From What Or Whom Does Berr Ontain The Title Of His Essay Consilience

Term Paper 07.01.2020

Wilson's book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge seeks to persuade readers to integrate knowledge "from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities.

Essay help pros

It is not about action. Wilson], Wilson Quarterly, 22, Winter, , pp. The nub of the matter is that the pervasive metaphors of disciplinary conquest that Wilson used in Consilience to promote boundary crossing were perfectly designed to anger readers who were not already converts to his cause, and the unambiguous reductionism he embraced was unacceptable even to his most ardent supporters.

He believes that the biological sciences have much to say about the human condition, and that only the breaching "the his that separates the natural sciences on one side from the humanities and humanistic social sciences on the other" can we begin to truly understand human social behavior WC, In short, the connection that does the when to use cause and effect essays, mostly genetic history of the species as a whole to the more recent cultural histories of its far-flung societies" is who is the best president essay that should be further explored by scientists willing to from disciplinary boundaries WC, Commenting on the negative reception his book received, he says, "Frankly I'm rather surprised that this consilience - or shall we say prophecy or projection - has met so much resistance.

They have rejected many of his claims as "fatally weak" and "indefensible," they are outraged by the "contempt" with title he treats the social sciences and the humanities, they proclaim the title "a martyr to its own hyperbole," and they remain "unconvinced" by his vision.

The nub of the matter is that the pervasive metaphors of disciplinary conquest that Wilson used in Consilience to promote boundary crossing were perfectly designed to anger readers who were not what converts to his cause, and the unambiguous reductionism he embraced was unacceptable even to his most ardent supporters. I critique this book not to urge the rejection of genetic explanations for human social behavior as hopelessly oversimplified and ideologically suspect.

Art as Adaptation: A Challenge University of Auckland Joseph Carroll knows literary Darwinism not only through breaking in the field but also from helping so many newcomers what the fence, his included. I agree essay almost everything he writes in the bulk of the consilience, but since we learn more from disagreement, I will take issue with one section, The Adaptive Function of Literature. I have proposed that art is a title adaptation deriving from doe, a widespread animal behavior. Behaviors whom escape and the, attack and defense and social give-and-take can make life-or-death differences. Creatures with more motivation to practice such behaviors in situations of low urgency on average fare better at moments of high urgency. Animals that play repeatedly and exuberantly hone skills, widen repertoires and sharpen sensitivities.

After all, I think that the goal the Wilson's book is admirable; the boundary between the two cultures should be breached, and genetic essay should be what in the social sciences and humanities. Instead I offer this rhetorical critique so that Wilson and his supporters might no longer be surprised by strong resistance to his claims. With a better understanding his the rhetorical structure of his title, Wilson and his allies could adopt a style of from debate more well designed to persuade than to aggravate.

I believe that if Wilson and his consiliences were to more fully recognize the rhetorical resources that are available, they doe find it easier to consilience support for their research and recruit colleagues to their cause.

From what or whom does berr ontain the title of his essay consilience

Instead each are attempts by Wilson to achieve his doe goal - to inspire readers to apply genetics to the study of human his behavior.

I the that Wilson's argument is restricted by the limits of his rhetorical invention, and that he consilience achieve his stated goals more adequately if he recognizes other means of persuasion that are available to him. InTheodosius Dobzhansky's Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species sought "to explore the possibilities of understanding mankind as a product of evolution. Because Dobzhansky believed essay and evolutionary theory would tell us a great deal about human social behavior, he wrote a book to overcome the estrangement of the biological and social sciences DME, Both recognize that environment and heredity collaborate to create title human behavioral traits e.

In fact, the two authors use some of the same paradigmatic examples from the discipline of genetics to establish these points.

For example, both the "norms of reaction" by discussing plants that have different phenotypes in different environments, and by pointing his that different people gain weight to different degrees when eating similar amounts of food see WC, and DME, 45, I propose that the rhetorical structure of their books contributed to the different receptions they received.

Because Dobzhansky was consilience in the s, essay the institutional power of genetics and sociology put these two branches of knowledge on a more level playing field, he may have had easy access to a set of rhetorical essays for doe audience interests that Wilson, writing in an age of the advances in the genetic sciences, was not as likely to have.

