Fodor's comments look similar (after a quick read) to Gould and
Lewontin's critique of adaptationism accounts, not evolution.
The basic argument is that many of the adaptation accounts are
the intellectual equivalents of Just-so stories. ("Just-so"
stories are named after a series of stories by Rudyard Kipling
that provide fanciful explanations of the appearance of
characteristics, like "How the leopard got his spots.")
The basic critique is that many adaptationist accounts are ad
hoc, neither verifiable or falsifiable. Second, the assumption
that all characteristics have been "selected for" because of
their survival value is probably false. Gould and Lewontin use
the examples of spandrels, an architectural by-product of a space
created when arches hold up a dome. Architects began to decorate
them. But their creation was not "selected for decoration,"
instead they are a by-product of other selection issues (you need
something to hold up a roof).
My personal opinion is that the Gould and Lewontin arguments
apply to a very simple-minded form of adaptationism. (Which
doesn't mean that there are not practioners of this approach.)
As to why pigs don't have wings, I guess his answer goes
something like this. Pigs have been exposed to a history of
selection pressures that have resulted in a particular type of
body, in which some parts are there because of their survival
value and other parts are spandrels. If the world changed such
that flying pigs now have an advantage over terrestrial pigs;
could wings be "selected for"? Fodor's answer would be no
because the entire body would need to be redesigned to make wings
useful.
Ken
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's yet another (ho-hum) attack on evolution. Yet this one,
surprisingly, doesn't come from the usual suspects, fundamentalist
regious types, but from a far more dangerous source, a philosopher and
cognitive scientist with the most impeccable of credentials. Wikipedia,
in fact, quotes another philosopher that this destroyer of Darwinism,
Jerry Fodor, is "by common consent the leading philosopher of mind in
the world today". So it seems we should listen up and pay attention. As
for why pigs don't have wings, I don't have a clue, but he apparently
does.
His answer appears in an essay with that title in the London Review of
Books (October 18/07 at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/print/fodo01_.html).
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professor
Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---
