Darwin-L Message Log 27: 1–30 — November 1995

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.

This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during November 1995. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.

The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”


A Network Discussion Group on the
History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu is an international network discussion group on
the history and theory of the historical sciences.  Darwin-L was established
in September 1993 to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of
which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present,
and to encourage communication among academic professionals in these fields.
Darwin-L is not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles
Darwin but instead addresses the entire range of historical sciences from an
interdisciplinary perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical
linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology,
systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical
anthropology, historical geography, and related "palaetiological" fields.

This log contains the public messages posted to Darwin-L during November 1995.
It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease
of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been
reformatted, and some administrative messages and personal messages posted to
the group as a whole have been deleted.  No genuine editorial changes have been
made to the content of any of the posts.  This log is provided for personal
reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein
should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.
The master copy of this log is maintained in the archives of Darwin-L by
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, and is also available on the Darwin-L Web Server
at http://rjohara.uncg.edu.  For instructions on how to retrieve copies of this
and other log files, and for additional information about Darwin-L, send the
e-mail message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or connect to
the Darwin-L Web Server.

Darwin-L is administered by Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu), Center for
Critical Inquiry in the Liberal Arts and Department of Biology, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A., and it
is supported by the Center for Critical Inquiry, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, and the Department of History and the Academic Computing Center,
University of Kansas.


<27:1>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Wed Nov  1 00:30:49 1995

Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 01:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: List owner's monthly greeting
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Greetings to all Darwin-L subscribers.  On the first of every month I send
out a short note on the status of our group, along with a reminder of basic
commands.  For additional information about the group please visit the
Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu).

Darwin-L is an international discussion group for professionals in the
historical sciences.  It is not devoted to any particular discipline, such
as evolutionary biology, but rather endeavors to promote interdisciplinary
comparisons among all the historical sciences.  Darwin-L was established in
September 1993, and we now have over 600 members from more than 30 countries.
I am grateful to all of our members for their continuing interest.

Because Darwin-L has a large membership and is sometimes a high-volume
discussion group it is important for all participants to try to keep their
postings as substantive as possible so that we can maintain a favorable
"signal-to-noise" ratio.  Personal messages should be sent by private e-mail
rather than to the group as a whole.  Subscribers who feel burdened from
time to time by the volume of their Darwin-L mail may wish to take advantage
of the digest option described below.

Because different mail systems work differently, not all subscribers see
the e-mail address of the original sender of each message in the message
header (some people only see "Darwin-L" as the source).  It is therefore
very important to include your name and e-mail address at the end of every
message you post so that everyone can identify you and reply privately if
appropriate.  Remember also that in most cases when you type "reply" in
response to a message from Darwin-L your reply is sent to the group as a
whole, rather than to the original sender.

The following are the most frequently used listserv commands that Darwin-L
members may wish to know.  All of these commands should be sent as regular
e-mail messages to the listserv address (listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu),
not to the address of the group as a whole (Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu).
In each case leave the subject line of the message blank and include no
extraneous text, as the command will be read and processed by the listserv
program rather than by a person.  To join the group send the message:


     For example: SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L John Smith

To cancel your subscription send the message:


If you feel burdened by the volume of mail you receive from Darwin-L you
may instruct the listserv program to deliver mail to you in digest format
(one message per day consisting of the whole day's posts bundled together).
To receive your mail in digest format send the message:


To change your subscription from digest format back to one-at-a-time
delivery send the message:


To temporarily suspend mail delivery (when you go on vacation, for example)
send the message:


To resume regular delivery send either the DIGEST or ACK messages above.

For a comprehensive introduction to Darwin-L with notes on our scope and
on network etiquette, and a summary of all available commands, send the


To post a public message to the group as a whole simply send it as regular
e-mail to the group's address (Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu).

I thank you all for your continuing interest in Darwin-L and in the
interdisciplinary study of the historical sciences.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.