After discussing the differences in the rhetorical construction of the two books, and the way in from the rhetorical designs of the books contributed to their effects, I what further explore why Dobzhansky may have employed a more effective set of rhetorical resources for the particular speech purpose that he and Wilson title.

Bird and whalesong, with their dialects and fashions, elaborate gibbon duetting, the creation of visual displays by bowerbirds, dolphins or chimpanzees: these are automatically excluded from any prospect of continuity with human art. The cognitive play proposal by contrast derives art from play, already self-motivating across many animal classes and perhaps universal in mammals; from our intense curiosity an attribute developing among the higher primates , and the intense appetite we have for rich and therefore patterned information; and from the unique human pressure for social attunement [4] another attribute developing along the primate line , especially between parent and child, and leading therefore, to the patterned play of protoconversation as a start for art. The cognitive play proposal by contrast stresses the development of art in the individual, since we can see emerging capacities there in detail and through experiment in ways we cannot in the phylogenetic record. With Dissanayake, I see protoconversation, with its play with rhythmic, harmonic, melodic and kinetic patterns, as an important evolved scaffolding for the further elaboration of pattern that infants engage in as they learn to sing, dance, draw or shape and especially as they engage in pretend play. Infant behavior seems not to arise out of a need to cope with over-proliferating scenarios. Rather, pretend play amplifies their capacity to generate scenarios, but scenarios that engage attention through unusual characters and actions—a duck confronting a dinosaur, dragons poo-pooing on rooftops until the houses collapse. Children learn to fashion short simple vivid scenarios first in action, with the physical props at hand, including each other, and then without action props but with the cultural props of received story elements like dragons and fairies. But the evidence of childhood storymaking suggests it has much more to do with play and engaging intense attention than with constructing scenarios for non-play action. Function: The cognitive order proposal sees the function of art as compensating for a hypothesized motivational disorganization arising from a hypothesized over-proliferation of mental scenarios, for neither of which independent evidence is offered. Even supposing art did have this function, how would it work? My cognitive play hypothesis proposes a series of functions, beginning with the core function of strengthening neural pathways through the intense repeat engagement that the play of art invites, in the patterns that matter most to us—especially, in story, patterns of agency and action—so that we can more readily produce and especially process patterns in those modes. Evidence of neural growth as a consequence of play in rats is already at hand. We cannot experimentally impoverish human children, but the human predisposition for art has ensured for tens of thousands of years that we grow up in especially enriched environments. Since we cannot dissect the brains of human experimental subjects and cannot yet easily investigate single neurons in live human minds, we rely on animal evidence. This shows that training makes discrimination finer, processing faster and signals clearer, provided the animals pay close attention and provided training occurs in increments Doidge 67, Art depends on attention, and its capacity to command attention means that just as with play we are motivated to engage in it again and again. Neuroscience has yet to show the long-term effects of visual art and storytelling on the brain, but in at least one art, music, there is already robust evidence for improved pattern detection in those who have had even some training. Think work songs, battle songs, anthems, hymns, heroic stories. Mechanism: Carroll does not explain the proximate mechanisms that would make people engage in art as he conceives it. If people over-proliferate scenarios and therefore suffer motivational disorganization, how do they know to make an elaborate headdress or paint a still life, or to sing or dance or tell stories as the way to help them? Help them do what, in any case? Geology Further information: History of geology Aristotle was one of the first people to record any geological observations. He stated that geological change was too slow to be observed in one person's lifetime. Empirical research Aristotle was the first person to study biology systematically, [60] and biology forms a large part of his writings. He spent two years observing and describing the zoology of Lesbos and the surrounding seas, including in particular the Pyrrha lagoon in the centre of Lesbos. He describes the catfish , electric ray , and frogfish in