Re: Essentialism and such (was a bunch of previous subject lines)

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl" <Carl@dondwiggins.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:12 PM

> In "Form and Transformation: Generative and Relational Principles in
> Biology" Gerry Webster writes:
>
> "...the position adopted in this book is that the causal mechanism
> responsible for the production of empirical morphologies is that
> structure of the organism referred to in the classical literature as the
> morphogenetic field.  I have also suggested that morphogenetic fields
> should be regarded as putative natural kinds.  From this perspective,
> the theory... is a Theory of Field Structure and, as Goodwin will
> explain, the embryological and genetic transformations... should be
> understood as field transformations. [...]"

This sounds like a philosopher writing in clouded ways about Sheldrake's 
"morphogenetic field". (The mention of "classical literature" clearly argues 
against this, but what literature is there that uses that term? ~:-| )

Now, Sheldrake's morphogenetic field is an entirely superfluous speculation. 
Developmentary genetics shows that genes alone can easily explain all of 
development -- embryogenesis, as well as regeneration which Sheldrake found 
so deeply mysterious --, so there's simply no need for that extra idea. By 
1996 the good man should have known this full well (as any "Introduction 
into Developmentary Biology" lecture should have taught him), so I declare 
him guilty of mistaking ignorance for knowledge -- the original sin of 
pseudoscience -- and start getting my holy wrath. :-)

> "[...] Thus, insofar as any set of
> specifically different empirical forms or patterns can be understood as
> being produced by the same generative mechanism in this sense, that set
> can be conceived as comprising a single kind.  From this perspective,
> kinds are theoretically significant kinds, that is, natural kinds.
>
> I have suggested that, despite all the difficulties traditionally
> associated with it, the Linnaean hierarchy should be regarded as
> representing some aspects of a real natural order, albeit approximately
> and schematically..."

So, each Linnaean taxon (ideally) reflects one such "natural kind", and 
therefore Linnaean nomenclature has some advantage over other nomenclature 
systems? That strikes me as a leap of faith -- even if the existence of the 
morphogenetic field is preassumed.