Thank you EricC for the Selection equals one minus fitness thing. I had forgotten that. That's even better than "the emotionality of a rat is the number of fecal boluses left by it in an open field maze, and that's the end of it." The impact of words upon a hearer can not be stripped away by stipulation.
Nick On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 10:42 PM Eric Charles < [email protected]> wrote: > I think this (EricS's reply) speaks to the "formalism" issue, and the > value of the "flavor text". > > One of the big problems in evolutionary theory over the last century came > from the desire for a very particular type of formalism, in which terms are > all inter-defined, and as such, statements made within the system can't be > "wrong" in an empirical sense. The classic example (so Nick and I assert in > the incipient book) is the equation [image: {\displaystyle s=1-W}] where > s stands for "selection" and W is "fitness". This has been in biology > textbooks of a certain sort for well over half a century, and leads to > Dawkins's "Selfish Gene" talk, among other things. It's hard to criticize > on the surface, but, unfortunately, once you do that, you cannot usefully > study the relationship between fitness and selection, because > that-they-are-related becomes a truism! > > I think this relates to a strong intellectual bias towards deduction (vice > induction or abduction), rooted in some version of geometry envy. People > don't like their ideas to feel vulnerable, and deductive logic (executed > correctly) basically guaranteed to be right. On the other hand, empirical > claims, when your terms are not inter-defined can be wrong. > > The alternative (if anyone cares) is to empirically study how well an > organism fits its environment irrespective of its reproductive success, and > study reproductive success independent of indication of fit, and then see > if the two relate. Field biologists have been doing this for a very long > time, but it's much harder to do from an office desk. When one does this, > one finds that organisms fit their environments very well in many ways, and > don't fit in lots of other ways, and some of those ways seem to lead to > reproductive success and others don't. There are spandrils, exaptations, > changes in the environment to which organisms have not-yet adapted, and all > sorts of other things biologist understand quite well if we aren't pushing > the tautology. Thus we can observe that many types of sterile hybrids fit > their environments very well, with zero reproduction. We can also observe > that some species reproduce in huge numbers, while not fitting their > environments well at all (perhaps because a recent change in the > environment makes all offspring unlikely to survive). > > In theory, staying clear on the metaphor should (should 🤷) make it harder > to formalize yourself into a tautology. > > Best, > Eric > > > <[email protected]> > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 4:49 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The passage EricC quotes below makes a good point about the >> non-stationarity of people’s knowledge and familiarities. >> >> Once I am mindful of that, I have to admit that there is a much bigger >> non-stationarity of their worldviews. There are things about Darwin’s >> contemporaries that would have dictated what his project was, that I guess >> I can “understand”, but for which I am incapable of any empathy. >> >> I don’t live in a world suffused by God. When I hear God-talk around me, >> I don’t suppose that there is something they mean, and that I have any idea >> what that is. I guess I experience them about like I would experience a >> pack of kids repeating 6-7 (if I knew the kids could suddenly become >> murderous on occasion, on signals I didn’t recognize). >> >> I do hear a metaphor doing work (the Devil’s work): imposing human >> intentionality metaphorically on natural phenomena. I can imagine I were >> faced with a world-hoard of such people, that they were incorrigible, and >> that there were no alternatives to be sought out among them. It probably >> would make no sense to even hope to transition them into a kind of person >> that is not hard to find today: somebody like me, who can also hear all the >> same talk within informal categories, but hears in it only the most >> familiar