November 24 was the 150th anniversary of the publishing of the book On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Certainly the book keeps on causing controversy in certain circles and back then it challenged many established ideas. The book serves as the springboard for a new understanding on life’s direction. An important figure in that process that often goes unmentioned, is Alfred Russel Wallace. He arrived to the same conclusions as Darwin on that same year. This instance is a living proof that even ideas evolve, and they seem to evolve towards what best fit the evidence–towards truth.

Wallace and Darwin arrived to similar theories experiencing different things. It seems that it is one spirit that guides them all–the spirit of truth. They wanted to let the world know one same essence of an idea that was within their minds. The same urge affected Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ. A scientist and theologian that lived in the next generation of Darwin and Wallace. He writes in one of his letters: “It’s not nearly so much ideas that I want to propagate as a spirit: and a spirit can animate all external presentations” (The Making of a Mind, p. 281). The spirit that Teilhard wanted to express was the evolution of Creation towards the Omega Point. He saw the direction of all created beings into a more complex form of existence, from God to energy, to matter, to life, to conciousness in communion with God–and the circle where we return to God is completed (only through the Son can we attain this return). He exposes this in a work he wrote exactly six decades ago.

Sixty years ago (November 15 1942), Teilhard wrote Man’s place in the Universe (The vision of the Past). Here, he enunciates the Law of Complexity-Consciousness. This Law describes life’s direction towards more complex forms of existence. The point where we are at right now is a point of consciousness that will culminate in a pure communion of self-awareness. This, he believes is Man’s (human beings) place in the Universe. Thomas Berry, a geologian of a generation after Teilhard, phrases it as us  humans being(s) where the Universe becomes conscious of itself. For Berry, our way into the future relies on being able to understand this reality of communion. He outlines this plan into the time to come in his book The Great Work also published in November, but of 2000. Nine years ago, Berry described what for him is the ultimate task of humans, which is, the communion not only with conscious beings, but with all of Creation. For this to happen, he says, we need to gear all the efforts of the main institutions (The government, business and education) towards it.

The preface to this story of evolution is a complex history enlightened by scientific discoveries and spiritual narratives. Darwin’s, Wallace, Watson and Crick, Teilhard, Einstein, Fr. Lamaitre, among others, they all contributed to what we know now of the Universe and its history. This scientific discoveries and spiritual narratives constitute a New Story. Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry saw the need  to understand evolution beyond organic species but rather an evolution of the entire Cosmos into the apex of Creation. Hence, they co-wrote The Universe Story. This rises very interesting points for Christian Theology that are worth exploring. In a series of articles to come we will explore some of the implications to Original Sin, Grace, the theological issue of the spiritual dimension of humans, the role of the Holy Spirit in Evolution, the role of Christ.

[This Thanksgiving, I am thankful for the productive Novembers that brought light to the Story of the Universe, the story of evolution of Species and Ideas-- a story of self-realisation of who we are and what we ought to do/become. Tonight, I am thankful for my mind's evolution into this awareness.]

Today, November 24th, 2009, marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s seminal work On the Origin of Species. In contrast to a common misconception, Darwin did not conceive of the idea of evolution, as his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had previously hypothesized that animals were descended from a single living “filament” long ago; more on the history of evolutionary thought can be found here. What Darwin, and who was to become his colleague, Alfred Russel Wallace, described was the mechanism – Natural Selection – by which evolution acts on all living creatures, as elucidated from multiple lines of evidence. They presented their theory together as On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection which was published in two scientific papers to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858.

In celebration of this monumental event the National Science Foundation has launched an interactive website called the Evolution of Evolution that highlights the timeline associated with the theory and it’s impact on science and society.  Click through to reach the website.

Faz hoje 150 anos que saiu nas livrarias Inglesas a primeira edição «Sobre a Origem das Espécies por Meio da Selecção Natural, ou a Preservação das Faças Favorecidas na Luta pela Vida» (no original: «On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life»), de Charles Darwin. As 1250 cópias da 1ª edição (apenas 1170 nas livrarias) esgotaram rapidamente e uma segunda edição de 3 mil exemplares foi impressa em Janeiro de 1860.

Embora escrito para o público não especializado (não se pode dizer  que tenha sido para o público, já que a maioria da população inglesa na época mal sabia ler), talvez nenhum livro científico anterior tenha tido tanto e tão imediato impacto na sociedade. Os comentários terão propagado também por pessoas que não terão lido o livro, levando a várias distorções. Mas o peso dos argumentos a favor da evolução expostos neste volume terão feito da ideia de evolução um tema de discussão incontornável.

Curiosamente, o mecanismo de selecção natural, proposto por Darwin como mecanismo natural capaz de explicar a origem das adaptações das espécies, não foi objecto de tão grande discussão, nem bem recebido inclusivamente por defensores de Darwin. O seu mais feroz defensor público, Thomas Henry Huxley, alcunhado de “buldogue de Darwin”, não perfilhava do mecanismo de selecção natural.

Contudo, passados 150 anos não há dúvida que a Evolução das espécies é um facto e que um dos mecanismos responsável pela evolução, e o único capaz de dar uma explicação material e natural para a origem de adaptações biológicas, é a selecção natural.

É certo que Darwin só publicou a «Origem» após ter recebido uma carta de Alfred Russel Wallace, expondo a ideia de evolução por selecção natural. (Curiosamente, ambos tiveram, independentemente, como fonte de inspiração para o mecanismo de selecção natural a leitura da obra de Malthus sobre o crescimento demográfico humano). Mas ninguém pode negar, e o próprio Wallace o reconheceu, que Darwin não só teve precedência no desenvolvimento da ideia, como durante os largos anos em que andou a cozinhá-la acumulou uma variedade e grandeza de factos e argumentos muito superior ao de Wallace. Em 1858, cartas de Wallace e Darwin foram lidas conjuntamente numa sessão da Sociedade Linneana, sem grande impacto social. Foi com a publicação da «Origem» que verdadeiramente se fundou a Biologia Evolutiva como área integradora de toda a biologia. Esta noção é muitas vezes encapsulada na citação de um artigo, de 1973) de um evolucionista do século XX, Theodosius Dobzhansky: “nada faz sentido em biologia excepto à luz da evolução”. Mas é extraordinário que, já em 1949, numa carta escrita da prisão para a sua família, enquanto estava na solitária, e após ter lido a «Origem», Álvaro Cunhal tenha usado a mesma metáfora, escrevendo “só é possível o estudo da biologia iluminado pela ideia de evolução”.

Publicado por André Levy

Charles Darwin impiega 21 anni per dare alle stampe L’origine delle specie. Il filosofo Pievani: «Quel 24 novembre 1859 cambiò il modo di concepire il posto dell’uomo nella natura» di Federico Tulli

È la mattina del 24 novembre 1859, a Londra, quando vede la luce una delle più dirompenti opere scientifiche della storia, L’origine delle specie di Charles R. Darwin. L’effetto provocato è lo stesso di un tappo per lo champagne. «Frenato dal timore di una reazione negativa della società dell’epoca profondamente religiosa e dal giudizio della comunità scientifica più conservatrice – spiega a left Telmo Pievani, docente di Filosofia della scienza alla Bicocca di Milano – Darwin aveva tenuto chiuse nel cassetto le sue idee sulla selezione naturale delle specie sin dal 1838. Improvvisamente, in tutta fretta, comincia a raccoglierle in un libro che darà alle stampe in pochi mesi. Dopo 21 anni di gestazione». Era successo che il collega Alfred Russel Wallace stava arrivando alle sue stesse conclusioni. Darwin rischiava di perdere la paternità della teoria evoluzionista. «Chiuso nella sua tenuta di Down – prosegue Pievani – il nostro si decide a riassumere gli scritti che stava preparando da anni in modo inconcludente. La moglie  correggeva le bozze, lamentandosi della sua punteggiatura. Alla fine, comunque, come riassunto gli è venuto bene». Non c’è dubbio. E anche se l’opera non andò subito esaurita, il successo di critica fu immediato. Anzitutto, al contrario di quanto temeva Darwin la reazione delle gerarchie anglicane non fu poi così tremenda. Tutto sommato L’origine delle specie non trasformò il suo autore nel diavolo. «Tanto è vero che quando nel 1882 muore – nota Pievani – viene sepolto a Westminster, il tempio dell’anglicanesimo. In definitiva, in Inghilterra l’evoluzionismo non ha mai avuto grandi problemi. E infatti il creazionismo nasce negli Usa. Da tutt’altra parte, 50 anni dopo». Dato il prezzo del libro, gran parte degli estimatori apparteneva alla borghesia. Ma come tutte le teorie destinate a cambiare il corso della storia, il pensiero darwiniano cominciò a propagarsi pure tra i ceti meno abbienti. «Si diffuse l’idea che questa rivoluzione scientifica e culturale dovesse essere condivisa anche da un pubblico di persone non acculturate e non facoltose». In tal senso, racconta Pievani, quanto accaduto 150 anni fa è paradigmatico del fenomeno dell’“evoluzione culturale”. «L’origine delle specie è un sasso nello stagno della cultura. È un’opera scritta per tutti e non solo per esperti, proprio perché nel suo stile si percepisse il segno di una campagna culturale, non solo scientifica. Insieme al Dialogo di Galileo, è un capolavoro di “scienza in prosa”. I naturalisti italiani lo capirono così bene da dedicare le prime conferenze “darwiniane” non alle accademie ma al pubblico più ampio, con quelle che in varie città furono chiamate “lezioni popolari”». Come ad esempio agli operai di Torino. «Un caso felice di ricezione rapida, condivisa (anche se non da tutti) e democratica di una rivoluzione scientifica che cambiava il modo di concepire il posto dell’uomo nella natura ma anche il metodo delle scienze naturali che trovavano finalmente una grande cornice teorica coerente e corroborata. Fosse successo oggi – conclude il filosofo – non so se sarebbe andata altrettanto bene. Segno che forse l’evoluzione culturale non necessariamente progredisce».

**
L’evoluzione delle idee, in libreria

«Per evoluzione culturale si intende quell’insieme di processi di trasformazione e di trasmissione che riguardano non le specie biologiche ma le idee e i comportamenti appresi, nella nostra specie soprattutto ma non solo», spiega Pievani che è curatore di Scienze e tecnologie, l’ottavo volume dell’opera Utet La cultura italiana, diretta dal genetista Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza. In questo tomo, pubblicato a ottobre, il filosofo della scienza mette in evidenza analogie e differenze fra evoluzione biologica e culturale, adottando come caso proprio la storia della cultura italiana e la sua grande diversità. Ne è derivato un affresco interdisciplinare ricchissimo, in cui si seguono gli sviluppi della cultura italiana nelle sue somiglianze con l’evoluzione biologica («selezioni, derive di idee, innovazioni, diffusioni geografiche, scuole che resistono, svolte cruciali») e nelle specificità della cultura come soggetto evolutivo: «La sua rapidità di diffusione in orizzontale, come un contagio di idee, la sua progettualità, la sua capacità di influenzare ormai profondamente anche l’evoluzione biologica umana». left 46/2009

“Darwins Brave New World is the story of how four young voyagers to the southern hemisphere, Charles Darwin, Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley and Alfred Russel Wallace revolutionised science and gave birth to an extraordinary theory about the evolution of life on earth.

Featuring a cast of Australian and Canadian actors and commentators such as controversial author and Oxford academic, Richard Dawkins, the Canadian scientist and broadcaster, David Suzuki and Australian scholar and author, Iain McCalman, from the University of Sydney, this brilliant drama-documentary tells the story of Charles Darwins struggle to produce one of the greatest scientific
theories of our age and the roles played in it by Hooker, Huxley and Wallace – Darwins fellow voyagers to the southern hemisphere.”