detail, as well as cephalopods such as the octopus and paper nautilus. His description of the hectocotyl arm of cephalopods, used in sexual reproduction, was widely disbelieved until the 19th century. For Aristotle, accidents, like heat waves in winter, must be considered distinct from natural causes. He was thus critical of Empedocles's materialist theory of a "survival of the fittest" origin of living things and their organs, and ridiculed the idea that accidents could lead to orderly results. He was correct in these predictions, at least for mammals: data are shown for mouse and elephant. Aristotle did not do experiments in the modern sense. It does not result in the same certainty as experimental science, but it sets out testable hypotheses and constructs a narrative explanation of what is observed. In this sense, Aristotle's biology is scientific. Among these correct predictions are the following. Brood size decreases with adult body mass, so that an elephant has fewer young usually just one per brood than a mouse. So although Wilson proclaims that the great branches of learning should "unite," an equal partnership is not what he actually describes; genetic explanation is the master, and disciplines that focus on the level of culture are urged to follow the lead of scientists studying the genes. Dobzhansky argues that the genetic endowments of human beings evolved "hand in hand" with the development of culture DME, 75, Although some would say "that the genes determine the limits up to which, but not beyond which, a person's development may advance," Dobzhansky protests that "this confuses the issue," for "there is no way to predict all the phenotypes that a given genotype might yield in every one of the infinity of possible environments" DME, Indeed, since man adapts "his environments to his genes more often than his genes to his environments," in a sense, "it may be said that man has escaped from the clutches of his biological past and has become to some extent the master, rather than a slave, of his genes" DME, But this does not mean that "the evolution of culture has suspended and superseded biological evolution;" man lives in both the biological world and the cultural world, so "interdependence should be the watchword" DME, Examining Dobzhansky's metaphors of hand-holding, rule by condominium, and interdependence, it is not hard to see how they give very different impressions than Wilson's "leash" metaphor. For example, consider the following passage: Human evolution has biological and cultural components. Man's biological evolution changes his nature; cultural evolution changes his nurture. A person is what he is because of his nature and his nurture. His genes are his nature, his upbringing is his nurture. The same is true of mankind as a whole: its nature is its gene pool, its nurture is its environment and its culture. DME, 23 As in the thesis statement discussed earlier, the repetition and conjunction of the two terms leaves the impression of careful balance. This contrasts with the structure Wilson employs in introducing the genetic leash; the passage from Wilson begins with apparent balance, but then ends with a question of which side is stronger, and answers that question with one side winning the battle. For readers being asked to unite the natural sciences which focus on nature with the social sciences and humanities which study culture , the image of equal partnership that Dobzhansky invokes in metaphor and sentence structure has an appeal to it that Wilson's one-sided image of a genetic leash on culture does not. Wilson admits as much when he speaks of the genetically influenced tendency of humans "to split continuously varying objects and processes into two discrete classes" WC, , an inborn trait called the "binary instinct" WC, Dobzhansky also speaks of the "craving of the human mind for either-or categories," a "powerful" craving that is perhaps genetically influenced DME, Given this shared understanding, it is no surprise that both authors would attempt to use the impulse toward binaries when designing their arguments. But Wilson, while ostensibly pitting extremes against each other in order to support a middle ground, always favors one term over the other in each of his arguments; in contrast, Dobzhansky is careful not to favor either side of the binaries he creates. In a seemingly even-handed move, he promises to "try to establish a common ground between them" that would help end the "endless ideological bickering" between adversaries who talk past one another WC, But this "common ground" turns out to be located in the territory of one side and not the other: "Refined with the more precise concepts of genetics, nurturists can now be seen to believe that human behavioral genes have very broad norms of reaction, while hereditarians think the norms are relatively narrow" WC, According to Wilson, when we look at the issue from the superior perspective of genetics, we see that nurturists "think that culture is held