and discouraging human narcissism. If that transition were off >> the table, what options would be left to me? >> >> I guess I would admit defeat, try to limit my losses, and resort to >> metaphors that (as a modern) I find cognitively bad-faith, because maybe I >> would consider that gambit better than accomplishing nothing at all. I >> might say “Yeah yeah yeah, intention, breeders, design, etc., since I know >> you won’t be capable of hearing _anything_ I say in any other terms than >> those. But could you at least bring yourselves to see natural >> circumstances as the designer? Just allow nature a little thin bedsheet or >> veil, to interpose between the intentionality and the empirical events that >> make up sorting and retention/elimination?” >> >> Maybe if I were myself one of these God-suffused people, doing empirical >> work and trying to find my way to some argument that was less empirically >> vacant than what we had all inherited, my path to the metaphors would be >> even more coerced into one channel, and maybe I wouldn’t parse it as one of >> the varieties of defeat. >> >> Then I would probably volunteer a rhetoric closer to Nick’s, in which “we >> know what they/we-all are; now we’re just negotiating the price”. >> >> For me as I actually am, fighting off the religious (and specifically >> Christian; my old Japanese friends tell me there was never the same >> resistance when Darwin was brought to the Buddhists) narcissism is the >> least-interesting thing Darwin did, even though I understand it was >> probably the most socially consequential in its European context. Other >> things, most notably introducing a non-Philoponian notion of causation, are >> much more conceptually interesting, and very very modern, in the cognitive >> problem they solve, and the world for which they pave a way. Since >> superstition had already been mostly expunged from colliding billiard balls >> and the like, I (again, in my modern and incorrigible Weltanschauung) am >> unable to see its persistence w.r.t. all biological phenomena as anything >> but a human motivational pathology, which pre-empts cognitive questions >> from even entering consideration. >> >> EricS >> >> On Mar 27, 2026, at 14:30, Eric Charles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Tracking what EricS says re the "natural selection" metaphor... here is >> an excerpt from the incipient book.... >> >> Natural Selection – The Thing That Explains Evolution >> Darwin explains evolution as a result of Natural Selection, which invokes >> the model of Artificial Selection, or as it was more simply called in >> Darwin’s day *Selection*. It is important to note the language of >> Darwin’s day, because it reminds us that Selection―the intentional breeding >> of organisms to produce descendants with desired traits―was a process that >> most people in Darwin’s time were quite familiar with. >> You will recall that that a model is a situation we think we understand >> well, which is invoked to explain unseen aspects of a situation we think we >> understand less well. In Darwin’s day, there was much confusion over why >> organisms should be adapted to their natural environments, but there was >> little confusion about the process of selection and its effectiveness. This >> creates awkwardness when we try to teach about evolution today, because, >> when most of our students enter class, they know very little about how >> breeding programs work. We start with students who understand neither how >> breeders intentionally control the variation in generations of their stock, >> nor how organisms become adapted to their environments, and we try to make >> them familiar enough with the former to use it as a model in explaining the >> latter. This leads to two possible problems: First, we may fail to get our >> students familiar enough with the model itself. Second, even if we could be >> certain that the students understood artificial selection sufficiently, >> that would not guarantee that they understood Darwin’s application of the >> model. >> ...... [dairy cow example] ..... >> We use the example of dairy cattle to illustrate the selection model, but >> what model did Darwin have in mind? Darwin was an avid pigeon breeder, and >> pigeon-breeding was probably the model he had in mind when he came up with >> the idea of natural