<27:2>From anave@ucla.edu Wed Nov  1 09:34:54 1995

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:38:34 +0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: anave@ucla.edu (Ari Nave)
Subject: Your posting on Darwin-L

Dear Bill,

I think you are quite right not to pay attention to group selectionist
theories, as they offer no real mechanism for evolution. Probably
reciprocity and inclusive fitness is sufficient to explain the behaviors of
chimps and wolves, given the degree of relationship between individuals and
the ratio of costs to benefits.  At times I am sure this explains human
behavior as well.  Moreso for antsgiven their unique genetically

However, explaining why large groups of individuals who share the same
ethnicity, "race", nationality, or whatever, are willing to act out against
others is a bit more complex.  Not that attempts have not been made to
explain such complex behaviors in purely biological terms.  See in
particular Pierre Van den Berghe. The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York:
Elsevier, 1981. (I have included others by him below.)

The basic problem of this arguments is that people who are members of a
large ethnic group are not related closely enough to act in ways which are
costly.  According to sociobiological, people will behave in ethnocentric
ways if it is to their own direct benefit.  However, there are times when
people seem to be racist in ways which are very costly to themselves.
Similar arguments have been made in the use of rational-choice theory to
explain racism.  (See Banton, M.  1982.  Racial and Ethnic Competition.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.)  But if a group of people are behaving in a
racist manner, free-riders will arise to undermine the group's solidarity.
(As expressed in Olson, M.  1965.  The Logic of Collective Action:  Public
Goods and the Theory of Groups.  Cambridge, Mass., Harvard UP.)  Threats of
violence cannot explain such cooperative behaviors.  This is the tragedy of
all common goods that require cooperation.

Both evolutionary and rational choice models are maximization paradigms
which forget one thing.  People's behaviors are largely ditermined by
cultural transmission.  While cultural ideas are subject to evolutionary
forces, these forces are not necessarily the same as with genetics.  For a
good review see Boyd, R. and Richerrson, P.  1985.  Culture and the
Evolutionary Process.  Chicago.  U of Chicago P.)  In a sound byte, any
cultural idea, or meme (from Dawkin's cultural analogy to a gene) which
reproduces at a rate faster then its detrimental effects eliminate it, will
spread.  Any many may be selectively neutral.

Racism is a cultural construct, not a reflection of the genetic differences
between populations.  It may be more instructive to ask how and why such
ideas have a high cultural reproductive success, if indeed they are
maladaptive.  On the other had, ethnocentrism may be adaptive???  This does
not mean it evolved genetically.

The point I am trying to make is that it is a bad ideas to compare
behaviors based upon biological mechanisms alone, such as ant wars, with
the behavior of people, which is subject both to biological mechanism and
cultural mechanisms.  The extent to which biology and culture work in
tandem is a matter of some debate.  See Durham, W. H. 1991.  Coevolution:
Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity.  Stanford UP.

Hope this gives you something to chew on.

van den Berghe, P. Race and Racism. New York: Wiley, 1978.

van den Berghe, P.  and D.P. Barash. "Inclusive fitness and human family
structure." American Anthropologist 79 (4 1977): 809-823.

van den Berghe, P. "Bridging the paradigms." Society 15 (6 1978): 42-49.

van den Berghe, P. Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View. New York:
Elsevier, 1979.

van den Berghe, P. "Incest and exogomy: A sociobiological recosideration."
Ethology and Sociobiology 1 (1980): 151-162.

van den Berghe, Pierre L. "Human inbreeding avoidance: Culture in nature."
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (1983): 91-123.

ven den Berghe, P. "Race and ethnicity: A sociobiological perspective."
Ethnic and Racial Studies 1 (4 1978): 401-411.

