[...]
> GB>Dissent over the Copenhagen Interpretation started even before it got
> >that name! Are you going to start asking us to reject quantum theory
> >because there is deep and fundamental disagreement over the very heart
> >of the theory?
>
> Of course there is "Dissent" within science, but my assessment is that
> this is not as fundamental as exists between leading Darwinists (eg.
> Gould and Dawkins/Dennett/Maynard Smith). As I understand it, the
> Copenhagen Interpretation is (as the name implies) just an *interpretation*.
> And I have not noticed quantum theorists calling each other "dogs" in the
> New York Review!
OK, so you think the *type* and *severity* of the debate is what makes
the difference. For better or worse, debates like this have a history
in biology, and haven't led to the emminent demise of evolutionary theory
for a long time. What makes you think this one is different, and are you
willing to back up your intuition with a concrete prediction about when
the final snap will come, if you are right?
> GB>Of course there is argument over the heart of modern-day
> >evolutionary theory! That's what makes it the heart!
>
> No. The "heart" of evolutionary theory is (and always must be) about
> the creative power of the `blind watchmaker', natural selection:
>
> "It is the contention of the Darwinian world-view that both these
> provisos are met, and that slow, gradual, cumulative natural selection
> is the ultimate explanation for our existence. If there are versions of
> the evolution theory that deny slow gradualism, and deny the central
> role of natural selection, they may be true in particular cases. But they
> cannot be the whole truth, for they deny the very heart of the
> evolution theory, which gives it the power to dissolve astronomical
> improbabilities and explain prodigies of apparent miracle." (Dawkins
> R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1986, p318)
Well, of course that's what Dawkins thinks the 'heart' is, since that's
his particular hobby horse. Others think it of less importance. Perhaps,
though, since you side with Dawkins here, you can understand the criticisms
that side in this fight is making against Gould, and, since your sympathies
are there, why Gould's analysis of the fight should need interpretation.
> GB>Ahh, but these are signs of a vibrant and advancing theory, right, not
> >the leaks of some conspiracy of silence covering up complete
> >disillusionment on the part of the principals.
>
> Again, I do not claim that this is a "conspiracy"-this is your word, not
> mine. And time will tell whether "these are signs of a vibrant and advancing
> theory" or the death rattle of Darwinism.
You've claimed that Darwinists have 'tried to keep their disagreements
private' but that they are severe enough to have broken out anyway. You
perhaps didn't use the word, but if this isn't a conspiracy, I'm not sure
what qualifies. The thing that catches me off guard, though, is that you
are using the very public debate as evidence that there is a conspiracy!
That is, the arguments are SO bad that they got out anyway. It is a
hallmark of conspiracy theories that any evidence--even counterindicative
evidence--can be used to support them. I'll suggest an alternate theory
for your consideration: the public cares even less about evolutionary theory
than it does about quantum physics, which at least sounds neat and doesn't
get so personal. Thus, it takes quite a vicious argument to become public.
To clarify this, I'll make a prediction: there will be more articles in the
public press about physics in 1998 than about evolutionary biology.
This will be true EVEN IF there is some big new fight in biology to report.
-Greg