selection. Alas, the cows make a better model for the >> modern reader, who will find it quite intuitive why one might want a dairy >> cow that produces more milk, but will likely find it mysterious why one >> would favor, for example, a skinny pigeon whose throat inflates into a >> globe large enough for the pigeon's beak to rest upon. (We authors find it >> mysterious as well, though the aesthetic is oddly pleasing.) >> <image.jpeg>[i] >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> [i] By Karl Wagner (1864–1939) Public Domain, >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30811756 >> >> >> Best, >> Eric >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 7:34 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This is a great note, in the sense of being helpful from endless going >>> around in circles, and written to get somewhere. I am always grateful when >>> EricC visits from the Oort cloud and enables a conversation to go into some >>> direction again. >>> >>> I want, though (of course) to object to something. And a paragraph >>> below enables me to see the way I want to do it. EC already understands >>> the source of the objection, and I will include the final paragraph where >>> it is flagged, though I want to beware oversimplifying to the point of >>> having strawmen (which I don’t think is being done here). But first; the >>> objection: >>> >>> >>> On Mar 26, 2026, at 16:25, Eric Charles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> There are at least three interesting things going on in the >>> metaphor discussion. The least interesting aspect of it is squabbling over >>> what does or does not count as a metaphor (vice simile, model, analogy, >>> etc.). Not that that isn't a perfectly good discussion, it just that it's >>> *just* a vocabulary discussion, not an ideas discussion. >>> >>> 1) What is an explicit metaphor, and to what extent do the constant >>> implicit metaphors that permeate our language resemble them? Nick has a >>> particular way of thinking about metaphors, based on the intent of the >>> person invoking the metaphor. Metaphors always assert that two things are >>> alike, not that they are identical, so that implies that all metaphors are >>> imperfect, and that that is intentional, and does not invalidate a >>> metaphor. Metaphors can thus be divided into intended implications and >>> not-intended implication, etc., etc. .... and Nick is fairly obsessed with >>> these, especially in scientific contexts where people seem to be using the >>> metaphors in different ways and that leads to a deep underlying confusion >>> in a seemingly functional field, e.g., Darwinian evolution by means of >>> "natural" selection.... >>> >>> >>> This is the poster child for a thing that to me is the ultimate >>> non-issue, and has been shown to be the non-issue it is for many decades >>> now. >>> >>> Look up George Price: >>> sciencedirect.com >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS002251938570149X&c=E,1,W3dKl-ox5a6gYgmXV1mvxgdASoR140cWFzt9NvHUFiKFUn3joEJlLvSL7fLzEf5YBj-Xe9O6-xf4hKOulX9pl-bzOXzmfveGe3MErMWbrAE,&typo=1> >>> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS002251938570149X&c=E,1,o_3R8DA08GbsWi615mxmIrmkg5AJSlZWAwzi7ZbVo0e9fahJVwHBzARBroebtxSPRzo4mFI6SOUyzEg80w0zj0k78_jqZSE7BK4DxxduhT-Oyrl_GrlnuOrZrg,,&typo=1> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS002251938570149X&c=E,1,LiZkhWK0CnAKHiDnM8ymHlEYM9eaTmBl-Pm46o4LHF9tT1qCALbW2wD1gd9kTQ61lztSwx6mqH6Jl2cIwQYTc9L5TnqyLMY214d0jcgNVGhXh1n9RhA,&typo=1> >>> https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/1995-price.pdf >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgwern.net%2fdoc%2fgenetics%2fselection%2fnatural%2f1995-price.pdf&c=E,1,MGdnlNH-SlLkbCSWxv_RPzA-cDzDWUzan1XBhSedHDlNR_NiwPVoi_SuhK4dVIj-OttHnDT-h97CWbeg1wlpNVc782NjcStazE-k6Y-99SY_cw,,&typo=1> >>> >>> Price lays out, to a perfectly acceptable degree, an operational >>> description. Of sets of things, of partitioning, of some’s being retained >>> and others’ being eliminated, from the ongoing history of sets that are the >>> targets of description. It’s a phenomenon that takes place in nature, in >>> all sorts of forms. We need some lexeme to refer to it. What is a good >>> one? Selection seems about as apt as anything in English. Quite beside >>> the fact that Darwin wrote about animal breeding, this