Ari Nave
Dept. of Anthropology
University of California, Los Angeles
Field site:  3 Queen Alexandra Street, Beau Bassin
                  Republic of Mauritius
                  Tel./Fax. (230) 464-3896
                  e-mail:  anave@ucla.edu


<27:3>From g-cziko@uiuc.edu Wed Nov  1 20:35:24 1995

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:37:07 +0000
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: g-cziko@uiuc.edu (CZIKO Gary)
Subject: Darwinian Art

[from Gary Cziko g-cziko@uiuc.edu]

In the not-too-distant future, I plan to submit to Darwin-L a summary of
what I've learned about "universal selection theory" from the lively and
interesting discussion we've had on Darwin-L.

In the meantime, subscribers with access to the Web can participate in a
project which uses blind variation and selective retention in the
generation of art at:


--Gary Cziko


<27:4>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Wed Nov  1 22:58:12 1995

Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 23:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: New list on theoretical approaches to history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

The following information on PHILOFHI, a new list on historical theory,
may be of interest to some Darwin-L subscribers.

Bob O'Hara


From: "Nikolai Sergeevich Rozov" <ROZOV@nw.cnit.nsk.su>
Organization:  Center of New Informational Tech.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 21:09:22 -0700 (NSK)
Subject: Philosophy of History World Wide Web page


The information on the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF
HIstory and theoretical history) and the application for new
subscribers is attainable now by WWW. Please point your Web browser to:


Nikolai S. Rozov
Professor of Philosophy
PhD., Dr.Sc.

Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)

Dept. of Philosophy            Tel.: (3832) 397488
Novosibirsk State University   Fax.: (3832) 355237
630090, Novosibirsk            E-mail: rozov@nw.cnit.nsk.su
Pirogova 2                             rozov@adm.nsu.nsk.su


<27:5>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu Thu Nov  2 14:15:50 1995

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:15:32 -0500
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (Darwin List)
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy C. Ahouse)
Subject: Darwinism Evolving by Depew & Webber

Hi D-L,

        I have just started sampling Depew and Weber's "contribution to the
history of Darwinian evolutionary theory" (preface p. xi).  Have any of you
worked through this?  Ideas?

        Depew and Weber's fervent hope that complex system scientists will
reunify and revive (was it dead?) evolutionary theory from the edge of
chaos (border of order) may have a little too much to do with being seduced
by charismatic spokesfolk at the Santa Fe Institute.  Does the last part of
the book infect the rest?  (Let's hope it was grafted on to help MIT press
sell a few more copies to the current vogue.)

        The complex systems community (note that complex here does not
necessarily mean complicated; in this context it means simple systems with
very interesting dynamics or a large number of interacting very simple
systems) is doing lots of work and filled with clever people.  This may
well result in useful ideas - but don't uncork the bottles yet. [For a
brief introduction by and some response to Kauffman see part III of Varela

        Still, if you are a partisan or an interested observer you may want
to listen in tomorrow:

> bruceb@conx.bu.edu (Bruce Boghosian)
>Tomorrow's "Science Friday" segment on National Public Radio, hosted by
>Ira Flatow, will deal with the subject of Complexity from 2 pm to 3 pm.
>I have heard that the guest list will include Stuart Kauffman, John
>Holland, and Peter Coveney, all of whom have recently written popular
>books on the subject, as well as John Horgan who wrote the June
>Scientific American article attacking the field.
>In the Boston area, NPR is carried by WBUR, 90.0 FM radio.

Depew, David J. & Bruce H. Weber (1995) Darwinism evolving: systems
dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press. QH361 .D46 1995

Varela, Francisco J. & Jean-Pierre Dupuy (1992) Understanding origins:
contemporary views on the origin of life, mind, and society. Dordrecht
[Netherlands]; Boston: Kluwer Academic.  (Boston studies in the philosophy
of science ; v. 130, "The material comes from an international meeting held
in September 13-16, 1987 at Stanford University") Q175 .B73 v.130

Jeremy Creighton Ahouse
Biology Dept.
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02254-9110

        (617) 736-4954 Lab
              736-2405 FAX


<27:6>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu Thu Nov  2 14:18:51 1995

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:18:29 -0500
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (Darwin List)
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy C. Ahouse)
Subject: Science Friday

note: if you don't get "Talk of the Nation-Science Friday" it is available
via the web:


        - Jeremy


<27:7>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Nov  2 14:37:19 1995

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 15:34:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Conference on the Evolution of Human Language (fwd)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 13:05:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: jim@ling.ed.ac.uk
Subject: conference
To: darwin@iris.uncg.edu

Conference, University of Edinburgh, April 1st - 4th 1996

Organizing Committee: Prof. James R Hurford (University
of Edinburgh), Prof. Jean Aitchison (Oxford University), Dr Chris
Knight (University of East London).