(1/6)

Play all

There is wonderful news today of the publication of an 11-article special issue of Science magazine chronicling the discovery and analysis of fossils from an ancient hominid dubbed Ardipithecus ramidus. I first learned of the discovery through this story on TIME.com by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman. J.H. Matternes’ visual reproduction of the creature, affectionately known as “Ardi” appears below:

Ardi presents a range of features that are, predictably, exactly what one might predict in a hominid that roamed the Ethiopian woodlands about a million years before our previously venerated oldest living relative, the Australopithecine Lucy. Ardi’s arms and hands were longer than Lucy’s, and her feet still had opposable big toes. These features point to a creature much more at home in the trees than Lucy most likely was. But Ardi was also clearly bipedal – an upright walker not that much different than you or me. In fact, the most surprising thing about the fossils is that Ardi is less chimplike than we might predict. It was not a knuckle-walker, for example. This may mean that the common ancestor of humans and chimps, which likely was around about 7 million years ago, wasn’t necessarily that much more chimplike than Ardi.

One of the best things about the discovery is that there is a tremendous record in terms of Ardi’s remains and those of animals and plants in the surroundings. Ardi demonstrates that bipedality in hominids did not evolve in response to colonization of grasslands; Ardi’s environment was mostly forested.

Really cool discovery – can’t wait to learn more about this!

I thoroughly enjoyed a lecture yesterday by Elliot Sober, philosopher and evolutionary scholar at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Sober delivered an invited seminar as part of our year-long celebration of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species.

Sober was a dynamic speaker and gave a great lecture. His thesis was that there are not just the two endpoints of the evolution debate that seem to be the media’s focus, i.e., belief in God or belief in evolution. Sober laid out a case that theistic evolution, the philosophy that the tenets of evolutionary biology are consistent with the belief in a supreme being, is a perfectly viable position to take, and that it is by no means a recent construct.

I was most interested, however, in some of the biographical information Sober presented on Darwin. He provided several sources from Darwin’s later writings in which the Victorian naturalist describes himself as a “theist” and later an “agnostic.” He ultimately penned that the notion of an ultimate creator was “beyond the scope of man’s intellect.” The idea that Sober attempted to present was that Darwin’s progressively dwindling faith had little to do with evolution and very much to do with tragic events in his life, cynicism toward the self-righteousness of the religious establishment, and his observations of the tremendous amount of evil and suffering in the natural world. In short, Darwin’s rejection of religion is similar to that of just about every person who has ever rejected religion.

Darwin famously became embittered toward religion in his grief over the death of his daughter. But Sober described Darwin’s thoughts on the profusion of evil in the world, especially examples laid out in correspondence with Asa Gray, as the real key to understanding Darwin’s rejection of religion. For example, Sober presented the life history strategy of certain Ichneumon wasps, in which the female inserts eggs into the body cavity of a caterpillar and the eggs hatch into larvae that eat the host alive from the inside, as something Darwin and Gray corresponded about. Darwin could not rectify such a design as illustrating the handiwork of a benevolent creator.

It was on this point that I wish Sober had been more forceful. The question of “why is there evil if God is good” is something that we Christian soldiers learn to rebuff in the first few days of Sunday School. Jesus spoke of unfortunate events, such as a tower collapse in Jerusalem that killed many people, and used these as examples to demonstrate that suffering is not a sign of sin. Suffering just happens. It’s how we react to it that can lead us either to sin or to grace.

But Darwin was writing not so much about errant suffering in the world, he was really getting at “evil by design.” It’s not some weird accident that some wasp larvae develop within the bodies of caterpillars and eat them alive – their brains last – this is what the wasps are designed to do. It’s one thing for God to allow suffering to occur in the world, it’s quite another for God to have intentionally created that suffering. If God has independently created each species, then God has independently – and thousands of times – created species that do simply horrific things to other species. The species doing those horrific things need to do them in order to survive. God’s design is designed evil. One cannot simultaneously believe in a God that is all good and has willfully created all life.

Posted by Matt

Sorry for the nonexistent posting recently. Life has gotten real in the past few weeks and so I imagine I will write less frequently until I graduate next May. One of the reasons I asked Nick to write too was so that there would be less dead space, but of course he goes to school too and so life is just as busy for him.

But anyway, I just wanted to share this internet gem with the world. Alfred Russel Wallace was an British naturalist and contemporary of Charles Darwin. He is famous for his work in the Amazon River basin and the Malay archipelago, and developed a theory of natural selection independently of Darwin. In fact, he sent Darwin an article outlining his theory while in Malaysia, which prompted Darwin to publish both Wallace’s article and his own findings. Too often, Darwin receives sole credit (or blame, depending) for the theories of natural selection and evolution, when in reality they represent the work of countless great scientists, Wallace and Darwin included.

The frog in the header is actually an illustration from Wallace’s book The Malay Archipelago. It is Wallace’s flying frog, Rhacophorus nigropalmatus.

Bahovec, Eva: Kopernik, Darwin, Freud (1990)

Freud je v Predavanjih za uvod v psihoanalizo predlagal, da lahko zgodovinsko gledano razberemo tri temeljne udarce v jajca naivnemu človeškemu samoljubju:

1. Kopernik – zemlja ni središče vesolja, ampak samo njegov droben delec

2. Darwin – človekov izvor je v živalskem svet, njegova narava ostaja neuničljivo živalska

3. Freud – človek ni absoluten gospodar lastne zavesti

Izključevanje človeka iz nekega logičnega antropocentričnega reda je tudi že konstitucija subjekta kot entitete, ločene od ostalega sveta; posledica je razsrediščenje. “Ne glede na njihovo pozitivno vsebino, na notranje trdno jedro, lahko ta odkritja merimo po njihovem naknadnem učinku, po pomenu njihovega sporočila za opazovalca, za sprejemnika.” Seveda, kot je značilno za vse velike zgodbe, so tudi te tri naletele na na množično očaranost, množični odpor na drugi strani, v splošnem pa na indiferentnost, ki sčasoma absorbira koktejl in se na vse več ali manj ozira le še z neko samoumevnostno pozo.

Pri Freudu je recimo glavni udarec ta, da je v nekem smislu razsvetljenski projekt prignal do skrajnih meja – znotraj znastveno-razumniške Z evropske tradicije je pokazal na samozanikanje človeka – napredek (človečnost, znanost, umetnost…) je samo poskus brisanja razsvetljenskemu projektu inherentne logike – namreč – totalna afirmacija Človeka vodi v totalen izbris “človeškosti”:

“Kjer torej vodi pri filozofih razsvetljenstva proces racionallizacije k vse bolj izpopolnjenim oblikam človečnosti, je pri Freudu napredovanje znastvenega poraza napredovanje človeštva iz poraza v poraz; napredovanje razuma, ki se postavlja po robu zunanji, razumu heteronomni avtoriteti, je napredovanje spoznanja o njeni neizvedljivosti, o tem, da razsežnost zunanjosti, drugosti, ki si je subjekt ne more prisvojiti, ni le neukinljiva, temveč vse bolj postaja njegovo najbolj “notranje”, intimno obeležje. Več ko človek zmore, bolj je subjekt zreduciran.”

Kopernikova velika in vendar nenavadno majhna revolucija znanosti

Kopernik

Kopernikov astronomski sistem ni prinesel le reforme osnovnih pojmov takratne astronomske znanosti, temveč je radikalno spremenil človekovo pojmovanje narave, ki doseže vrhunec pri Newtonu. A vendarle. Če ne bi bilo Keplerja in Galileja, knjiga De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (1543) ne bi pomenila kaj dosti. “Kopernikovo revolucijo so izumili šele zgodovinarji znanosti, nekje v drugi polovici 17. st.”

Heliocentrični model

Pri Koperniku se pojavi ideja heliocentričnega univerzuma, v znanstveni sistem pa ga je uredil šele Kepler. Njegovo razsrediščenje zemlje ima namreč še metafizične korenine:

“Kopernikova kozmologija, ki prinaša “novo podobo sveta in novi občutek za bit”, je nezvedljivo povezana z mitom o emanaciji svetlobe in o vidnem soncu, ki predstavlja nevidno sonce, njegova znanost neločljiva od njegovih “transznastvenih” pojmovanj, od novoplatonizma, predelanega v srednjeveški krščanski tradiciji in v dogmi o božji troedinosti. (…) Na Kopernikovi revoluciji ni nič dramatičnega, ni mejnik ali dogodek, ki bi ločil dve zgodovinski obdobji, in vendar pomeni več kot to: konec enega sveta in začetek drugega, konec zaprtega sveta, čeprav še ne neskončnega univerzuma.”

Andreas Vesalius

Pomeni odpravo antropo- in geocentrizma antike in srednjega veka – in tu zgodovinarji znanosti najdejo skupno prelomno točko: isto leto je izšla De Humani Corporis Fabrica – Andreasa Vesaliusa. Vesalius je poučeval kirurgijo in anatomijo – pri slednji je sam raztelešal trupla, pred tem so to počeli le kirurgi.

“Kar pade zgodovinarjem znanosti ob primerjavi Kopernika in Vesaliusa najbolj v oči, je njun destruktivni učinek na srednjeveško pojmovanje človeka in sveta: Kopernikova astronomija pomeni začetek razpada antropocentričnega kozmosa, Vesaliusova anatomija začetek antropologije, ki si ji enkrat za vselej ni treba več ozirati na antropomorfno kozmologijo.”

Če Kopernik vrže človek iz kozmosa, ga Vesalius vanj vrača:

“…vso anatomijo človeškega telesa je osredotočil okrog temeljnega in novega pravila, da moramo človeka raziskovati na človeku samem, v vsej njegovi enkratnosti, in v vsem njegovem dostojanstvu, ki mu, na najvišjem mestu v hierarhiji živega, tudi pripada.”

Zaradi Kopernikove zvestobe antični filozofski tradiciji sta:

“Galilej in Kepler morala iz Kopernikovega programa izluščiti njegovo aristarhovsko “trdno jedro”, to objektivno merilo znastvenega napredka, in ga ločiti on Platonove heuristike, od zaščitniškea pasu psiholoških hipotez in začettnih pogojev odkritja. Zato sta se tudi oprla na Kopernikovo zgodnje delo, Commentariolus, kjer je Kopernik v grobem zastavil svoj raziskovalni program, ne pa na De Revolutionibus, kjer je hotel – poleg tega, da je bil njegov program boljši od Ptolomejevega, torej primerljiv z njim, ne pa inkomenzurabilen kot pri Kuhnu – tudi preseči Ptolomeja in razložiti vse resnične posledice ptolomejske teorije.”

Znanost tako postane stvar Resnice – v  tem je bil Kopernik prva velika osebnost znanstvene revolucije, na črti katere so mu nato sledili Kepler, Galilej in Descartes.

“Toda Kopernikova resnica je tudi več kot resnica narave in več kot skladnost z objektom ali zunanjim svetom: je resnica, ki rabi oporo v nekom, ki je že vedel, resnica predpostavljene vednosti, ki je njen pogoj in garant. (…) V tej perspektivi je Kopernik naredil še drugi “prvi korak”: od srednjeveškega boga k Descartesovemu bogu filozofov, pregnanega iz nebes v prostor geometrije, k temu brezosebnemu diskurzu zgolj predpostavljenega subjekta, nosilca vednosti “osebno”, protipolu in pozitivaciji popolnoma izpraznjenega cogita, ki ga uteleša v tej prvi, še ne univerzalni stopnji, predhodnik novoveške znanosti.”

Vednost in subjekt sta zgolj predpostavljena – skozi “koncept predhodnika” se smisel proizvede retroaktivno.

