being investigated comprise:
The EES in historical focus (Lewens)
The EES in philosophical focus (Lewens)
How evolution learns from experience (Watson)
Developmental bias and the origin of adaptive variation (Uller)
The role of developmental plasticity in innovation and diversification of Onthophagus beetles (Moczek)
Evolution and ontogeny of complex group adaptation (Gardner)
The origins of organismal complexity (Cornwallis)
Plasticity and house building in social insects (Ruxton)
The evolution of inclusive heredity through the genomic interactions of symbionts (Wade)
Adaptation through genes, without change to the genome: host adaptation via change in its microbiome composition (Feldman)
Evolution of non-genetic inheritance – a life cycle perspective (Johnstone)
Non-genetic inheritance and adaptation to novel environments (Uller)
Adaptation through niche construction and microbiome function in Onthophagus beetles (Moczek)
An experimental test of plasticity led evolution (Foster)
Plasticity and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards (Uller)
Phenotypic plasticity, developmental bias and evolutionary diversification in butterflies (Brakefield)
Plasticity as a bridge between micro- and macroevolution (Svensson)
Adaptive trends and parallel evolution generated by niche construction (Laland)
Niche construction, plasticity and the diversity of coral reef fauna (Dornelas)
Niche construction and evolutionary diversity in experimental communities (Paterson)
Macroevolutionary dynamics of niche construction (Erwin)
Ecosystem networks and system-level functions (Watson)
All of those things are worthy of investigation. The list suggests that some of the researchers are simply trying to climb onto a gravy train to do what they wanted to do anyway. (This is far from an unknown tactic in science.) I note in passing Watson's metaphorical and inaccurate use of "learn", which does not justify your own conflations regarding learning and intelligence. Regardless, even if we were sure we understood all of those things according to current evolutionary theory, it would still be worth re-investigating them, because part of science involves re-investigating what you think you know.
However, I have three particular concerns. A) Do I see any potential pitfalls or shortcomings for this project? Do I think this is B) the best use of money in science, and C) the best way for Templeton to pursue its goals?
C) It seems highly unlikely to provide Templeton with a way to justify their religious beliefs and unify them with science. Even if they were to manage to disprove evolutionary theory in its entirety, that wouldn't do much to advance Templeton's goals. (They are falling for the fallacy that destroying "Darwinism" somehow attacks atheism and supports religion.) However, it's their money, and it's not as though they were likely to do anything more useful with it, so my concern on this point is irrelevant.
A) Yes. The overall project is the "Third Way" gang. I am familiar with and impressed by the work of some of the researchers, and they are likely to go ahead and do whatever it was they were going to do anyway in terms of good science on their individual projects. Others are more problematic: e.g., read Coyne on Denis Noble, at [URL=https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/famous-physiologist-embarrasses-himself-by-claiming-that-the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is
-in-tatters/]https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013....tatters[/URL] . At minimum, the Third Way group overhypes arguments against the present paradigm by arguing against a strawman version. To the extent that they believe their own hype (unlikely for some of the grantees, but I don't know for most of them), they are uninformed about some of the fundamentals of the field and are doing science "with an axe to grind", both of which typically indicate problems ahead. So, B), to the extent that that is true, this would not be the best way to spend money in science. However, again, we are talking about the Templeton Foundation, so they were likely to throw their money away anyway.
Regardless, this becomes "put up or shut up" time for the Third Way group, so that becomes one benefit of this grant.
Here's Coyne on the grant:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016.......biology
The Third Way people are still mostly doing science in standard ways, so I'm not arguing strenuously against it. However, they are arguing against the same strawman that you attack, and they are looking for "something extra", which seems to be your goal too, so what's going on here looks like you abandoning your principles because of butthurt and envy.
|