We are planning a conference rather tightly focussed
around the following two issues (and their interrelationship);

* Chronology of the spread of mankind over the planet, and its relationship
  to language.
* The continuity/discontinuity of the language faculty with other human
  and nonhuman systems.

We anticipate a good number of distinguished speakers.  We have invited
all of the following: Lyle Jenkins, Bjorn Lindblom, Michael
Studdert-Kennedy, Peter McNeilage, Johanna Nichols, Steven Pinker,
Frederick Newmeyer, Derek Bickerton, Joseph Greenberg, Luigi
Cavalli-Sforza, Merritt Ruhlen, Jean Aitchison, Elizabeth Bates, Myrna
Gopnik, John Maynard Smith, Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Adam Kendon,
Robin Dunbar, Chris Stringer, Paul Mellars, Leslie Aiello, Clive Gamble,
Rob Foley, Andy Whiten, Richard Byrne, Dan Sperber, Bill Turkel.  All of
these are currently making original contributions to the conference
topic, from the perspective of their respective disciplines.
Disciplines represented by at least one invitee include: Artificial
Life, Developmental Psychology, Language Pathology, Neurology,
Paleontology, Phonetics, Population Genetics, Primatology, Social
Anthropology, Theoretical Linguistics.  We expect that a significant
number of them will attend.

We will produce an edited volume based on the conference, and
negotiations with C.U.P., who already have
books on this topic in their publication pipeline, have started.

The question of the origins of the human language faculty is an area of
consuming general intellectual interest and one in which
interdisciplinary collaboration is essential.  Theoretical Linguistics,
which has tended to be isolated from other disciplines, can benefit from
this contact, and has an essential contribution to make in that
linguists, as noone else, know in detail the intricate complexity of the
evolved language faculty.

This Edinburgh conference is not isolated.  Over the past decade,
similar conferences have begun to build understanding between the
disparate disciplines involved.  Several of the invited participants
have been prominent in these previous events, but the topic of language
evolution is still far from `center stage' in any of the contributing
disciplines.  The Edinburgh conference is designed to further the
process of integrating the study of language evolution into the
mainstream concerns of the disciplines involved.  Another aim is to
produce knowledge on the topic which will be accessible to a wide
variety of laypersons, as lay speculation in this area is badly in need
of a solid basis in reliable information.

The John McIntyre Centre at Pollock Halls, University of Edinburgh has
been booked for the conference.  Aside from accommodation, the
conference costs will come to around  100 per participant.

To receive further information, please contact:
Professor James R Hurford,
Department of Linguistics,
University of Edinburgh,
Adam Ferguson Building,
40 George Square,
Edinburgh EH8 9LL,
[email: jim@ling.ed.ac.uk]


<27:8>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Nov  2 14:37:21 1995

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 15:35:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: CFP: Conference on the Evolution of Human Language (fwd)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 13:05:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: jim@ling.ed.ac.uk
Subject: Call for abstracts
To: darwin@iris.uncg.edu

                        CALL FOR PAPERS


              UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH APRIL 1-4 1996

SPONSORS: The University of Edinburgh, the Royal Anthropological
Institute, and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain.