De humani corporis fabrica - znana tudi po alegorično pozirajočih "modelih"

Kopernik, Descartes in subjekt novoveške znanosti

René Descartes

“Tako kot Kopernik vztraja, da mora biti astronomski sistem več kot izračunavanje navideznega gibanja in nekaj drugega kot reševanje pojavov, je temu projektu zavezan tudi Descartes: znanost mora biti znanost o realnem svetu. (…) Absolutna gotovost, ki ji je na sledi Descartes, je gotovost kljub razsrediščenemu človekovemu svetu in kljub neustavljivemu kroženju zemlje v neskončnost, ali morda še točneje, je ravno gotovost tega razsrediščenja samega.”

Na poti k absolutni vednosti pa je pomembna razlika med samim realnim svetom, našo percepcijo realnega in fikcijo – vednostjo o njem:

“Fikcija nam pomaga prav pri tem, da prodremo onstran varljivih čutnih zaznav, ki morda niso nič drugega ko imaginarne sanjske podobe, v katerih se mešajo elementti, ki so tudi sami že sestavljeni, za Descartesa torej arbitrarni, podvrženi dvomu, a tudi, da se rešimo ujetosti v skeptični krog.”

Tako je Descartes prišel do metodičnega dvoma:

“Red je utemeljen na dekompoziciji: resnično je tisto, kar je razstavljeno do konca, razčenjeno na toliko delov, elementov, da nas ne more več zavesti v zmoto.”

Ta metodični dvom pa dokončno naredi razcep v človekovem mišljenju – metodični dvom se upira intuitivnemu, postane metafizično orodje na poti k resnici fizike:

“Sestop od naravnega dvoma k metafizičnemu, od naravnih verig vednosti, ki napreduje od enostavnega k gotovemu, do gotovosti subjekta, od koder je potem mogoče napredovati v nasproni smeri, tedaj ni sestop od ravne verige razlogov, ki bi se sklenila v skeptični krog, ampak pomeni še bolj radikalno spodmaknitev temelja in še hujšo vrtoglavico, turbulenco vednosti in subjekta.”

Darwin, Kopernik živega sveta

“Če je po Koperniku zemlja le še eno nebesno telo, planet med planeti, in še to s fizikalnega vidika dokaj nepomemben planet, pa po Darwinu udarec ne zadane le njegovega prebivališča, temveč tudi njega samega: človek zdaj postane le še ena žival, živalska vrsta med živalskimi vrstami. (…) Darwinov odločilni prelom ni bil v tem, da bi človeka umestil v živalsko kraljestvo; to je storil v svoji klasifikaciji, sto let pred Darwinom, že Linné, ko je pokazal, kako blizu je človek antropoidnim opicam, še bolj pa Lamarck, ki je človeški rod trdno zasidral prav na zadnjo stopnico razvoja živalskih vrst “od črvov do orangutana”; a verjetno bi lahko v zgodovini znanosti tudi njima našli niz predhodnikov. Če je Darwin s čim prelomil, potem je prelomil ravno z razvojem navzgor, z nenehnim napredovanjem k vse večji popolnosti in enkratnosti človeka. Nesmiselno je govoriti, da je kaka žival višja od druge, je že zgodaj poudarjal v svojem dnevniku, in neupravičeno razglašamo za najvišje tiste vrste, ki imajo najbolj razvito možgansko strukturo in intelektualne sposobnosti.”

Charles Darwin

Darwin pa je edinstven tudi v tem, da se je njegova teorija evolucije kot prva samooznačevala kot revolucionarno. Njegova posebnost naj bi bila odvrnitev od enkratnosti individua k “populacijskem razmišljanju”.

“Darwinov genij, če lahko kljub vsemu vpeljemo to razsvetljesnko dikcijo, je res v njegovem postopku argumentacije, a ne zaradi nekakšne zgolj retorične spretnosti, zaradi katere bi znal pomanjlkjivosti, ki navidez nasprotujejo novi biologiji, sprevrniti v njene prednosti. Njegova argumentacija je prevratniške narave ravno zato, ker je znal resnico izpeljati iz fiktivne konstrukcije, naravni svet iz – umetnega.”

V tem je tudi glavna razlika med njim in Wallaceom, ki je prav tako izhajal iz Lyellove revolucionarne geologije – v naravni selekciji ni namreč videl vzroka za evolucijo.

Kot vemo, je bil Darwin predno je odšel na potovanje z ladjo Beagle in tudi še ves čas potovanja, prepričani kreacionist. Le sem pa tja so ga prevevali posamezni dvomi:

“…potem ko Darwin ščinkavev niti ne omeni, v prvi izdaji Voyage on Beagle pa le mimogrede, je iz druge izdaje moč razbrati, da se je dokopal do odločilnega spoznanja: ščinkavci z otoka Galapagos pripadajo trinajstim različnim vrstam, povezanim v skupno genealoško skupino. To je ugotovitev, o kateri je pisal, da je v njem sprožila “evolucionistično spreobrnitev”.”

Njegov glavni podporni argument pa je bila umetna selekcija domačih živali – do teorije se je tako dokopal šele po analogiji:

“…toda poleg tega metodičnegs naredi tudi “ontološki” obrat; v tej perspektivi lahko imamo njegovo sklicevanje na umetno selekcijo za več kot analogijo ali za več kot boj znanosti z religijo, čeprav lahko tu ravno umetna selekcija odigra vlogo argumenta par excellence. Kaj malo verjetno je namreč, da bi bi stvarnik vesoljstva pozoren na golšo vzrejenih golobov “le zato, da bi ugodil človekovi muhavosti.”

Idejo in sistem naravne selekcije je Darwin povzel po Wallaceu, kateremu je priznaval revolucijo na tem polju raziskovanja:

“… Wallace bodisi ni mogel preseči ovir takratnega časa in tradicije, bodisi ni videl svojega protislovja ali pa mu je preprostto upadel pogum in naravne selekcije ni razširil na človeka; ves čas je vztrajal, tako kot Lyell, pri njegovi enkratnosti in neponovljivosti.”(…) Napetost med naravno in seksualno selekcijo, o kateri domala vsi Darwinovi interpreti nekam negotovo ugotavljajo, da ne pomeni pravega nasprotja ali čiste dihotomije, vse naključne, neusmerjene variacije, ki potem postanejo predmet naravne selekcije in boja za obstanek, te so tisti Darwinov kjučni člen, ki ruši lamarckosvsko vertikalno hierarhijo živega, najeda svet, v katerem pomeni prilagajanje vedno tudi že izpopolnjevanje, svet n otranjih smotrov in nenehnega napredovanja, neustavljivega pohoda Wallaceovih “boljših organizmov”. (…) Wallaceov edini kriterij je neposredna pridobitev, uporabnost brez izgube, stroj s popolnim izkoristkom: če se je čoveški razum pojavil prej, preden so ga ljudje, v surovem stanju živjenja v divjini, lahko uporabljali ali potrebovali, če je bil za takratno neposredno rabo predimenzioniran, potem ni mogl nastati zt naravno selekcijo. Morala je obstajati neka višja sila, če z Wallaceom spet sklenemo krog boja znanosti z religijo, “ki je usmerjala razvoj človeka v določeni smeri in s posebnim namenom.”

Darwin pa enostavno v človeku ni videl daleč najpopolnejšega bitja v daleč najpopolnejšem svetu.

“Freudovsko parabolo bi zdaj nemara lahko razvili še nekoliko dlje. Kjer je Kopernik prestavil središče sveta z zemlje na sonce in iz nje naredil le še en, nič več stabilen in negiben planet, in kjer je Vesalius središče predkopernikanskega sveta, človeka, razpršil na tisoč sestavnih delov njegovega telesa, jima je Wallace spet priskrbel središče, pravzaprav križanje dveh središč v skupnem stekališču, ki se jima poda: za Wallacea je življenje, ki doseže vrhunec v enkratnosti človekovega razuma, mogoče le na zemlji.”

V sredini in okoli: Claude Bernard in njegova utemeljitev znanosti o življenju

Claude Bernard

Z Bernardom postane medicina znanost v pravem pomenu besede, je namreč:

“…utemeljitelj eksperimentalne fiziologije, kot nekdo, ki je pogruntal novo mettodo in s tem revolucioniral znanost o življenju v celoti.”

Njegov najpomembnejši prispevek je vsekakor koncept celične teorije:

“Dokler si je bilo mogoče marsikaj izposoditi iz tehnike, je bilo mogoče tudi funkcije organov misliti zgolj v razmerju do zunanjega, fizikanlega okolja: “Preučevanje oblikovanja in ohranjanja anatomskega besednjaka, po izvoru grškega, hebrejskega, latinskega in arabskega, kaže, da posreduje tehnično izkustvo svoje operativne norme zaznavanju organskih oblik.” Spomnimo se le najslavnejših primerov, Aristotelove razlage fleksije in ekstenzije s katapultom ali krvnega obtoka z namakalnimi kanali, Descartesove živali, ki je stroj in živega bitja, katerega delovanje je mogoče še najbolj ponazoriti z uroki, in seveda Harveyeve srčne mišice kot mehanične črpalke, ki poganja kri po telesu.”

Sam Bernard je tako trdil: “Organizem je zgrajen kot družba, tako da so v njem upoštevani pogoji elementarnega ali individualnega življenja.”

Bernard je s tem razbil podobo telesa kot stroja s soodvisnimi mehanizmi, koncipiral je mišljenje notranjosti telesa kot notranjega okolja.

Bernard

“…je s pomočjo družbenega modela ovrgel tehnološki model organizma, revolucioniral odnos med delom in celoto, postavil meje med notranjim in zunanjim okoljem ter ločil fiziologijo od fizike, a tudi od anatomije (…) Za Comteja je organizem odprt sistem, odvisen od okolja, odzivanje samega organizma pa je nekaj zanemarljivega. Zunanje, mehanično okolje, odločilno zaznamovano s svojim newtonovskim poreklom, je glavni regulator organizma. Fiziološka regulacija je pri Bernardu povezana s konceptom notranjega, specifičnega, avtonomnega okolja (…) Toda Bernard tudi ni naredil koperniškega obrata, temveč je, tako kot je Newton zaokrožil znastveno revolucijo sedemnajstega st., le dovršil razsredičenje življenja v njegovi najbolj razviti obliki; prvi korak, prve bitke tega znastvenega, medicinskega razsrediščenje človeka pa so morale biti izbojevane drugje.”

Na poti k Freudu

Marie François Xavier Bichat

“Smrt človeka v razsrediščenem vesolju, mišljena na modelu razkosanega, seciranega človeškega telesa, postane pri Bichatu počasno umiranje. Trenutek, ko življenje usahne, je napolnjen s tisočero smrti, razpršenih v času, razpotegnjenih v ugašanje telesa kos za kosom, del za delom, organa za organom, v postopno izločanje velikih življenjskih funkcij in otočkov življenja, ki jih proces umiranja še ni zajel. (…) Takšna je torej Bichatova elaboracija smrti, naravne smrti starega človeka, neprijazne smrti, ki se mudi predolgo, a od koder je mogoče, od zgoraj navzdol, izpeljati njeno zrcalno, inverzno podobo: podobo razvoja življenja pri  človeškem embriu. To je način, kako dobi vednost o življenju izvor v svojem diametralnem nasprotju, v uničenju življenja, v tistem, kar pride pozneje, in kako postane anatomija smrti ključ za življenje. (…) Kjer je Bichat prekinil zaokroženost organskega tako, da ga je razpršil v raznotera, a v temelju enaka tkiva, je lahko Bichat naredil naslednji korak: razsrediščil je življenje onstran tkiv, v celice, v monade organskega, istočasno pa je celotno “teoretsko konverzijo” epistemologiziral in utemejeval specifični objekt znanosti o življenju. (…) Če imamo v filozofiji razsvetljenstva, kjer se navdihuje Bichat, še one to one relation med abecedo simptomov in besedami bolezni, med zgradbo jezika in anatomijo sveta, pa lahko v Bichatovi elaboraciji smrti že prepoznamo tisti tretji člen, ki to ujemanje prepreči, ki ni le vrh trikotnika življenja in bolezni, ampak tudi mesto, ki razpršuje razsvetljensko iluzijo prozornega sveta, sveta, v katerem je mogoče prodreti in ki ga je mogoče predreti s pogledom učenjaka. Bolezen za Bichatja res ni več nekaj, kar bi bilo treba dešifrirati, prav do roba njene skrivnosti in njenega nedojemljivega bistva, temveč postane dostopna pogledu, razberljiva s telesom. (…) Medicinski pogled, ki prvič v zgodovini prodre pod kožo človeškega telesa in poveže simptome z anatomijo, je, paradoksno, pogled, ki se ne more nikakor odlepiti od površine.”