will still be >>> perhaps the most apt word I have available. Not merely “sorting”, because >>> I need also the consequence of the sort that a retention/elimination step >>> ensues. Human intentionality is not imputed to the phenomenon itself at >>> all, though there can be a subset of cases where it enters as part of the >>> chain of causation. >>> >>> When anybody resurrects this zombie of claiming that some terrible >>> metaphor of human breeding-selection is indelible in the cognition of >>> people thinking about evolution that leads them into confusion, my >>> experience of the conversation is much like the experiences I have had with >>> the Implicit Bias crowd. It doesn’t take much time around many of them, >>> before I am pretty firmly convinced that what they want is to condemn >>> basically everybody (but, one by one, whomever they are talking to). (The >>> nicest image that comes to mind is Aunt Ada’s “I saw something nasty in the >>> woodshed” from Cold Comfort Farm, with about as much content.) The >>> motivation is the whole, and any conversation will take whatever sophistic >>> form gives the performance of fulfilling the motivation. To be clear about >>> what really is going on, and to think well about it and improve the way we >>> handle such problems in living, is incidental to why they do what they do. >>> A kind of trojan horse of a kind we so often see: the existence of a >>> legitimate justice aim becomes a vehicle for people who want to play >>> domination games and to bully. They don’t erase the legitimate justice >>> aim, but by having little serious interest in it (or a secondary and >>> self-serving one, at best), they move it out of scope for any interaction >>> you can have with them. At which point I don’t feel like feeding the >>> trolls. Talk to me about really understanding and really helping, and stop >>> the performing and pretending, or leave me alone. >>> >>> I do think one has to have some interest in knowing what people are >>> doing, in context of the commitment to get thoughts clear and to solve some >>> problems for which the solution has criteria, to keep such intuitions from >>> turning into strawmen. >>> >>> >>> The paragraph I promised to acknowledge, which I think also sees all >>> this, was this one: >>> >>> I suspect that much of the frustration of Nick v others on this list is >>> the instance of those others that any implications of the flavor text can >>> be ignored once the mechanism has been mathematized, vs Nick's instance >>> that if the flavor text is still being used it is almost certainly doing >>> some metaphor-like work in the background of whoever is using, or hearing, >>> the term (because otherwise, why not ditch it entirely). >>> >>> >>> Eric(S) >>> >>> >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,MvPBzumjGOMvFK48LUE0UQdK6VK6AUsi-eqaPe-flsYvZ0f7_LB5yci4M8zC-CtR0mpGGSiMW2M7COP8gMUSKt6e8dhc3KUDw-ZC0pXG58u5nKRwO5QjHKai&typo=1> >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,3BFC9wiNIbu0RfUrBwJx1rkjQdAKKedb41UsL7jDB2npyaJat-SYo0cw5PMXdJVyRgb9KEuejlxaqpWCCiyMhABfYpM43XgAyq_ZIyJM-hCN5AlHo7kSm-LOpVo,&typo=1> >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,IgtO2FJhZAEzZm5VACZ2xJXokYCfBYldFO9Rj6TJSFZA6REp5UyafbZu07PGVO2IQM2XZZ_y8Os1pz7xFolcfdO8OHqq2x79yt76eGCZjB2xbhbTP8WLna4,&typo=1> >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,QgyHEN8mtBltV1wFgqKecKYrfWkCV6cflhxJOF240A3fvfaDP4rUp5DXuFWXBvMYB0G2k9P__XuBmLVEOG1KzZ5xpgAtaUPOPpexAhpsmwCW27A,&typo=1> >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,8iXRlI1pj0zUtrMzZfwyoUxIS73vC62FY9mCy1sNzzFttJVlKMY7ZoGdp2_9B9eaF0XcYQyEMZ0nc7i8gWlMYIARbN_5o2bVFTEcO5PtU-07aCTjNrbV17FmkwU,&typo=1 >> to (un)subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,QHW68YQPp1yt6QmYx0xH4qtvTX2sX4Zm6oblF7-j2e9eodWJG4b9w0SeMKJjWpxPQ42I_crhR1lTWYlvLDlddd993C2W2SMDjcF2OZfj-bGzLJBamgUpSSamXA,,&typo=1 >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MqgGGnrMAwRtuhkRgta5E3LFzsBHFRwLCRc9jXDY32j0BPKxBHewY9Ocn1Pnxwqsovt2MZJjGiQQk6xA_7k_V2URdb6p96gFG_Dq7v2HlFV7&typo=1 >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,Hx0DCJUQfyi08R6IbxTw2Wur8q44J2sa2_KLlGwrRDM0iS0SKUttWnKTvgGJLobC6fDg4_GEgd1jt6znDgBLu5r2CRbbUAxp2uOu_PBYRZ4,&typo=1 >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson https://substack.com/@monist
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