INVITED SPEAKERS INCLUDE: Derek Bickerton (U.Hawaii), Paul Bloom
(U.Arizona), Robert Boyd (UCLA), Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy
(U.Canterbury, N.Z.), Dan Dennett (Tufts U.), Paul Fletcher (U.Hong
Kong), Myrna Gopnik (U.Montreal), Ray Jackendoff (Brandeis U.), Philip
Lieberman (Brown U.), Bjorn Lindblom (U.Stockholm), Frederick Newmeyer
(U.Washington), Johanna Nichols (U.C.Berkeley), Merritt Ruhlen (ex
Stanford), Leon Stassen (U.Nijmegen), Chris Stringer (Natural History
Museum, London), Michael Studdert-Kennedy (Haskins Labs).





Professor James R Hurford, Dept. of Linguistics, University of
Edinburgh, Adam Ferguson Building, 40 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LL,

or by email to: jim@ling.ed.ac.uk


<27:9>From HAAVN@Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Fri Nov  3 12:13:21 1995

From: "Haave, Neil" <HAAVN@Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA>
Organization:  Augustana University College
To: biocan@net.bio.net, darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, hopos-l@ukcc.uky.edu,
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 16:20:47 MDT
Subject: cirla conference announcement

I am trying to set up a panel discussion for the CIRLA conference in
Banff, AB, this Spring (announcement attached below) and am in need of
panel members.  The topic will be on Postmodernism and Science.
Specifically, I would like to try and produce a discussion regarding
postmodern science; what is it?  does it exist?  is it really an
issue for social scientists while being irrelevant to natural
scientists?  what is the role of postmodern thought on the doing of
science or interpretation of nature?

I am looking for diverse opinions to get a lively discussion.  Please
send inquiries/suggestions to:

Neil Haave, Ph.D.
Division of Biology and Chemistry
Augustana University College
Camrose, AB
Canada      T4V 2R3

email:  haavn@corelli.augustana.ab.ca




May 10-11, 1996

The Banff Centre for Conferences
Banff, Alberta, Canada

2nd International Conference

Sponsored by: Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the
Liberal Arts (CIRLA)

University education is no longer simply the concern of
professional educators.  It has now entered the public forum as
an object of political discussion.  The issues are well known:
What form should public support of universities take?  How should
the university be held accountable for that support?  How do we
determine the significance and relevance of the education being
offered?  What is the relationship between academic freedom and

Related to these issues is the role of the liberal arts and
sciences in university education.  Once assumed to be the
cornerstone of higher education, the liberal arts and sciences
have become the focus of intense political and social doubt and
debate within the university, within government, and within
society in general. Demands for more specialized and more
practical knowledge suggest that the liberal arts are the luxury
of an elite class.  At the same time, however, the
ever-increasing need to work across disciplines points to the
potential usefulness of both the skills that the liberal arts
develop, as well as the issues they address.  Are the liberal
arts vestiges of a lost era?  Are they a ray of hope in a future
of uncertainty?  What, if not the liberal arts, is to count as
the cornerstone of higher education? Is the very notion of a
cornerstone itself anachronistic?  What role do the liberal arts
have within the university and (post-)modern society?

The purpose of this conference is to explore recent developments
in the relation between liberal arts and the university, the
polis and society.  But we are not only interested in
conversation about the liberal arts; we also hope to foster
conversation within the liberal arts, as the following topics
indicate.  Papers or abstracts may be submitted on any of these
topics (NOTE: this list is not exhaustive, but is meant to give
an idea of some relevant issues. If you have an idea for a paper
or session that is not included here, please contact the director
of CIRLA):

University education, politics, and society

- The role of the university in contemporary society
- Government policy on education: What kind of citizens do we
want?  Who governs education?
- Does the economic demand for flexible institutions mean that
tenure is outmoded?
- Technology, media, and the liberal arts: What are the
implications of technology and the media on the shape and
priorities of university education?