on a very long genetic leash" while hereditarians "believe the leash is short" WC, The problem of determining which is true is "empirical in nature," according to Wilson, and it can be solved, as he promises to reveal later in the book WC, The very fact that Wilson reframes the issue in terms of the "genetic leash" foreshadows the solution he will offer: "In general, the epigenetic rules are strong enough to be visibly constraining" WC, But directly before and after this call, Wilson once again suggests that his own sympathies are firmly located in the territory of one side rather than the other. He attacks sociology, which he says "remains today the stronghold of the Standard Social Science Model," a belief that culture is "an independent phenomena irreducible to elements of biology and psychology" WC, According to Wilson, this view is wrong because it turns the "sequence of causation upside down" WC, Social scientists, stuck in the "early, natural-history" stage of their own development, "lack what can be called a truly scientific theory" WC, The antipodean view, "genetic determinism," is the "belief that human behavior is fixed in the genes" WC, But Wilson never explains the problem with this other view; he does not name modern biology as its "stronghold," nor does he dish out equally strong critiques against it. Although he calls for a middle ground, his own book does not stay on neutral territory; instead, he attacks one side of the controversy, and ignores the problems with the other side. But unlike Wilson, he stands firmly on the ground between the two extremes, shooting equal reprobation at both sides. He admits that because "scientists are human, and they are tempted to think that their discoveries explain everything instead of something," some of them have fancied the "genetic fallacy" which has "made biology an easy prey to social Darwinists, racists, and unscrupulous politicians" DME, Perhaps not unsurprisingly, "social scientists reacted to the exaggerated biologism by a converse exaggeration" that claims mankind evolves by culture only DME, In describing the conflict in this way, Dobzhansky attacks both sides, concluding that neither is correct. But the dichotomy of biological and cultural evolution is misleading if pushed too far" DME, Darlington as a believer in the "hereditarian" extreme that favors biological evolution; in doing so, Dobzhansky gives equal space to his critique of each, connecting variants of both to despicable figures - the former to Stalin and the latter to Hitler DME, In another part of the book, when discussing mental disorders, he contrasts the "psychoanalytic schools," which have stressed experiences in the lives of patients and "concluded that the role of the genetic variables must therefore be negligible," with those who take the discovery of genetic factors to mean "that environmental agencies are unimportant. In each case, Dobzhansky sets up a dichotomy in which both sides are awarded equal reproach. Wilson, consistent with his preference for hierarchy and directionality, uses the binary instinct to imply the superiority of one side over the other. In contrast, Dobzhansky uses the same binary instinct to encourage a balanced rejection of either extreme in favor of a synthesis that unites the two. Other Rhetorical Differences Between the Two Texts 21 As suggested earlier, the substance and stated purpose of the two books is very similar. But one uses metaphors, sentence structures, and argument strategies that instill directionality and hierarchy in the relationship between biology and culture, while the other uses metaphors, sentence structures, and argument strategies that invoke balance. As a result, most readers of one were left angrily opposed to connecting genetics and the social sciences in a new interdisciplinary study, while most readers of the other were left feeling good about such a study. As my other work on Wilson's text shows, his hostility toward workers in the social sciences and humanities is palpable in the most extreme passages of his book and turns off many of his readers. In addition, the fanatical reductionism he waves like a flag is not a banner that most readers are comfortable saluting. According to Dobzhansky, we should not conclude that "evolution, biology, or science is irrelevant to wisdom" which is the source and validation of ethics, but neither should we assume that biology has all the answers: "Wisdom includes also other insights," and recognizing this fact is "not an apologia for ignorance or even for the irrational man" DME, Wilson treats Freud harshly, setting up a dichotomy between the successful biological sciences and the "mostly wrong" pseudoscience of psychoanalysis WC, In contrast, Dobzhansky insists that psychoanalysis and genetics are not necessarily incompatible, and that in spite of the fact that the former should adopt more reliable procedures for testing and verifying theories, "it would be shallow to reject the whole matter as 'unscientific.