Psihično kot prostor in Freudov problem s fiktivnostjo pojmov

Sigmund Freud

Freud je odločno

“…nastopil proti iskanju anatomskih povezav. V osrednjem metapsihološkem spisu, “Das Unbewuste” (1915), je glede tega zelo odločen: vsi poskusi, da bi duševne procese lokalizirali, na primer zavest v možgansko skorjo, nezavedno pa v subkortikalne centre, in vsi napori, “da bi mislili predstave, kot nakopičene v živčnih celicah in pustili vzdraženja , nekako potovati po živčnih vlaknih, so se popolnoma ponesrečili”, so gründlich gescheitert, pravi. (…) Prostor udejanjene geometrije, ki ga odpira branje  Kopernika z Descartesom, je tedaj nemara tudi Freudov prostor, prostor psihičnega aparata, tega “živega optičnega instrumenta”, ne anatomsko lokalliziranega v oko, temveč instrumenta, ki uteleša sam pogled, samo dejanje gledanja. (…) Kar je strukturirano kot jezik, ni ne svet ne “anatomija človeka”, knjiga človeškega telesa, temveč samo pogled, samo polje vidnega, ki je že za Foucaulta hkrati vedno tudi polje lingvističnega.

Tako vstopamo v

“prostor žarišč in razpršišč, zgoščin in razredčin, v homogeni prostor koperniškega sveta, ki se poraja v jezikovnih operacijah konstitucije psihičnega: v prostor, ki ga ob prelomu 19 stoletja, v Traumdeutung (1900), artikulira Freud. (…) Tu imamo poleg metafor stroja, aparata, optičnega instrumenta tudi metafore pisave: hieroglifa, piktograma, rebusa, ki ne vstopajo na prizorišče istočasno, kot upravičeno poudarja Derrida, a se naposled vendarle ujamejo v modelu čudežnega bloka. (…) Tako kot pri starodavni metodi pisanja na glinaste ali voščene tabice tudi pri čudežnem bloku praskamo s pisalom po površini, “pisavo” pa tvorijo vdolbine, utori v spodnji plasti voščenega papirja. Ta mora biti, da bi lahko izpolnjevala ta paradoksni pogoj, prekrita s prekrivajočim vmesnim listom, z nekakšnim celuloidnim ovojem, “ki mora preprečevati škodljive vplive od zunaj. Ceuloid je “dražljajski ščit”, plast, ki dejansko sprejema dražjaje, je papir. (…) Dražljaji, pred katerimi je treba zaščititi življenje, prihajajo od zunaj in od znotraj, plasti, ki se nalagajo okoli jedra, okrog najbolj notranjega, živega dela mehurčka, da bi ga zaščitile in da bi vseeno dopuščalo komunikacijo z zunanjim svetom, morajo imeti nek analogon navznoter, kot dražljajski ščit pred tistim, kar bi morao biti najbolj zaščiteno, kot obramba pred tistim, kar naj bi bilo življenju najbolj notranje in lastno. Spominske sledi in utori v voščeni plošči, ki jih praska pisalo čudežnega bloka, se vpisujejo v prostor psihičnega aparata v dveh smereh, kot vemo že iz optične sheme iz Traumdeutung, v obeh smereh.”

Fred na ramenih velikanov

“Kljub temu, da se je Freud zavedal epohalne vrednosti svojega odkritja, je bil pripravljen psihoanalizo vedno znova podrediti svojemu znastvenemu idealu, naravoslovju. O psihoanalizi je razmišljal kot o začasni vedi, ki se je moramo oprijeti, dokler ne bomo imeli na razpolago česa boljšega, doker ne bodo posamezne naravoslovne vede razvite do te mere, da bo mogoče na psihične procese vplivati s farmakološkimi sredstvi in da torej psihoanalitična terapija ne bo več potrebna. (…) Freudov scientizem je znastvena ideologija, nujna predpostavka znanosti, ki zapolnjuje prostor, kamor se bo umestila znanost, in ki jo odločilno obeleža ravno “izrecna težnja, da bi bila znanost, vtem ko oponaša model že konstituirane znanosti.” To je njena glavna distinktivna poteza. Toda ker se nastanek novega znastvenega koncepta ujema s procesom razgrajevanja znastvene ideologije, deluje hkrati tudi kot ovira, ki jo je treba preseči in odstraniti…”

“Pri Ojdipovem kompleksu imamo opraviti z mnogovrstnimi funkcijami očeta: oče je tako opora identifikacije kakor tudi instanca, ki nalaga zakon, prepoved incesta, in ki otroka vpelje v spolno razliko in kastracijo. Kako je mogoča sinteza teh različnih, če ne celo nasprotujočih si funkcij, kako lahko pride do razrešitve Ojdipovega kompleksa in se lahko vzpostavi identiteta subjekta? Freud ne govori o razrešitvi, kar je morda preveč optimističen pojem, temveč o Untergang, o zatonu, torej o nekem psihičnem dogajanju, ki ni brez ostanka in ki nosi v sebi nezvedljivi moment izgube. Tudi razlika med “normalnim” zatonom Ojdipa v nasprotju z njegovim uničenjem, Zerstörung, ki tvori jedro nevroze, ostaja dokaj nejasna. Kakor da bi obstajal nekakšen presežek, ki premešča razrešitev, ovira izhod iz ojdipskega trikotnika in priča o neukinljivi travmatičnosti zgodnjega otroštva.”

Znan je spis Totem in tabu (1913), v katerem je koncipiral strašnega praočeta, prvotnega očeta (Urvater) – ki je držal monopol nad užitkom (prisvojitev vseh žensk in ostalih dobrin in omejitev dostopa doteh dobrin svojim sinovom), in ki so ga sinovi ravno zato umorili – ali naj to Freudovo spekulacijo razumemo kot zgodovinski dogodek ali le kot fantazijo?

Jacques Lacan

Lacanovo branje Freuda ponuja svojstveno rešitev:

“A oče je tudi metafora, metafora imena očeta v pravem pomenu besede: nekaj, kar ni mogoče enačiti z dejanskim očetom in kar je podvrženo operaciji zamenjave, mesto, ki ga lahko zavzemajo njegovi različni “zastopniki”. Ime očeta je po drugi strani jezikovna kategorija tudi kot tretji člen, kot “on”, ki vnaša med “mene” in “tebe” razcep, kot razsežnost zunanjosti in heterogenosti, ki od znotraj najeda subjektivnost, in konec koncev ni subjekt nič drugega kot sam ta razcep: označevalec odsotnosti.”

Ortodoksni freudovci so koncept prvotnega očeta črtali; Eva Bahovec pa predlaga, da se ga bere skupaj s konceptom ojdipovega kompleksa:

“V nasprotju z ojdipskim očetom, ki je opora identifikacije in opora želje kot podreditve zakonu, je pojem prvotnega očeta, Lacanovega le-père-la-jouissance, instanca, ki ni podrejena prepovedi, ki je onstran zakona. To je podoba ljubosumnega očeta, ki hoče imeti svoje ženske le za sebe, očeta, ki preganja svoje sinove, jim odreka zadovoljitev in jih zapisuje kastraciji, sam pa upodablja čisti užitek, jouissance, “osebno”. (…) Iz Freudovega praočeta je Lacan naredil primitivnega, mitičnega, neresničnega očeta, izjemo, ki je ni mogoče vključiti v celoto, preostanek, ki ga ni mogoče simbolizirati.”

Tako Lacan šele dovrši Freudovo misel, ki je z razlikovanjem obeh koceptov očeta še trdno vztrajal v polju kartezijanskega subjekta, v kontinuumu razsvetljenske misli; tako preidemo:

“od Freudovega vztrajanja pri razlikovanju ojdipskega in prvotnega očeta do dveh pobočij Nadjaza, simbolnega in realnega, in do dveh pojmov subjekta, kartezijanskega subjekta znanosti in psihoanalitičnega subjekta nezavednega.”

Od udarcev človekovemu narcizmu do kulture narcizma

“Z vsakim naslednjim velikim udarcem njegovemu narcizmu v zapordju Kopernika, Darwina in Freuda, je iluzija njegovega gospostva, v vesolju, na zemlji in naposled v lastni hiši, spodkopana huje in globlje, vse bolj postaja človek tujec, priseljenec v lastni deželi, in tega heteronomnega gospostva ni mogoče ublažiti, kaj šele odpraviti, ne z vzgojo ne s psihoanalizo. Če pravi Freud, da so to nemogoči poklici, jih je treba razumeti tudi iz perspektive njegove radikalno protihumanistične pozicije. (…)

Patološki narcizem je dobesedno borderline, na pol poti, na meji med nevrozo in  psihozo, potlačitijo in izključitvijo, a tudi na plapolajoči tančici, ki ločuje dejanskost od brezna realnega.” (…) “Patološki narcizem današnjega časa, specifična podoba njegovega Nadjaza, je lep primer za to, kako se realno vedno vrača na isto mesto: bolj ko iščemo času zavezano strukturo psihičnega, bolj prihaja na dan njegov univerzalni značaj, in bolj ko jo hočemo zgodovinsko relativirati, bolj se to trdno jedro arhaičnega osamosvaja, Jaz pa ni konec koncev nič drugega od tistega, kar je bilo zanikano, izvrženo v zunanjost: objekt a (vzrok želje, nedosegljivo, odtegujoče se). Zaporedni udarci človekovemu narcizmu, ki v vsakem naslednjem koraku osvajajo večji kos njegovega teritorija, pa so udarci, ki se vrtijo na mestu.”

Kaj je razsvetljenstvo?

“Ko govorimo o pomenu treh velikih znastvenih revolucij za vsakega posameznika, naletimo torej na odpor v psihoanalitičnem pomenu besede, na nadvse privlačni odpor transferne ljubezni, in tega je mogoče odčitati tudi v prostoru, ki ga poraja koperniški univerzum koncentričnih krogov okrog nečesa, kar je nekoč bilo središče. (…) Tako kot arheologija odkopava zasuto mesto, prodira psihoanaliza v globlje plasti spomina. Začenja z najbolj površinskimi, najbolj oddaljenimi od središča, in postopoma odpira notranje plasti, in v svojem radikalnem napredovanju zadeva na vse hujši in hujši odpor. Strukturirajoče načelo ni več dvom, ki spravlja v red linearne verige vednosti in napreduje po koncentričnih plasteh do cogita, ampak odpor, prepojen z usodno privlačnostjo trdnega in negibnega jedra, in poleg linearne in koncentrične organizacije spominskega gradiva in asociativnih virih mora Freud  svoj prostorski prikaz vpeljati dinamično razporeditev, ki ji pravi tudi “logična veriga”, toda ta ni nič kaj logična, temveč je “razlomljena črta”, ki napreduje vzdolž kar najbolj ovinkastih poti s površine do najglobljih plasti in nazaj, in vendar v splošnem napreduje od periferije k osredinjenemu jedru, vtem ko zadeva ob vsako vmesno postajališče…”

Tako se meje med patogenim in normalnim vedno bolj zabrisujejo, tako

“…se obe skrajni plošči optičnega instrumenta zlepita in nastane nekakšno bernardovsko notranje okolje psihičnega, ki je na meji, hkrati znotraj in zunaj, ki mora varovati pred zunanjimi dražljaji in notranjimi nagoni, poleg tega pa mora opravljati protislovno funkcijo sprejemanja iz zunanjega sveta in trajnega ohranjanja v spominu notranjega očesa. (…) Kantov spomin na znastveno revolucijo, Andenken, do katere nas je privedla srečna misel le na enega posameznika, pa zadene ob njegovo hervorbringen, postane torej spomin, ki sam proizvaja svoje objekte, in ta dobi pri Freudu status spomina kot čiste konstrukcije v analizi, konstrukcije fantazmatske preteklosti, ki se ne razvija, temveč ponavlja.”