Contemporary university education and the liberal arts and

- Are the liberal arts and sciences relevant (to the university,
to society, to the student) anymore?
- What relation is there between the liberal arts and sciences
and practical education?
- What relations do the liberal arts and sciences have to
contemporary developments in continental philosophy?
- Reinventing liberal arts:  How have the liberal arts changed,
and how must they change, if they are to meet contemporary

Border wars within the academy

- Science and the social construction of knowledge: With the
publication of books like Higher Superstition, some scientists
have returned fire in what they consider to be an attack on
science by the humanities. How does this debate affect the
- Tensions and opportunities in interdisciplinary research and
teaching: Is co-operation possible or even desirable? If so, how?
- The character of the university and the liberal arts: What
types of knowledge or investigation are legitimately part of the
liberal arts? Is there a way of deciding at all?

Diversity and unity

- Gender and tradition: Women's studies and the liberal arts.
- The classroom is the world: Reflecting diversity and fostering
conversation among race, religion, and/or ethnicity.
- What's worth reading/viewing anymore?  Ongoing issues of canon
in text, art, and idea.
- Fissures and bridges in knowledge, society, family,
disciplines, curriculum.

If you are willing to organize a symposium on one of the listed
topics or on another one, please contact us.  As well, there will
be a poster session, in which you may display innovations or
ideas for liberal arts or interdisciplinary teaching or research
expressed visually.

Deadline for abstracts, draft papers, poster display proposals,
or session proposals: November 30, 1995
Notification of acceptance: February 1, 1996
Deadline for completed papers: March 15, 1996

Complete registration information will be mailed in the fall of

For more information, please contact:

Bruce Janz, Director
Centre for Interdisciplinary Research
     in the Liberal Arts (CIRLA)
c/o Chris Jensen McCloy
Augustana University College
4901-46 Avenue
Camrose, Alberta
TEL: (403)679-1502
FAX: (403)679-1129

Neil Haave, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Augustana University College
4901 - 46th Avenue
Camrose, AB
Canada      T4V 2R3

phone   403 679 1506
FAX     403 679 1129
email   haavn@corelli.augustana.ab.ca


<27:10>From wilcox@mail.unm.edu Sat Nov  4 00:28:42 1995

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 23:27:05 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: wilcox@mail.unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Conference on the Evolution of Human Language

The Edinburgh conference on the Evolution of Human Language certainly looks
to be an important event. I would just like to take this opportunity to
point out to the readers of DARWIN, however, that the organizers are not
quite up to date with the following comment in their announcement:

>We will produce an edited volume based on the conference, and
>negotiations with C.U.P., who already have
>books on this topic in their publication pipeline, have started.

Cambridge University Press published "Gesture and the Nature of Language"
by D. F. Armstrong, W. C. Stokoe, and S. E. Wilcox this spring. It takes an
expressly continuity/gradualist view of language evolution.

Sherman Wilcox                        wilcox@mail.unm.edu
Associate Professor
Dept. of Linguistics                 (505) 277-6353 v/tty
University of New Mexico             (505) 277-6355 fax
Albuquerque, NM 87131


<27:11>From rroizen@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov  4 21:04:40 1995

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 19:03:54 -0800
From: rroizen@ix.netcom.com (Ron Roizen )
Subject: Fwd: CADUCEUS-L 4:52--Response to Darwin Quote Qs.:
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

---- Begin Forwarded Message

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 10:38:58 -0400
From: DFKent@aol.com
Subject: Darwin quote

The correspondent who asked about the authenticity of a Darwin quote
can probably get his answer from Dr. Thomas Junker, Associate Editor,
Darwin Letters Project, University Library, Cambridge CB3 DR7 UK.  The
e-mail address is thj@ula.ca.    DFKent (courtesy Prof. D. Kohn).


<27:12>From ronald@hawaii.edu Sat Nov  4 21:57:30 1995

Date: 	Sat, 4 Nov 1995 17:56:23 -1000
From: Ron Amundson <ronald@hawaii.edu>
To: Darwin-L List <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Rupke address?

Can anyone point me towards Nicolaas Rupke?  His Owen books says
Goetingen (no department named) and the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Australian Nat. U., but the Web yields no better connections.  I'm
reluctant to write to a vague address at what might be the wrong
continent.  And no, he's not a Darwin-L subscriber.