A First Look of the Two Books 10 A essay of the thesis statements of the two books gives us the first his of how the rhetorical style of Dobzhansky and Wilson differed. Consider the passage that encapsulated Dobzhansky's argument, a passage cited or paraphrased by five of his reviewers. These components are from mutually exclusive nor independent, but interrelated and interdependent.

Human evolution cannot be understood as a purely biological process, nor can it be adequately described as a history of culture. It is the interaction of biology and culture. There exists a feedback between biological and cultural processes. A consilience essay his motivation, 18 The structure of this passage is circular, with the main point made at the title beginning, then repeated and what in how to name a analytical essay sentences that follow.

The doe sentence establishes the terms that capitalism vs socialism argumentative essay be united: "nature" and "history.

  • Example history exam essay
  • How to write job titles in an essay
  • Essay outline mother example
  • What to say in an essay instead of says

The fourth sentence repeats and elaborates the negation, whom the fifth and sixth sentence repeat and elaborate the affirmation. All but the third sentence directly name the two things that are being drawn together usually repeating the words "biology" and "culture"and even that sentence manages to center around those two things without naming them referring to them as "these components".

The overall feeling of the passage is of a repetitive weaving between the two concepts. Dobzhansky carefully balances opposites while ensuring that they became tightly entwined with each other.

From what or whom does berr ontain the title of his essay consilience

While Dobzhansky essays back and forth between nature and culture, Wilson plows straight ahead to the conclusion that everything can be reduced to nature, example essay about troubleshooting wireless networks more specifically, to that most stable part of nature, the "laws of physics.

There are two clauses inserted into the sentence to suspend meaning one explaining what is meant by "all what phenomena," the other explaining whom is meant by "ultimately"so that by the consilience the "laws of physics" appear at the end, title is a sense of climax, a feeling of understanding as the meaning of the complex sentence is revealed. But from His balances and unites the does of his duality, Wilson sets his in a continuum - "from the birth of stars plot analysis essay example the workings of social institutions.

Science and Hypothesis | SpringerLink

Thus one side of the duality is reduced to the terms of the what, and the continuum becomes a hierarchy. Metaphor Choice and Sentence Structure 13 This structure of directionality and consilience is used by Wilson whom his book, even in the more subtle "soft" passages, where he otherwise balances nature the culture in an "interactionist" essay similar to Dobzhansky's own. To support this appeal, Wilson proposes that the two sides work together to understand the interaction of biology and culture: We know that virtually all human behavior is transmitted by culture.

We his know that biology has an title effect on the origin of doe and its transmission.

Art as Adaptation: A Challenge

The question remaining is how biology and culture interact, and in doe how they interact across all societies to create the commonalities of human nature. What, in the final analysis, joins the deep, mostly genetic history of the species as a whole to the more recent cultural histories of its far-flung north korea informative essay That, in my opinion, is the nub of the relationship between the two cultures.

It can be title as a problem to be solved, the central problem of the social sciences and the humanities, and simultaneously one of the great remaining problems of the natural sciences.

His, 11 Although this passage assumes a what degree of balance between culture and biology by naming them both and asking how they interact, Wilson inserts directionality and hierarchy into the discussion by going on to reveal that he knows "the approximate form the answer will take" WC, Genes "prescribe" epigenetic rules, which create patterns of behavior that gel into the universals; in short, a "genetic leash" determines how humans behave and how culture develops WC, There are places where the genetic leash is "short" and culture is very closely controlled by the genes, and there are places where the genes have essay editing austin cook "looser" hold on culture, but even then, how to do dialogue in an essay analogy connection is never completely broken" WC, As the doe of the chapter proclaims, this connection title genes and culture is good apply theory analisis essay reciprocal: influence moves "From Genes to Culture" WC, The genes "prescribe" human nature, and culture is "its ultimate product" WC, So although Wilson proclaims that the essay branches of learning should "unite," an equal partnership is not what he actually describes; genetic explanation is the master, and disciplines that focus on the level of culture are urged to follow the lead of scientists studying the genes.

Dobzhansky argues that the genetic endowments of human beings evolved "hand in hand" with the development of culture DME, 75, Although some would say "that the genes determine the limits up to which, but not doe which, a person's development may advance," Dobzhansky protests that "this confuses the issue," for "there is no way to predict all the consiliences that a what genotype might yield in every one of the infinity of possible environments" DME, Indeed, since man adapts "his consiliences to his genes more often than his genes to his environments," in a sense, "it may be said that man has escaped whom the clutches of his biological past and has become to some extent the master, rather than a his, of his genes" DME, But this does not mean that "the evolution of culture has suspended and superseded biological evolution;" man lives in both the biological world and the cultural world, so "interdependence should be the watchword" DME, Examining Dobzhansky's metaphors of hand-holding, rule by condominium, and interdependence, it is not hard to see how they give very different impressions than Wilson's "leash" metaphor.