“V svojem nenehnem spopadu z religijo in v razkrinkavanju njenega neizogibnega neuspeha je Freud pravi dedič razsvetljenstva. Znanost je zanj instanca razuma, ki premaga vraževernost in se spoprime z religijo kot z otroškimi strahovi in bojaznimi, ki jih človek nosi s sabo v dobo odraslosti; pomeni vztrajni napor, da bi segli onkraj otroškosti in našli izhod iz nedoletnosti.”

Vendar kot dedič je hkrati tudi njegov nevarni nasprotnik:

“Oče je objekt, ki je znotraj, toda ki je hkrati tudi izgubljen – za vedno. (…) Objekt znanosti je objekt, ki vztraja v partikularnem.”

Zato je psihoanaliza po mnenju Eve Bahovec upravičeno znanost. Freud se je namreč:

“Raje kot z učenjakom, ki bi izumil kaj novega, primerjal z osvajalcem, conquistador, ki osvaja sicer neznani prostor, ki je bil že od nekdaj tu, in ki odkriva, tako kot arheolog, nekaj starega, a dobro znanega, predvsem pa nekaj usodno privlačnega: fascinacijo z neizrekljivim.”

Alfred Russel Wallace (8 Ocak 1823 – 7 Kasım 1913), Britanyalı doğa bilimci, coğrafyacı, antropolog ve biyologdur. İngiltere Galler’de Usk-Monmouthshire da dokuz çocuklu bir ailenin sekizinci çocuğu olarak doğdu. Hertford’da bir dilbilgisi okulunu bitirdi. 1840-1843 yılları arasında harita – kadastrocu ağabeyinin yanında çalıştı. 1844 yılında bir süre Leicester’de bir okulda görev yaptı , 1845 yılında ağabeyi William’ın ölümü ile tekrar harita – kadastro işine geri döndü. 1848 yılında Leicester’dan tanıştığı doğa bilimci Henry Walter Bates ile Amazon yağmur ormanlarından örnekler toplamak üzere Brezilya’ya gitti. Türlerin kökenlerini araştırma fikri kafasında bu gezi sırasında şekillendi. 1852 yılında İngiltere’ye geri döndü.
//

lları arasında araştırmalar yapmak ve örnekler toplamak üzere Malay takımadalarında bulundu. Burada yaptığı çalışmaları 1869 yılında yayımlanan Malay Takımadaları adlı eserinde topladı. Charles Darwin ile aynı zamanlarda evrim kuramı konusunda çalışmıştır. Darwin , dinsel ve muhafazakar çevrelerden tepki çekeceğini düşünerek çalışmalarını ölümünden sonra yayınlanmak üzere rafa kaldırmışken , benzer bir çalışma hazırlayan Wallace’dan 1858 yılında aldığı bir mektup çalışmalarını yayımlaması için ona cesaret vermiştir. Darwin ile Wallace evrim teorisi ve doğal seçilim üzerine beraberce bir tez yazıp yayımlamışlardır.

//

Eserleri
Malay Takımadaları (1869)
Doğal Seçilim Kuramına Katkılar (1870)
Hayvanların Coğrafi Dağılımları (1876)
Aşılama (1898)

Aldığı Ödüller
Merit Nişanı (1908)
İngiliz Kraliyet Topluluğu Copley Madalyası (1908)
İngiliz Kraliyet Coğrafya Topluluğu Kurucu Madalyası (1892)
Linnean Topluluğu Altın Madalyası (1892)

I see dead people. And you can too. The museums are full of them, reanimated in a shamanistic glow funded by real estate developer Jack Rudin or Target or whichever oligarchical consortium rules your city state.

When we visit the clearing in the gentrified jungle we hope we might at least be blessed with a vision of an ancestral shade nominally more illuminating than what’s projected by the man behind the tree line.

Three years ago I attended the Charles Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In a country where 40% of the population polled think evolution patently false and another 20% are unsure, the show proved a triumph. Despite friends’ complaints about its length, the exhibit, expertly curated by Niles Eldredge of punctuated equilibrium fame, encapsulated Darwin, his ideas, and many of their immediate implications in an easily understandable way.

There I was–cynic turned fetishist–thrilled to see Darwin’s pistol and Bible from his circumnavigation aboard HMS Beagle. Although he spent considerable time ashore, there is great appeal in summoning a young Darwin, before his health broke, astride a deck hauling himself from one intellectual port to another, from amateur enthusiast to professional naturalist. He had much help, of course, but on an autodidact’s schedule, at one and the same time a relaxed and fevered pace. In an irony still relevant today, his successes would render him the last of the artisan naturalists.

Back in England years later–never again to leave–Darwin continued his voyage. His post-Beagle notebooks lay out the very bones of a century and a half’s evolutionary biology to follow: natural selection, animal behavior, ecological genetics, human origins, systematics and phylogeography. The jottings attest to the stunning power of his mind.

One after another the pieces of paper burn with an indomitable human spirit. In resurrecting Darwin we animate ourselves. I melted with the possibilities. Given a chance, the human mind, with all its faults and failures, possesses the capacity to solve the most puzzling of riddles in spite of itself. In one exhibit case, Darwin’s rough phylogenetic tree, the first ever, encapsulates as never before descent, diversity and extinction. In a personal revelation, even the way the letters at the tips of the tree are arranged serendipitously reproduces many of the basic relationships among the human herpesvirus-8 subtypes I’ve studied.

Darwin’s intellectual descendents have since fleshed out many of the man’s ideas by means that would have both shocked and delighted him: DNA, viruses, genetic engineering, remote sensing, industrial computing, multivariate and nonparametric statistics, and the organismic diversity still daily discovered (and destroyed). But these offerings to the ancestor are wrapped in a hagiography that denies Darwin his humanity and, remarkably, encumbers our present efforts to solve riddles despite ourselves.

What did the simulacrum miss? In arriving at self-evident truths, Darwin–by acts both unconscious and corrupt–naturalized a particular Victorian capitalism as the way nature works. It isn’t just a matter of being caught in his era, dissolved in its assumptions and metaphors. Others disagreed with him even then (while very much admiring what he had accomplished). As noted by John Bellamy Foster, Karl Marx appreciated the verve with which Darwin capped the materialist revolution already long underway against the clergy. But Marx, laughing, delivered a devastating line on the Origins of Species, “Darwin recognizes among beasts and plants his English society.”

In their brilliant and empathetic landmark 1991 biography–since followed by Janet Browne’s series–Adrian Desmond and James Moore offer chapter and verse connecting Darwin’s life to the bourgeois rebellion his work helped champion.

A post-Beagle Darwin was professionally ambitious as any postdoc scheming today. He publicly kissed the rings of the don naturalists he scorned in private, a quiet friction no less heated than the open hostility of their more radical opponents:

Darwin became more and more frustrated by an arrogant theology…Yet he was desperate to earn the respect of his scientific elders. His double life became more nerve-racking as the months passed setting off an inner turmoil. What if they saw through his false face? He took so much pleasure in unravelling the enigmas of natural history, but his thoughts were becoming dangerous, his brooding masochistic. The pandemonium in his mind made a subtle and complex counterpoint to the public turmoil in urban Britain. (The country was now deep in an economic depression, and ahead lay the grimmest five years in the nineteenth century, with massive unemployment, starvation and riot.) What he was mooting was disreputable in Anglican eyes, and socially subversive (p 237).

Yet he distanced himself from the radical materialists whose ideas he had much in common but which earned his elders’ censure,

[Surgeon William] Lawrence was a republican whose scientific rhetoric achieved a pyrotechnical brilliance. He had been forced to resign his post at the College of Surgeons and recant his views after a vicious attack in the Tory Quarterly Review. The Quarterly execrated his materialist explanations of man and mind. The Court of Chancery ruled his Lectures on Man blasphemous, which destroyed its copyright…Six pauper presses pirated the offending book, keeping it continuously in print for decades…Darwin only had to stare at this shabby tome (which he was currently using) to see the fate awaiting him. He was no atheist, nor would he countenance being hijacked by sleazy fanatics. Lawrence was a reminder of how one’s good name could be dragged through the mud (p. 253).

To avoid such a fate, Darwin took to censoring himself,

He began devising ways of camouflaging his materialism. Don’t mention it, he admonished himself, talk only of inherited mental behavior: ‘To avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism,’ he scrawled in a rush, ’say only the emotions[,] instincts[,] degrees of talent, which are heredetary [sic] are so because brain of child resemble[s], parent stock.’ He was learning to guard his words (p. 259).

It was a monstrous struggle he dealt with for decades, one that probably presented as the intestinal ills he suffered the rest of his life,

He was a closet evolutionist besides. This was the heart of the matter. His Anglican friends were quelling the rioters, some of whom were armed with transmutation and godless sciences. Owen and Forbes were holding the line [against the Chartists] and protecting his privileges. But wouldn’t they condemn him as a fifth-columnist if they uncovered his secret? When he had cried ‘the fabric falls!’ ten years before, he did not have this sort of insurrection in mind. Anyhow, he had been a tyro then, speculating privately. Now he was squire, a family man, a member of the geological elite. For all his theory’s middle-class Malthusian core, and its capitalistic roots, he could still be a branded a traitor by the Tory diehards (p. 354).

To protect himself Darwin willfully condoned others’ public professional beheading. Among them, his own former teacher Robert Grant, from whom a young Darwin first learned to really see nature on the hikes they shared, from whom he learned how to ask scientific questions, with whom he collaborated on studies of molluscs and sea-mats, from whom he learned about continental theories of evolution proscribed in Britain, that provincial island empire,

The irony was complete. Darwin–from his Secretary’s chair–watched the polite company convene to bury Grant’s fossil heresy. Here he sat, a silent witness, before Sedgewick, Buckland, and the rest, most of them Oxbridge-educated, many Anglican divines, all loathing Lamarckism. Yet even as he watched the spectacle unfold, he was hatching his own evolutionary scheme. True, he had outgrown Grant’s nonsense… [But] what was he thinking as Grant was trounced? Did his heart bleed hearing Grant’s spirited defence? Probably not, for he was out of sympathy with the ultra-radical, and he went off to dine with the ‘elite’ at the Crown and Anchor tavern that night, as they gloated over their victory (p. 275).

In his muteness Darwin helped throw his former colleague under the horse and buggy, a tradition still widely practiced in evolutionary biology today albeit with more modern buses.

Darwin’s behavior puts something of an ominous light on the deal later struck in 1858 letting him share immediate credit with Alfred Russel Wallace for the theory of natural selection. While sick in the Spice Islands a feverish Wallace scripted out a theory of selection he mailed to his correspondent Darwin. A shocked Darwin, working in secret for 20 years on something similar, handed over Wallace’s work to his friends, botanist Joseph Hooker and geologist Charles Lyell. Hooker and Lyell hastily arranged, without conferring with Wallace, to have manuscripts by Wallace and Darwin read together into the record at the Linnean Society in London.

