Quote:
Originally Posted by HilbertSpace
[...]
So, Dawkins' model of the selfish gene can be almost entirely correct, but needs to be seen alongside the larger picture of Gould's structuralism, including components of punctuated equilibrium and spandrels.
|
Excellent!
In science as in philosophy (and perhaps most theoretical subjects with a bit of applied theory), there is very often a trend to adhere completely to a theory or vision to:
1) become the advocate of a single cause. This makes it more likely for the scientist to be recognized as "an expert" in that specialty. This involves becoming an authority called upon for conferences, having work published in large audience press; and eventually becoming a pubic figure.
2) have fun pushing a theory as far as the imagination allows. Going beyond limits to manipulate it, turn it in all directions, pummeling it. For the scientist, seeing the world through a single lens brings up many fascinating philosophical questions and prevents spending too much energy on the over-ambitious plan to build a coherent, but by definition clumsy, representation juggling with different models. However, that's what is as close to truth as we can get today: a complex witch's brew with a little bit of this at that scale a little bit of that for this part. An ugly network of interactions full of knots.
3) Beckon the siren's call which is the Universal. One theory to rule them all. The key to all secrets. There is a secret motivation for most scientists to come up with a simple, elegant answer to all questions. Many hope their preferred model is the path to the answer. The ugly network of interactions full of knots mentioned in the previous point is not very attractive...