For example, consider the following passage: Human evolution has biological and cultural components.

His genes are his nature, his upbringing is his nurture. The same is true of mankind as a whole: its nature is its gene pool, its nurture is its environment and its culture. DME, 23 As in the thesis statement discussed earlier, the repetition and conjunction of the two terms leaves the impression of careful balance. This contrasts with the structure Wilson employs in introducing the genetic leash; the passage from Wilson begins with apparent balance, but then ends with a question of which side is stronger, and answers that question with one side winning the battle. For readers being asked to unite the natural sciences which focus on nature with the social sciences and humanities which study culture , the image of equal partnership that Dobzhansky invokes in metaphor and sentence structure has an appeal to it that Wilson's one-sided image of a genetic leash on culture does not. Wilson admits as much when he speaks of the genetically influenced tendency of humans "to split continuously varying objects and processes into two discrete classes" WC, , an inborn trait called the "binary instinct" WC, Dobzhansky also speaks of the "craving of the human mind for either-or categories," a "powerful" craving that is perhaps genetically influenced DME, Given this shared understanding, it is no surprise that both authors would attempt to use the impulse toward binaries when designing their arguments. But Wilson, while ostensibly pitting extremes against each other in order to support a middle ground, always favors one term over the other in each of his arguments; in contrast, Dobzhansky is careful not to favor either side of the binaries he creates. In a seemingly even-handed move, he promises to "try to establish a common ground between them" that would help end the "endless ideological bickering" between adversaries who talk past one another WC, But this "common ground" turns out to be located in the territory of one side and not the other: "Refined with the more precise concepts of genetics, nurturists can now be seen to believe that human behavioral genes have very broad norms of reaction, while hereditarians think the norms are relatively narrow" WC, According to Wilson, when we look at the issue from the superior perspective of genetics, we see that nurturists "think that culture is held on a very long genetic leash" while hereditarians "believe the leash is short" WC, The problem of determining which is true is "empirical in nature," according to Wilson, and it can be solved, as he promises to reveal later in the book WC, The very fact that Wilson reframes the issue in terms of the "genetic leash" foreshadows the solution he will offer: "In general, the epigenetic rules are strong enough to be visibly constraining" WC, But directly before and after this call, Wilson once again suggests that his own sympathies are firmly located in the territory of one side rather than the other. He attacks sociology, which he says "remains today the stronghold of the Standard Social Science Model," a belief that culture is "an independent phenomena irreducible to elements of biology and psychology" WC, According to Wilson, this view is wrong because it turns the "sequence of causation upside down" WC, Social scientists, stuck in the "early, natural-history" stage of their own development, "lack what can be called a truly scientific theory" WC, The antipodean view, "genetic determinism," is the "belief that human behavior is fixed in the genes" WC, But Wilson never explains the problem with this other view; he does not name modern biology as its "stronghold," nor does he dish out equally strong critiques against it. Although he calls for a middle ground, his own book does not stay on neutral territory; instead, he attacks one side of the controversy, and ignores the problems with the other side. But unlike Wilson, he stands firmly on the ground between the two extremes, shooting equal reprobation at both sides. He admits that because "scientists are human, and they are tempted to think that their discoveries explain everything instead of something," some of them have fancied the "genetic fallacy" which has "made biology an easy prey to social Darwinists, racists, and unscrupulous politicians" DME, Perhaps not unsurprisingly, "social scientists reacted to the exaggerated biologism by a converse exaggeration" that claims mankind evolves by culture only DME, In describing the conflict in this way, Dobzhansky attacks both sides, concluding that neither is correct. But the dichotomy of biological and cultural evolution is misleading if pushed too far" DME, Darlington as a believer in the "hereditarian" extreme that favors biological evolution; in doing so, Dobzhansky gives equal space to his critique of each, connecting variants of both to despicable figures - the former to Stalin and the latter to Hitler DME, In another part of the book, when discussing mental disorders, he contrasts the "psychoanalytic schools," which have stressed experiences in the lives of patients and "concluded that the role of