The deal has always bothered me. It isn’t that I think Wallace deserved credit alone–Darwin’s version is better substantiated–but rather I’m piqued by the old boy network, an accumulated class advantage Darwin could rely on to protect him from the consequences of his own cowardice. Darwin had shielded himself, and his petty personal ambitions, from Anglican retribution, going so far as helping hang fellow evolutionists, but now wanted the kind credit of discovery someone who had the guts to openly speak out about it plainly deserved instead.

One could reasonably argue his secrecy was the only way Darwin could work on–and substantiate–such a theory for so long in this kind of England. I think that a fair contention (and also open to rebuttal). But let us no longer entertain illusions of guileless innocence on the part of a boyish Darwin. That he allowed his proxies to conduct his Machiavellian affairs, however generous he was to Wallace himself, makes Darwin no less conniving.

Darwin’s biological initiative matched advanced Whig social thinking. This is what made it compelling. At last he had a mechanism that was compatible with the competitive, free-trading ideals of the ultra-Whigs. The transmutation at the base of his theory would still be loathed by many. But the Malthusian superstructure struck an emotionally satisfying chord; and open struggle with no hand-outs to the losers was the Whig way, and no poor-law commissioner could have bettered Darwin’s view. He had broken with the radical hooligans who loathed Malthus. Like the Whig grandees–safe, immune, their own world characterized by noblesse oblige–Darwin was living on a family fortune, and thrusting a bitter competition on a starving world for its own good. From now on he could appeal to a better class of audience–to the rising industrialists, free-traders, and Dissenting professionals (p. 267).

 He could shed the red evolutionists he had for years corresponded with,

visionaries who see life marching inexorably upward, powered from below [and who] denounce the props of an old static society: priestly privilege, wage exploitation, and the workhouses [and the] million socialists…castigating marriage, capitalism, and the fat, corrupt Established Church…[the] Radical Christians…who condemn the ‘fornicating’ Church…in bed with the State… [who viewed] the science of life–biology–…ruined, prostituted, turned into a Creationist citadel by the clergy (p xvii).

In cutting off his epistemological fellow travelers, Darwin dispossessed his newborn of a parent with much to offer to the child’s subsequent development. Marx and Engels would look down into the pram and recognize the “basis in natural science for the class struggle in history”, but would also see the way Darwin heedlessly confounded a particular and passing expansive stage of capitalism for all of nature. It’s a realization the science has missed out on since.

We are also living with the consequences of the estrangement in forums farther removed. Darwin’s was a model with political dividends, instantly replacing clerical authority with an Anglican moralization based in the statistics of production rather than on a deterministic, and very busy, God. As many must now recognize in an era of banker bailouts, it was also an application in which no one, not even the rich, could believe in deed, if not in word, once its punishments were applied beyond the poorest,

And English society will stay vital and progressive only through unimpeded competition. The sickly and degenerate deserve to be scythed down, [Darwin] believed, even as he sent subscriptions to the Downe charities to maintain his own paternal order and worried about his sons’ in-bred ailments. He decried ‘primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection’ even as he had Lubbock set up his eldest William in the banking business (p. 522).

Today evolutionary biology, the most historical of sciences outside cosmology and geology, refuses to grapple with the implications of the social origins of Darwin’s natural selection outside its struggle with religion, that old punching bag. Sins of omission are as telling as those of commission: the underlying presumptions of evolutionary biology’s economic bases are still very much in operation even as they are largely forgotten by evolutionists. The inscience continues to impede the field’s advance.

So what! one hears the reply. What’s the bottom line? Does the omission refute natural selection? As if a full denouncement–an indefensible stance–is the only critique permitted! The answer is neoclassical selection misses much of evolution’s story, something Darwin himself, if not his disciples, acknowledged. We will explore the details, including those Darwin didn’t catch, in the months to come.

In noting Darwin’s cowardice and conventionality in the face of his singular courage and acuity, we rescue the man from his simulacrum, a coffin in part his own making, in part our own. We respect the ancestors best when we interrogate them. We show that we take what they did seriously when we offer them not burning incense but cross questions. On his better days of the dead Darwin will appreciate both the sentiment and practice whatever the damage to his reputation.

Event : Two minds One Theory
Wallace & Darwin the two faces of Evolution Theory
Duration : 1-31 Aug 2009, 9 am – 6pm
Venue :Singapore Botanic Gardens(Outside library)

A stroll back through time.

Encore de l’épistémologie à la sauce Pierre Thuillier (1) (2), regard critique de la connaissance. Voici un texte (de ma facture avec l’aide de Thuillier) montrant qu’il est bien difficile au scientifique le plus compétent de ne pas sombrer dans une explication métaphysique du monde. Rappelons que la science impose, avec la plus stricte rigueur, au chercheur d’observer les phénomènes, en tant qu’objet et non comme sujet (Relire Goethe l’hérésiarque), la vérité ne se révèlant qu’à l’être froid, dépourvu d’émotions et de sensibilité, étranger à l’idéologie. Etre objectif dans l’absolu, aucune place à la subjectivité, chose à mon sens impossible…

Alfred Russel Wallace, né en 1823 et mort en 1923 a joué un tel rôle dans l’émergence de la théorie générale de l’évolution qu’on aurait tout aussi bien pu parler de « wallacisme » à la place de darwinisme. Wallace fût un évolutionniste accompli et reconnu comme l’un des plus grands de son époque. L’histoire en a voulu autrement et l’on ne parle que de néo-darwinisme aujourd’hui, oubliant peu à peu le co-inventeur de la théorie la plus célèbre de la biologie. Si l’on a ce trou de mémoire empêchant le rayonnement de ce savant qui n’est après tout mort qu’au XXème siècle, il y a sans doute des raisons qui ne vont pas sans rappeler l’affaire Goethe (Lire Goethe l’hérésiarque) bien que Goethe soit un piêtre scientifique. En effet, Wallace s’est quelque peu ridiculisé en prenant le parti du spiritisme, très en vogue à la fin du XIXème siècle.
Wallace, pour un scientifique tout à fait rationnel, croyait aux esprits, irrationnel donc. Car il est difficile, voire impossible, de faire croire que les tables peuvent tourner « toutes seules » et communiquer en plus avec les vivants, à un esprit… scientifique. Cependant, l’histoire des sciences a montré plusieurs cas de scientifiques « objectifs » ayant puisé aux sources de mythes paraissant pourtant aberrants pour établir de bonnes théories. Phénomène assez rare il faut le reconnaître et la chute dans l’erreur était beaucoup plus fréquente.

Orthodoxe rigoureux en matière d’évolutionnisme, Wallace se dît témoin de cas d’apparition spectrales même en plein jour alors que le phénomène, qui prenait seulement naissance dans les années 1870, se passait habituellement dans l’obscurité.
Son ouvrage remarqué sur « le Darwinisme » témoigne de sa maîtrise des concepts scientifiques et ce n’est pas Darwin qui insista le plus sur le rôle de la sélection naturelle, c’est Wallace qui le fît. Darwin avait dû revoir les termes de sa théorie après avoir essuyé les ires de la société toute entière qui refusait que l’homme descendit du singe et que son livre « l‘Origine des espèces » avaient suscité dans le monde entier.

Sur les origine de l’homme, par contre, Darwin semble plus clair. Wallace, très éloigné du mode de pensée darwinienne, pensait que l’évolution de l’homme s’était faite en deux temps :
- la sélection naturelle aurait joué son rôle dans les débuts de l’humanité, s’exerçant sur les premiers hommes comme elle le fait pour les animaux. Ce serait elle qui aurait donné à l‘homme, par modifications successives, sa forme d’homme. Cette période aurait, toujours selon Wallace, donné les différentes races humaines.
- la seconde phase de l’évolution ne joue plus sur le corps, la sélection naturelle ne s’imposant plus que sur le mental et la morale.
Wallace distinguait donc l’homme de l’animal sur un point qu’il trouvait « révolutionnaire » puisque par ce biais, l’homme transcendait la nature, lui était supérieur, ce qui aurait pu le mettre en phase avec l’idéologie anthropocentriste toujours active en cette fin de XIXème siècle. Les théories eugénistes allaient avoir un bel avenir. Toujours est-il que l’Européen allait, très « naturellement » supplanter et même éliminer les races d’hommes inférieures.
Wallace revint sur ses dires un peu plus tard, jugeant que la sélection naturelle n’avait pu jouer sur le mental de l’homme bien qu’elle le fît sur l’encéphalisation. Sa nouvelle vision allait améliorer la première. En effet, il prétendait que la sélection naturelle n’était en rien responsable du développement de la conscience chez l’homme, le sauvage ayant un cerveau qui ne lui sert à rien ! Pour Wallace, l’homme aurait développé cet organe dès le début. Or, si la sélection ne « choisit » que les bons modèles, il ne se peut que le cerveau en ait subi la charge puisqu’il ne sert pas au bon sauvage. Autrement dit, si la sélection naturelle avait joué sur le cerveau, le sauvage n’en possèderait un à peine mieux développé qu’un singe ; or, le sien est à peine inférieur à celui d’un blanc occidental ! Le mythe du bon sauvage traîne encore parmi nous.

L’homme préhistorique possédait de fait une super machine dans la tête mais elle ne lui servait à rien. De même, il avait était pourvu d’une main trop perfectionnée pour ce qu’il en faisait. Idem pour le langage, ses cordes vocales lui auraient été données trop tôt… La sélection naturelle est aveugle puisqu’elle ne prévoit pas de l’utilité des organes qu’elle sélectionne, ce qui le gène sur le plan d’une évolution morale de l’homme. Pour expliquer sa théorie bourrée de lacunes, il alla même évoquer « un certain pouvoir », « une cause inconnue », « des initiatives supérieures » qui font bien penser à quelque intervention de l’au-delà. L’intervention d’un « agent intelligent et doué d’une certaine puissance » est nécessaire pour que sa théorie puisse fonctionner. Grosse erreur que fît Wallace que d’avancer vers une théorie finaliste de l’évolution : il y aurait un but à la création. L’Eglise pouvait applaudir, elle si mal menée à ce propos.
Lyell, ami de Wallace et de Darwin, prit le parti du premier : « j’accueille volontiers la suggestion de Wallace selon laquelle il y a peut-être une suprême volonté et puissance qui […] peut guider les forces et les lois de la nature. » Wallace ne se limitait pas à l’intervention d’un dieu mais y voyait celles d’autres intelligences. L’homme semble par trop éloigné de son ancêtre animal si bien qu’il voit dans l’œuvre humaine « le travail intérieur d’une nature supérieure qui ne s’est pas développée au moyen de la lutte pour l’existence matérielle » et il existerait « un univers invisible, un monde de l’esprit auquel le monde de la matière est entièrement subordonné. » Mélange d’ésotérisme et de science objective, Wallace rattache à ce monde des esprit des concepts tels que la gravitation, la cohésion particulaire, les forces chimiques, les forces de radiations et l’électricité.

Ce revirement de pensée sur la sélection naturelle s’est faite au moment même où Wallace se convertissait au spiritisme. N’oublions pas que la psychiatrie fait des progrès concomitants à ceux que font les autres domaines scientifiques. Les phénomènes psychiques sont interprétés depuis peu. Freud n‘est pas encore intervenu et ces interprétations sont donc parfois d‘ordre spiritualiste. Il était alors permis de naviguer entre scientificité et imaginaire extra-scientifique, et il n’y avait aucun mal à parler de « sciences parallèles » tout en restant conformes aux canons de la science objective. Il s’agissait d’investigations avant tout, après tout.

