Tipsters, I asked Stephen about the term emergenesis as I suspected
circular definition and mere labelling. Stephen asked that our
correspondence be shared with tips so that others might also consider this
potential problem. From the definition that Stephen obtained, the concept
sounds like "chance" to me.. unless the specifics of the genetic
combinations are more systematic and potentially testable. Isn't
"emergenesis" simply another way of saying that unknown genetic things
happen that make for suprising matches in toothpase preference, etc.? I
applaud it being a naturalistic explanatory effort (could it be
transpersonal ;-) but somehow it is still another way of saying "we really
don't know, but of course it's genetic." I have no problem with "emerging
properties" if that's what this concept is supposed to be, but it has been
notoriously difficult to spell out what they might be and how they might
work as explanations. I am curious not because I claim expertise about the
genetics possibly involved, but rather more interested in what counts as a
possible explanation of the twin similarities. Any other ideas as to the
possible value of Lykken's idea of "emergenesis"? Gary Peterson
Gerald (Gary) L. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-517-790-4491
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gary Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, April 02, 2000 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Twin coincidences
>On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Gary Peterson wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen, Could you elaborate on Lykken's idea of "emergenesis"?
>> That is, how is it defined? My first impression is it has about as much
>> explanatory power as Jung's idea of synchronicity, etc....I'm sure you
know
>> where I'm going. If it is defined without reference to that which it is
>> supposed to explain, then I will be pleasantly surprised. Gary
>>
>
>The definition part is easy. Reaching for my copy, it says (long
>definition, I'll take the most salient part):
>
>"emergenic: Arising as a novel or emergent property resulting from the
>interaction of more elementary and partly genetic properties. An
>emergenic trait might be determined by a configuration of
>independently segregating polygenes interacting in the sense of
>epistasis,or, at a more molar level, an emergenic trait might be a
>property of a configuration of independent traits that are themselves
>in part genetically determined..."
>
>Now I think your question about this is whether the concept is
>scientific, or merely has the appearance of an explanation. Good
>point. The mechanism has face validity for me: something like this is
>plausible as a way in which genes could work, and the explanation
>depends on well-established concepts in genetics. So it's no Jungian
>fantasy.
>
>But is the hypothesis testable? Beats me. I scanned through the
>article (which really deserves a careful read, which I haven't done in
>a long time), and can't find anything I can see as a proposal to test
>it. And if it's not testable, it's not science, is it?
>
>Gary: I'm replying privately because that's the way you sent your
>query to me. But I'd appreciate it if you'd post your query, my
>response, and whatever you want to add back to the list. This is a
>topic where I'd be interested in the opinions of others as well.
>
>
>Regards
>
>-Stephen
>
>