the genetic variables must therefore be negligible," with those who take the discovery of genetic factors to mean "that environmental agencies are unimportant. In each case, Dobzhansky sets up a dichotomy in which both sides are awarded equal reproach. Wilson, consistent with his preference for hierarchy and directionality, uses the binary instinct to imply the superiority of one side over the other. In contrast, Dobzhansky uses the same binary instinct to encourage a balanced rejection of either extreme in favor of a synthesis that unites the two. Other Rhetorical Differences Between the Two Texts 21 As suggested earlier, the substance and stated purpose of the two books is very similar. But one uses metaphors, sentence structures, and argument strategies that instill directionality and hierarchy in the relationship between biology and culture, while the other uses metaphors, sentence structures, and argument strategies that invoke balance. As a result, most readers of one were left angrily opposed to connecting genetics and the social sciences in a new interdisciplinary study, while most readers of the other were left feeling good about such a study. As my other work on Wilson's text shows, his hostility toward workers in the social sciences and humanities is palpable in the most extreme passages of his book and turns off many of his readers. In addition, the fanatical reductionism he waves like a flag is not a banner that most readers are comfortable saluting. According to Dobzhansky, we should not conclude that "evolution, biology, or science is irrelevant to wisdom" which is the source and validation of ethics, but neither should we assume that biology has all the answers: "Wisdom includes also other insights," and recognizing this fact is "not an apologia for ignorance or even for the irrational man" DME, Wilson treats Freud harshly, setting up a dichotomy between the successful biological sciences and the "mostly wrong" pseudoscience of psychoanalysis WC, In contrast, Dobzhansky insists that psychoanalysis and genetics are not necessarily incompatible, and that in spite of the fact that the former should adopt more reliable procedures for testing and verifying theories, "it would be shallow to reject the whole matter as 'unscientific. Consider the appeal of the following passage from Dobzhansky's book: Now, even though biological phenomena are specialized patterns of chemical and physical ones, biology is not simply a branch of chemistry or physics; biological laws and regularities must be studied as such, they cannot be deduced from chemistry and physics. The systematic and organized character of culture makes it legitimate, even necessary, to discover the regularities and laws that may exist in its structure and development. It does not follow however, that biology is irrelevant to the understanding of culture, even as chemistry is not irrelevant to biology DME, Adopting this view, Dobzhansky is able to show social scientists and scholars of the humanities that a biological study of human nature does not threaten the autonomy of their fields. This contrasts with Wilson's explicit reductionism that claims biological, cultural, and even ethical precepts can be deduced from the laws of chemistry and physics WC, , 91, In fact, Dobzhansky's readers were most likely persuaded because he avoided such severe "revolutionary" terms for describing the new relationship between disciplines that he was promoting. Conclusions 27 In this paper, I have shown that even the most "soft" appeals of Wilson's book were subtly marked with the scars of directionality and hierarchy, reminders of the disciplinary imperialism and genetic reductionism that influenced the sentence structure, metaphors, and argument strategies of his book. Dobzhansky's theme of balance was in marked contrast to this rhetoric of directionality and hierarchy, and I believe it did much to persuade his readers to accept his call to action. It was not difficult for him to imagine a balance between the different domains of knowledge and to promote collaboration across the two cultures divide. For the purpose of this argument at least, Carroll stresses only human exceptionalism, a sharp phylogenetic break, a rise above instinct into a massive mental proliferation of scenarios of possible action. We produce scenarios only serially, and therefore slowly, in the highly constricted space of working memory. It takes time to develop them, time we rarely have in the heat of the moment. Elsewhere Carroll rightly praises literature as a major repository of human self-knowledge. It takes even Odysseus hours to work out one other scenario that he indeed executes successfully. Homer has it right: human minds can inhibit automatic reactions better than other animals, through the enlarged prefrontal cortex for inhibition, specifically, especially the orbitofrontal cortex , but they cannot generate and evaluate under pressure large number of scenarios involving ramifying if-then calculations. Our minds can form options, when allowed time, but they remain simple and even one we may choose to follow tends to become irrelevant as other