Mais Wallace a fréquenté les spirites dès ses vingt ans. Les expériences occultes ne lui étaient pas inconnues avant son revirement de 1869 et il témoignera plus tard sur 400 pages de phénomènes particulièrement bizarres et des plus étranges. C’est même en scientifique qu’il se penchait sur ces événements et qu’il vérifiait systématiquement tout ce qui lui était rapporté.

Les objections qu’on lui fait, il les aborde sereinement. Il y a du vrai dans cet invraisemblable, les journaux font foi de ce qui se passe ici et là, enfin, ils relatent bien des faits inexpliqués. A l’époque, nombre de savants ont un penchant avoué pour cette science parallèle qu’est le spiritisme (spiritualisme en anglais) et, a par exemple contribué au courant Camille Flammarion. On n’hésite pas à parler de véritable science expérimentale. Wallace, en bon observateur dans le domaine des sciences naturelles, reconnu par ses pairs comme théoricien de valeur sûre, assure que les phénomènes spirites sont aussi bien établis que ceux qu’étudient les scientifiques.

Fidèle à la méthode d’investigation empirique scientifique, wallace croit tout de même à « l’existence d’intelligences extra-humaines de degrés variés » et à « la faculté pour certaines intelligences, bien qu’ordinairement invisibles et intangibles pour nous, de […] produire action et matière, et d’influencer nos pensées. » Tout au long de son livre « Miracles and Modern Spiritualism », il associe les fameux « miracles » au résultat « d’une rigoureuse induction des faits ». Or, l’on sait que Wallace, avant sa conversion au spiritisme, était matérialiste et ne se plaisait guère dans les concepts du christianisme, leur opposant un scepticisme philosophique à toute épreuve. Dieu lui parle moins que les esprits, reconnait-il parfois. D’un autre côté, les théories spirites sont sensées pouvoir expliquer et même légitimer scientifiquement les mystères chrétiens placés sous le signe du miracle et de l’immortalité de l’âme. Wallace frappe fort quand il affirme que le terme « miracle » ne convient absolument pas puisque tout est naturel dans cette histoire et ce sont les opposants au spiritisme qui ne peuvent admettre que les esprits n’ont rien de surnaturel. Ainsi, il croit prouver « scientifiquement » que la prière peut être efficace dans le cadre même des lois physiques fixées naturellement pour l’univers. Toujours est-il que l’adoption de positions ésotériques par Alfred Russel Wallace a pu le gêner pour établir une théorie scientifiquement validée sur la Sélection Naturelle et clouer au poteau Darwin. L’existence d’esprits extra-humains intervenant dans le développement de l’humanité était incompatible avec une sélection naturelle purement sélectionniste comme l‘impose la vision moderne de l’évolution qui se fait en aveugle une sélectionniste par « le hasard et la nécessité ». Dans l’esprit de Wallace, la nature mentale et morale de l’homme nécessitait « autre chose », une autre « cause » pour demeurer. Même s’il était conscient du problème qu’il posait à la communauté des « savants » de l’époque, il ne pouvait écarter l’existence de forces inconnues et d’agents spirituels.

Sous la pression, il tentait d’écarter l’idée de l’intervention de ces forces mystérieuses sur l’évolutionnisme. Mais en son for intérieur, il le regrette vivement ; pour lui, le spiritisme se base sur des faits et « il sera susceptible de nous rendre raison de plusieurs de ces phénomènes résiduels que la Sélection Naturelle ne suffit pas à expliquer. » Il pense donc que le spiritisme est tout simplement complémentaire au darwinisme.
Il est difficile de dire aujourd’hui si Wallace a été influencé par les insuffisances de la théorie de Darwin concernant l’évolution de l’homme pour trouver une « explication » surnaturelle ou bien si ce sont ses convictions spirites forgées depuis sa jeunesse qui l’y ont poussé. Il existe toutefois des documents qui font pencher l’épistémologue Pierre Thuillier pour la thèse de Malcolm Jay Kottler (Wallace se serait directement appuyé sur ses convictions spirites pour formuler sa propre interprétation théorique de l’origine de l’homme) ; Dans une lettre adressée à Darwin, Wallace écrit : « Mes opinions sur le sujet ont été modifiées seulement par la considération d’une série de phénomènes remarquables, physiques et mentaux, que j’ai été en mesure de soumettre à un contrôle complet et qui démontre l’existence de forces et d’influences pas encore reconnues par la science. » Certitude qu’il ne fait que confirmer dans ses déclarations. Sachons qu’à l’heure actuelle, les recherches officielles américaines et ex-soviétiques sur le paranormal ont été reléguées à un rang très lointain dans l’ordre des budjets alloués. La France, pour sa part et en bon pays cartésien, n’a jamais sombré dans la psychose pseudo-scientifique. On attend toujours les preuves de ces fâmeux esprits ou encore de l’existence de Dieu. Rien n’est incompatible entre la science et ces notions si leur existence « matérielle » est démontrées autrement que par le « raisonnement » par ailleurs.

Au XVIème siècle, le philosophe anglais franciscain Guillaume Ockham posait l’énoncé suivant, plus connu sous le vocable de “Rasoir d’Occam” : « Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ». Autrement dit, « Les entités ne doivent pas être multipliées par delà ce qui est nécessaire », ce principe ayant pris le nom de « principe d’économie » selon lequel : « quand deux hypothèses sont en concurrence et qu’on ne peut pas les départager pratiquement, par l’expérimentation scientifique par exemple, on choisit la plus simple. C’est-à-dire, qu’on choisit celle qui possède le moins d’hypothèses, ou celle dont les hypothèses sont les plus facilement démontrables. » On peut donc faire le reproche à Wallace le scientifique d’avoir violé ce principe en créant au besoin des entités transcendantes.
Le deuxième reproche que lui ferait l’épistémologue, c’est d’avoir fait étalage de ses convictions personnelles, en prosélyte lorsqu’il tentait de convertir ses collègues au spiritisme. Le scientifique n’a pas à militer pour des causes extra-scientifiques ou bien il doit adopter un autre principe, celui de la séparation (je pense immédiatement à Albert Jacquard qui ne mélange pas génétique et déterminisme social). Or, Wallace se plaisait à plaider pour des causes non scientifiques, on l’a vu, et comme ses prises de positions politiques en faveur du socialisme ou sur le droit de vote des femmes dans son pays le montrent. L’idéologie, on le sait, fausse la perception scientifique et risque de mener sur de fausses bonnes voies.
Wallace a souffert de ces désaccords et le reconnaîtra dans la préface de son livre sur les « Miracles » : « Je n’ignore point que mes confrères scientifiques ont bien de la peine à se rendre compte de ce qu’ils tiennent pour ma chimère ; et je suis persuadé que le peu d’autorité que je peux avoir acquis autrefois dans les débats relatifs à la philosophie de l’Histoire Naturelle en a reçu une atteinte fâcheuse. »

Liens intéressants sur la science :
La science chez les grecs
La science énonce-t-elle des certitudes ?
Rien ne va plus en physique

…der glaubt, dass Religion und Wissenschaft kompatibel sind. So könnte man das Ergebnis einer neuen internationalen Studie des British Council zusammenfassen.

Laut dieser Studie stehen Russland, (48%), die USA (42%), Südafrika (41%) und Ägypten (25%) den wissenschaftlichen Belegen für Darwins Theorie skeptisch gegenüber. Dies sind sogleich die Länder, in denen ein besonders großer Teil von der Vereinbarkeit von Evolutionstheorie und Gottesglaube ausgeht: Russland, USA (53%), Südafrika (54%) und Ägypten (45%).

Wer die Evolution nicht versteht, das ist auch Pat Buchanan, reaktionärer Kommentator beim US-Fernsehsender MSNBC. In einem offenen Brief fordert Biologe Greg Laden die MSNBC auf, Buchanan zu entlassen. Der Gipfel seiner Bemühungen, dem Ansehen der Wissenschaft zu schaden (weil ihre Ergebnisse nicht in sein Weltbild passen), war seine Kolumne: PJB: Making a Monkey Out of Darwin. Darin macht er die Evolutionstheorie für Eugenik, den Ersten Weltkrieg, den Nationalsozialismus, den Kommunismus und den Zweiten Weltkrieg verantwortlich. Außerdem sei die Evolutionstheorie gar keine Wissenschaft, sondern eine Religion, was dann ja wohl bedeutet, dass mit Religion etwas nicht stimmt…

Wer die Evolution nicht so ganz verstanden hat, das war Alfred Russel Wallace, neben Darwin der Entdecker der natürlichen Selektion. Er ging davon aus, dass bestimmte Körperteile und vor allem der menschliche Geist von einem intelligenten Designer erschaffen wurden, was auch der Grund ist, warum ihn Kreationisten heutzutage gerne zitieren. Sein Rang als Wissenschaftler bleibt umstritten.

Wenn die Evolution nicht verstanden wird, dann muss jemand daran schuld sein. Für Chris Mooney, der ein Buch über den „Krieg der Republikaner gegen die Wissenschaft“ geschrieben hat, sind das die Neuen Atheisten. Und nicht nur in einem Artikel – ein ganzes Kapitel seines neuen Buches widmet er dem Thema, wie die Neuen Atheisten religiöse Menschen von der Wissenschaft abbringen, weil sie sagen, dass Religion und Wissenschaft unvereinbar sind. Sollte es nicht wenigstens ein bisschen zählen, was denn nun eigentlich wahr ist, gerade für Wissenschaftler? Oder ist am Ende alles nur Politik? Zudem stützen die Belege Mooneys These überhaupt nicht. Seit Jahrzehnten betreiben Wissenschaftsorganisationen eine versöhnliche Politik und die Kreationisten sind so stark und so zahlreich wie vorher, wenn nicht sogar noch stärker.

Any professional who aspires to navigate up the corporate ladder, especially in belt-tightening times, must develop intellectual power. The fastest way to develop intellectual power requires reading the right books which is akin to eating. Some books have to be chewed, some digested and others savoured.

Tim Sanders, former Chief Solutions Officer at Yahoo! Inc.  in his book Love Is The Killer App, recommends that you use the 80/20 rule. Spend 80 percent of your reading time on books and 20 percent on articles, newspapers and so on. Books give more detailed knowledge on any subject than articles do.

Before reading, develop a reading plan and identify your purpose for reading. Is it for entertainment, for information or to further your knowledge? Think about how you can apply what you are reading to improve your personal and professional life. When you read, have a pen, notepad and highlighter to take notes and capture ideas that may percolate.

Why Read? 7 Reasons Why You Cannot Afford Not to Read

1. Builds intellectual power: Reading widely allows professionals to learn about different concepts and gain insights, which builds intellectual muscles, enabling them to shine in conversations
2. Builds verbal power: Reading extensively introduces professionals to words they usually would not come across in their everyday interactions. And, research by the Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation found that vocabulary correlated with executive level and income
3. Discovers new ways of thinking: Authors who write thought provoking books frequently introduce readers to new ways of viewing the world
4. Develops critical thinking skills: Reading demanding and difficult text requires focus and concentration, forcing professionals to think about what they are reading
5. Keeps the mind active: Professionals who interact with the words on the pages  are engaged, keeping their minds active into their senior years
6. Discovers/Builds on ideas: After Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently read Thomas Robert Malthus’ Summary View of the Principle of Population, they both understood how evolution worked. For Darwin, the rest they say is history. Galileo built on Copernican’s work and Newton built on Galileo’s work and the field of astronomy was born. More recently Amazon juggernaut Jeff Bezos after reading that the Internet was growing 2,300 percent per year wondered how he could use the information. He then looked at the top 20 catalogues to see which would translate best to an online business and as a result Amazon was formed.
7. Builds the power of communication: All of the above reasons enable professionals to communicate with power, both orally and written because they have a well-fed mind.

