Stan and Frederik: I think that you both are talking about different issues.
It's not whether or not evolution is a 'real process', or even about the notion
of 'realism' vs 'nominalism' (whether one uses the scholastic or non-scholastic
definition of those two terms). I think Stan was referring to the very
definition of 'what is evolution'. The neoDarwinians have a very simple
(simplistic?) definition which rejects any notion of there being
'potentialities', 'probabilities' or 'possibilities' . There's the status quo
genes; there's natural selection; and that's it.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Frederik Stjernfelt
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; Peirce Discussion Forum
(PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 1:20 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7955] Natural Propositions:
Dear Stan, lists -
I am making no claims as to trends etc. - I am making the very simple case
that evolution is a real process.
And I am adding that attempts to make nominalist reconstructions of the
concept evolution do not fail to introduce other universals taken for real,
such as, in Stan's account, the notions of "generation", "fossil", "construct",
etc.
Best
F
Den 18/01/2015 kl. 16.43 skrev Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>:
Frederick -- Your assertion that the results of selections at different
levels might be taken to show real tendencies transgresses the neoDarwinian
perspective on selection (and, of course, they own the concept at present!),
which is that there are no real trends across generations. All selection
pressures would be generated from moment to moment according to bearing
conditions. Thus, for example, suppose we observe in the fossil record an
increase in the length of rhinoceros horns over many generations, or over
sequences of species in the fossil record. A neoDarwinian would NOT claim that
there was a trend toward larger horns. Such a trend observed after the fact
would be held to be a nominallst construct.
STAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