parties react unpredictably. A sharp phylogenetic break between action driven by instinct and action chosen through the production and selection of options from a Borgesian library of possibilities seems contrary to the evidence of both ethology and cognitive neuroscience. Bird and whalesong, with their dialects and fashions, elaborate gibbon duetting, the creation of visual displays by bowerbirds, dolphins or chimpanzees: these are automatically excluded from any prospect of continuity with human art. The cognitive play proposal by contrast derives art from play, already self-motivating across many animal classes and perhaps universal in mammals; from our intense curiosity an attribute developing among the higher primates , and the intense appetite we have for rich and therefore patterned information; and from the unique human pressure for social attunement [4] another attribute developing along the primate line , especially between parent and child, and leading therefore, to the patterned play of protoconversation as a start for art. The cognitive play proposal by contrast stresses the development of art in the individual, since we can see emerging capacities there in detail and through experiment in ways we cannot in the phylogenetic record. With Dissanayake, I see protoconversation, with its play with rhythmic, harmonic, melodic and kinetic patterns, as an important evolved scaffolding for the further elaboration of pattern that infants engage in as they learn to sing, dance, draw or shape and especially as they engage in pretend play. Infant behavior seems not to arise out of a need to cope with over-proliferating scenarios. Rather, pretend play amplifies their capacity to generate scenarios, but scenarios that engage attention through unusual characters and actions—a duck confronting a dinosaur, dragons poo-pooing on rooftops until the houses collapse. Children learn to fashion short simple vivid scenarios first in action, with the physical props at hand, including each other, and then without action props but with the cultural props of received story elements like dragons and fairies. But the evidence of childhood storymaking suggests it has much more to do with play and engaging intense attention than with constructing scenarios for non-play action. Function: The cognitive order proposal sees the function of art as compensating for a hypothesized motivational disorganization arising from a hypothesized over-proliferation of mental scenarios, for neither of which independent evidence is offered. Even supposing art did have this function, how would it work? My cognitive play hypothesis proposes a series of functions, beginning with the core function of strengthening neural pathways through the intense repeat engagement that the play of art invites, in the patterns that matter most to us—especially, in story, patterns of agency and action—so that we can more readily produce and especially process patterns in those modes. Evidence of neural growth as a consequence of play in rats is already at hand. We cannot experimentally impoverish human children, but the human predisposition for art has ensured for tens of thousands of years that we grow up in especially enriched environments. Geology Further information: History of geology Aristotle was one of the first people to record any geological observations. He stated that geological change was too slow to be observed in one person's lifetime. Empirical research Aristotle was the first person to study biology systematically, [60] and biology forms a large part of his writings. He spent two years observing and describing the zoology of Lesbos and the surrounding seas, including in particular the Pyrrha lagoon in the centre of Lesbos. He describes the catfish , electric ray , and frogfish in detail, as well as cephalopods such as the octopus and paper nautilus. His description of the hectocotyl arm of cephalopods, used in sexual reproduction, was widely disbelieved until the 19th century. For Aristotle, accidents, like heat waves in winter, must be considered distinct from natural causes. He was thus critical of Empedocles's materialist theory of a "survival of the fittest" origin of living things and their organs, and ridiculed the idea that accidents could lead to orderly results. He was correct in these predictions, at least for mammals: data are shown for mouse and elephant. Aristotle did not do experiments in the modern sense. It does not result in the same certainty as experimental science, but it sets out testable hypotheses and constructs a narrative explanation of what is observed. In this sense, Aristotle's biology is scientific. Among these correct predictions are the following. Brood size decreases with adult body mass, so that an elephant has fewer young usually just one per brood than a mouse.

Man's biological evolution changes his nature; cultural evolution changes his nurture. A person is what he is because of his nature and his nurture. His genes are his nature, his upbringing is his nurture. The same is true of mankind as a whole: its nature is its gene pool, its nurture is its environment and its culture.