Consistently reading the right books and the right articles allow professionals to tap into their inner genius and promote a personal growth regiment. Where will the idea for the next “big thing” come from? And more importantly, will you be the person to find, develop, and implement the idea for the next “big thing.” Keep reading!

Related Resources

Building Intellectual Power One Book at a Time

Photo Credits By Avil Beckford

The Man Who Wasn’t Darwin
Alfred Russel Wallace charted a great dividing line in the living world—and found his own route to the theory of evolution.

hobby baca gue udah menurun drastis, dan berbagai macam buku udah menumpuk untuk  ‘dimanjakan’.Dari sekian jurnal-jurnal yang gue terima hanya ada satu yang menarik hati untuk dibaca, judulnya “Di bawah bayang-bayang Darwin”. Entah kenapa nama “Darwin” selalu bisa menarik untuk di ketahui. Ini bukan mengenai kesalahan Teori Darwin yang dialami diri gue, yaitu kegagalan dalam berevolusi, tapi cerita tentang seorang Ilmuan yang terlupakan namanya, dan namanya selalu ada di belakan nama besar Darwin.

Itu bukan hal yang menarik untuk dibicarakan, apalagi diangkat menjadi sebuah kajian dalam ilmu pengetahuan. Yang menarik adalah riset yang dilakukan oleh Alfred R. Wallace, beliau melakukan riset di Indonesia…!!! Secara tidak langsung, Alfred R. Wallace mengiklankan Indonesia sebagai ‘Laboratorium Geo-Biodiversity Dunia’ yang menarik untuk di kaji lebih dalam.

Alfred Russel Wallace, terkesima saat pertama kali menginjakan kakinya di Pulau Sulawesi pada tahun 1969. Ilmuan sejarah alam Inggris itu begitu tercengang melihat betapa kayanya keanekaragaman hayati pulau ini. “Terletak persis ditengah-tengah kepulauan , dikelilingi erat oleh pulau-pulau yang disekitarnya yang penuh dengan beranekaragaman varian makhluk hidup, sulawesi memiliki jumlah spesies edemis yang mengagumkan” tulisnya dalam The Malay Archipelago (1869)

Pulau Ternate cuma berupa kerucut gunung api kecil nan anggun yang mencuatkan warna hijau dau ke permukaan segara di bagian timur-laut Indonesia. Meskipun pulau itu terpencil, Ternate pernah menjadi pusat perniagaan kerajaan Belanda, karena dari situlah rempah-rempah dan komoditas tropis lainnya dikapalkan ke Eropa. Lereng pulau itu jika kita beruntung, kita masih dapat menyaksikan burung yang cemerlang, berdada hijau terang dengan dua bulu putih panjang bergantung mirip jubah dibahunya. Nama ilmiah burung itu ‘Semioptera wallaci’ disematkan untuk menghormati orang yang pertama kali memperkenalkannya kepada dunia ilmu pengetahuan. Dialah Alfred Russel Wallace adalah seorang naturalis muda dari inggris yang melakukan penelitian lapangan di Nusantara pada akhir 1850-an hingga awal 1860-an. Dari ternate pada 9 Maret 1858, dia mengirimkan surat berisi kumpulan catatn dan makalah penelitiannya lewat kapal pos Belanda yang berlayar ke Eropa.

Saat menyusun teori evolusinya pada tahun 1858, Wallace mengenal Darwin hanya dari surat menyurat. Di kemudian hari mereka bertaman akrab.

Surat itu dialamatkan ke Charles Darwin dan Wallace melampirkan makalah singkat berjudul “On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type” (kecenderungan varietas untuk memisahkan diri secara tidak terbatas dari Tipe Aslinya).  Makalah itu adalah hasil dari spekulasi dan penelitian yang cermat lebih dari sepuluh tahun dan ditulis dengan tergesa-gesa selama dua malam (bisa diliat dari tulisan diatas..^_^x). Apa yang diuraikan dalam makalah itu adalah sebuah teori evolusi (meskipun gak dinamakan demikian) melalui seleksi alam (juga gak memakai frasa itu) yang sangat mirip dengan teori yang sudah dikembangkan, tapi belum di publikasikan oleh Darwin yang kala itu sudah menjadi naturalis terpandang.

Ini adalah babak klasik dalam sejarah ilmu pengetahuan, rumusan yang nyaris hadir serempak tentang apa yang saat ini kita pikir sebegai Teori Darwin yang merupakan karya Darwin dan seorang pemula muda, Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace yang semasa hidupnya terkenal sebagai mitra yunior Darwin dan karena sumbangsihnya yang lain terhadap ilmu pengetahuan dan pemikiran sosial, terlupakan setelah ia berpulang tahu 1913.

Beberapa dasawarsa belakangan ini, kemasyurannya dihidupkan kembali. Fotonya kini digantung disamping foto lama Darwin di dalam ruang rapat Linnean Society di London. Kepada perkumpulan ilmiah inilah penemuan bersama Darwin-Wallace diumumkan 150 tahun lalu pada 1 Juli 1858 malam. Berbagai tulisan Wallace tentang beraneka pokok bahasan, dari teori evolusi dan keadilan sosial sampe kehidupan di Mars juga hadir kembali dalam bentuk cetak maupun On-Line.

Wallace dikenal dikalangan ahli sejarah ilmu pengetahuan sebagai pendiri biogeografi evolusi (kajian tentang spesies apa, tinggal dimana, dan mengapa), khususnya sebagai perintis biogeografi pulau, sebagai ahli teori awal tentang mimikri adatif, dan sebagai tokoh yang menyerukan tentang apa yang sekarang ini kita kenal sebagai keanekaragaman hayati. Artinya, Wallace adalah tokoh yang sangat penting dalam masa transisi dari sejarah alam gaya-lama ke biologi modern.

Wallace juga seorang kolektor yang produktif, penuai keajaiban alam yang tak kenal belas kasih; Spesimen serangga dan burung miliknya memperkaya koleksi museum dan ilmu Taksonomi. Namun tetap saja, kabanyakan orang yang mengenal Alfred Russel Wallace hanya mengenalnya sebagai mitra yang ada di bawah bayang bayang Charles Darwin, orang yang bersama-sama menemukan teori Evolusi melalui seleksi alam tetapi tidak mendapatkan penghormatan yang setara.

bersambung…

GALLERY :
(klik untuk memperbesar gambar)

• Darwin, Charles ; Wallace, Alfred Russel: La teoría de la evolución de las especies. 2ª ed. Barcelona : Crítica, 2009

Charles Darwin es universalmente recordado como el autor de la teoría de la evolución de las especies mediante selección natural. Y es justo que así sea, salvo por un detalle importante: el de que deberíamos recordar también a Alfred Wallace, que ignorando que Darwin llevaba años desarrollando esa teoría sin haberla publicado, llegó, a principios de 1858, a la misma idea, comunicándosela a Darwin en una carta. Al contrario que en otros casos de la historia de la ciencia, en lugar de competir por la prioridad en la propuesta, Darwin y Wallace llegaron a un acuerdo: cada uno publicaría, en la misma revista, sendos artículos en los que expondrían sus ideas. Esos trabajos aparecieron en el Journal of the Linnean Society, acompañados de una carta de presentación firmada por Charles Lyell y Joseph Hooker, así como por el resumen de una carta que Darwin había escrito el 5 de septiembre de 1857 a Asa Gray, en la que mencionaba su teoría evolucionista. Fue una sabia y noble decisión, que además estimuló a Darwin a publicar el año siguiente un “resumen” de sus ideas, El origen de las especies (1859), uno de los libros más importantes jamás escritos. Introducidos por el profesor de la Universidad Complutense, Fernando Pardos, el presente volumen reproduce los materiales publicados en el Journal of the Linnean Society, inéditos hasta ahora en español, junto con dos textos (no publicados en su tiempo) en los que Darwin había puesto por escrito sus ideas sobre la evolución de las especies; el primero, un esbozo que compuso en 1842, y el segundo un ensayo más completo que preparó en 1844.

- Obras de Charles Darwin en la biblioteca

- The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online

- The Alfred Russel Wallace Website

- The Alfred Russel Wallace Page

- Obras de Alfred Russel Wallace en el Proyecto Gutenberg

Recentemente tenho lido muito sobre Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles Darwin, a “Origem das Espécies” e Biogeografia de Ilhas, e por conseqüência não tem como não ler também algumas coisas sobre Jean-Baptist Lamark, Georges Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Robert McArtur, Edward O. Wilson, Samuel Stevens, Henry Bates, Moritz Wagner, Ernst Mayr, Joseph Banks, capitão James Cook, sir Charles Lyell, … e muitos outros cujos nomes me fogem à cabeça neste momento, passando por continentes ainda pouco explorados ou conhecidos, arquipélagos e ilhas ao redor de todo o mundo.

Lí histórias e situações que me fazem questionar como as coisas são feitas pela ciência, sobre a ética e a moral dos grandes cientistas … sobre o valor do titulo e da descoberta, sobre a necessidade do homem em ser alguém importante e supostamente influente … até onde vale agir de forma a frear estudos e pesquisas de terceiros em benefício próprio? Atos que observamos ainda nos dias de hoje nas olimpíadas da academia onde ganha quem mais publica, não importa sobre o que ou a qualidade e real aplicabilidade dos resultados para a conservação, o que importa é o número de publicações, o titulo mais alto …

É errado publicar?

Não, eu não acho que seja, mesmo que informações suplementares, porém o valor que se dá ao número e não à qualidade é que está equivocado!

É errado ser um pós-doutor?

Não, claro que não desde que este reconheça humildemente que o titulo não lhe faz mais esperto, inteligente e sábio, diz apenas que este estudou bastante sobre o assunto da sua dissertação, tese ou relatório final e que talvez (dando uma ênfase muito grande ao TALVEZ) ele seja um especialista naquele assunto em específico … mas não, hoje alguns pesquisadores publicam por publicar e estudam para ter titulo, hoje não, sempre foi assim ou a muito tempo a academia é um anfiteatro para disputas ferrenhas do “eu sou o melhor”!

Claro, não vamos ser injustos, existem muitos casos em que querer publicar, ser Doutor ou mais que isso ou mesmo exigir certo reconhecimento é essencial, mas isso deve ser por um meio e não o objetivo ou fim se é que me entendem.

Quantas teses que eu li e que apesar de terem dado um trabalhão, terem respondido diversas perguntas do pesquisador autor, eu não consegui ver em seus resultados uma aplicabilidade prática em trabalhos de conservação? Em melhorias? Em trabalhos futuros de forma mais eficiente do que como mais uma referência seja na introdução, nos métodos ou na discussão de um resultado?

Desculpem-me por este post, mas a insatisfação e a decepção com o modelo acadêmico que é seguido hoje (e sempre) é grande … mas eu não desisto, se estou insatisfeito e decepcionado, posso não vir a achar o melhor modelo, mas continuarei tentando fazer diferente (na medida do possível).

Alguns devem estar se perguntando: Sim, porque citar a “Origem das Espécies”, Biogeografia de Ilhas e diversos nomes e nem se aprofundar no assunto?

Bom, quem sabe este post não é um ponta-pé para que eu tente escrever algo sobre o assunto, as citações foram umpouco mais que meramente ilustrativas e a história em torno dos temas e dos pesonagens citados está recheada de ações e atitudes tão academicistas quanto as dos dias atuais, ou pior. Se serve de alguma coisa, recomendo que leiam sobre o assunto ou discutam os que ja leram e conhecem as versões das histórias, vale a pena, quem sabe não se deenvolve um senso critico mais apurado com relação ao seu próprio trabalho, à sua própria “produção”.

Desculpem o desabafo, mas este post não é dedicado a ninguem em especial, mas sim à toda a academia!!