Dear Howard, lists,
At 10:02 PM 1/17/2015, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
but Howard, saying this [selection produces realists], you assume natural
selection to be a real process - and not just a linguistic convention …
HP: Not quite. Of course, what is actually going on with population changes are
real processes acting on individuals. However, natural selection is a good
example of what Miller warns about in the SEP review:
Miller: "In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward
and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a
particular subject matter. It is rather the case that one can be more-or-less
realist about a particular subject matter."
But this is a truism. I know of no-one being a realist about any possible claim
or any possible universal! All realists know it is only some universals which
are real ("phologiston", "ether", "unicorn" and a host of others are not). In
that sense, realism is the inclusive notion here, admitting both realist and
nominalist universals - while nominalism claims all universals are but
linguistic conventions.
HP: I would add that one can be both a realist and nominalist about the same
theory or model. Namely, while there are real individual events of birth and
death going on, the word "selection" refers to statistical consequences that
are not real selections in any recognizable sense. Selection is just a name
(Darwin called it, "a bad term") that we use to indicate only "a statistical
bias in the relative rates of survival" of a population distribution (Geo.
Williams' def.). So "natural selection" can be viewed as both real and nominal.
But that "statistical bias" would then be real, just as birth and death would
it. So your redescription of "evolution" invokes other realist universals.
Furthermore, there are many levels of
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/>
selection<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/>, and because
selection processes are never-ending, one can never be sure of the ultimately
result. Consequently there is much controversy (see link) which amounts to
whether each level is real or nominal (although biologists usually don't use
these terms).
Of course, but that is not a philosophical issue. It is about what is
scientifically true. I tend to be realist about stable scientific results. Of
course, being a fallibilist, I know some of them will change, but not most of
them.
This also implies that there is no simple philosophical answer to what is real
and what is not. It should be developed from our best scientific knowledge -
also in the non-physical sciences. So there are many open questions as to what
is real and what not … but that does not imply that ALL such questions are open.
Best
F
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
