David Sloan Wilson, over at the Huffington Post, has replied to my criticism of his previous essay on why the so-called “invisible hand” guiding financial markets is, as he puts it, “morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably dead.” David and I have a good working relationship (he is one of the infamous “Altenberg 16”) and mutual respect, so the following is meant to be in the spirit of an open minded debate between two scholars. David agrees, contrary to many of our colleagues, that it is good for the public to see scientists honestly argue their diverging positions in public, so here it goes.
First off, David claims that both conservative commentator Larry Arnhart and I “have objected to [David’s] declaration that the invisible hand is dead.” Arnhart has, I certainly have not. I completely agree that this pernicious idea has gone the way of the dodos in light of the events of recent years (at least from the Enron debacle on). I simply disagree that such a conclusion has anything whatsoever to do with hypotheses on the evolution of human morality and cognitive abilities.
Wilson challenges my claim that evolutionary psychology cannot tell us much, as a science, about the evolution of social human behavior. He rhetorically asks “Would [Massimo] make the same claim about astronomy, geology, and paleobiology? Past events leave traces in the present that can be pieced together to produce solid knowledge.”
Of course they do! I, like David, am an evolutionary biologist, and I am perfectly cognizant of the inferential power of historical research. But I am also well aware of its limitations. Astronomy, geology, paleobiology, as well as much of evolutionary biology, have plenty to say about historical events, and they are solid sciences. The case for the evolution of human cognitive (as opposed to physical) traits, however, is much more dicey.
David wants a full account of the reasons for my skepticism, and he can find them in Chapter 7 of my book with Jonathan Kaplan, Making Sense of Evolution. Briefly, the problem comes down to three accidents of history that make it particularly difficult (though I never used the word impossible) for scientists to test historical hypothesis about cognitive adaptations in humans:
a) We do not have a fossil record of the relevant behaviors (as opposed to, say, physical attributes like brain size);
b) we do not have enough closely related species for a statistically sound phylogenetic comparative method to apply;
c) it is irrelevant to measure natural selection on currently existing populations because the environmental conditions are radically different from those under which the traits of interest evolved.
These problems do not apply in the case of several other species of living organisms, where one or more of the above conditions are satisfied, and the testing of adaptive hypotheses can therefore proceed on firmer ground. None of this, of course, means that evolutionary psychologists are wrong in their theories, it just means that their suggestions ought to be taken with a huge grain of salt, as arguments from plausibility, not established science.
Wilson also mentions the fact that there are plenty of peer reviewed papers in evolutionary psychology, but I find this to be by far his weakest argument. Peer review is a necessary component of scientific practice, but it is only the beginning of the critical analysis of scientific claims, not the end. Plenty of wrong ideas (e.g., the ether theory) have succumbed despite once being published in peer reviewed journals, and I’m not even going so far as claiming that evo-psych’s ideas are wrong, just not firmly grounded in historical evidence!
David’s more interesting point is that “all theories of human behavior require assumptions about an underlying human nature ... asking where the assumed propensities come from, the only plausible answer (barring creationism) is to provide an evolutionary account.” As he knows very well, I do not subscribe to creationist ideas, so why exactly is he bringing this up? I submit that his premise his incorrect: we do not need a theory of the origin of “human nature” (a concept in itself fraught with philosophical and scientific problems) in order to study the behavior of human beings in modern societies.
I hasten to clarify that I am no simple-minded behaviorist, but I simply do not see what could possibly be added to modern cognitive science by speculations on whether certain behaviors evolved by natural selection. Whether they did or not (and as I pointed out above, it is exceedingly difficult to tell), we can quantify the behaviors, model them, and even make testable predictions about their consequences for individuals and societies.
Since the issue here, remember, is what one ought to do with respect to market regulation, any scenario based on a possible evolutionary historical path rather than another is simply not that relevant.
Finally, to the naturalistic fallacy (deriving an ought from an is), which I claimed both Wilson and Arnhart committed in their respective commentaries. David cites the extended comments of thinkmonkey on this blog to exonerate him from having committed the fallacy, stating that “I did not say that sustainable society is good because it evolved in our species.”
Okay, there clearly is plenty of room for subjective interpretation here, and if David says that’s not what he meant, I’ll take his word for it. But if that is the case, why then does he start his reply to me with “my main argument against the invisible hand is based on fundamental evolutionary principles ... If there is anything that we can say with confidence, it is that individual selfishness does not automatically lead to adaptive societies.”
Perhaps, but adaptation is a matter of biological fitness (survival and reproduction), which is not at all the same thing as morality and justice. If David doesn’t want to mix the two, why does he build an argument for a particular moral choice (we should regulate the markets so that they don’t wreak havoc on people’s lives) on the basis of a fact about the a-moral concept of biological adaptation? Once again, evolution does not have much to say about the current debate on Capitol Hill, and bringing it up doesn’t help either policy makers or the public at large.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "I don’t think these chaps would be so impressed with organic food:..."
- "As far as I can tell, they don't seem to be wanting to investigate the idea that most of it might..."
- "How are both atheists & theists believers? Theists believe in god(s), atheists lack beliefs in..."
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Navigation and location can occur without external cues
- How 'trained immunity' mediates BCG therapy of bladder cancer
- European salamanders and newts vulnerable to fungal disease from Asia
- Emerging disease could wipe out American, European salamanders
- Genetic factors behind surviving or dying from Ebola shown in mouse study