Thanks for any hints.  The name of a continent might even help (as long
as it's Europe or Australia).



Ron Amundson
University of Hawaii at Hilo


<27:13>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun Nov  5 13:14:04 1995

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 14:13:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: New list on Popper and philosophy of science (fwd)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 05:52:59 -0300
From: Eliana@attach.edu.ar
Subject: Advertising Popper list (request for permission)
To: darwin@iris.uncg.edu
Organization: University of Buenos Aires
Organization: Attachment Research Center

Dear Darwin-L owner,

Would you mind my advertising a mailing list by the name of Popper,
discussions on the Philosophy of Sciences, which I deem might be of
the interest of many Darwin-L members. I enclose a description of the

Thanks in advance,

Eliana Montuori

POPPER ON LISTSERV@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU - Philosophy of Science Discussion

   Popper is a moderated discussion list meant for scholars
   engaged in any kind of sientific or philosophical endeavour
   deeply concerned with, and committed to, the defence and
   fostering of the Scientific Method, Rationalism and
   Humanitarianism. Discussion on this list is intended to
   reflect Sir Karl R. Popper's main concerns: his attachment
   to Critical Rationalism, and his commitment to Democratic
   Humanitarianism, both inextricably imbricated to the extent
   that the feeling of Reason above individualism implies the
   ethical decision to believe in the Unity of Mankind and the
   radical rejection of any kind of authoritarianism.

   The Popper mailing list for discussions of Popper's
   multiplex views on Epistemology, the Scientific Method,
   Social and Political Issues, his involvent in the Philosophy
   of Mind, his controversial revisions of the Pre-Socratic
   philosophers, Plato, Hegel and Marx, and so on, welcomes
   contributions from professionals and academics currently
   engaged in any kind of scholarly endeavour linked with
   the humanities, either from a purely theoretical viewpoint
   or as means to buttress scientific pursuits - e.g., research
   projects- within a reliable epistemological framework.

   To subscribe to Popper, send the following command to
   Listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu in the BODY of e-mail:

        SUBSCRIBE POPPER yourfirstname yourlastname

        For example: SUBSCRIBE POPPER Max Doe

   Owner: Juan C. Garelli <garelli@attach.edu.ar>

---------------------------end of announcement-------------------------
*           Eliana Montuori, MD             *
*       Attachment Research Center          *
* 1966 Juncal  1116 Buenos Aires  ARGENTINA *
* Tel: +54-1 812 5521   Fax: +54-1 812 5432 *


<27:14>From camerini@helix.ucsd.edu Mon Nov  6 07:48:22 1995

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 05:48:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Jane Camerini <camerini@helix.ucsd.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Rupke

He is indeed in Gottingen:
Institute for the History of Medicine
Humboldtallee 36
D-37073 Gottingen

Jane Camerini
36 Bagley Ct.
Madison WI 53705


<27:15>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue Nov  7 00:38:57 1995

Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 01:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 7 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro


1817: JEAN ANDRE DELUC dies at Windsor, England.  Born in Geneva in 1727,
Deluc had emigrated to England following a business failure in 1773.  A
Biblical geologist, he published many works that attempted to demonstrate
"the conformity of geological monuments with the sublime account of that
series of the operations which took place during the Six days, or periods
of time, recorded by the inspired penman."

1913: ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE dies at Broadstone, Dorset, England.
Co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the principle of natural selection,
Wallace had been an extensive traveller and a prolific writer on topics
ranging from evolution and spiritualism to astronomy and vaccination.  His
most enduring work will be his several volumes on historical biogeography:
"If we take the organic productions of a small island, or of any very limited
tract of country, such as a moderate-sized country parish, we have, in their
relations and affinities -- in the fact that they are _there_ and others are
_not_ there, a problem which involves all the migrations of these species and
their ancestral forms -- all the vicissitudes of climate and all the changes
of sea and land which have affected those migrations -- the whole series of
actions and reactions which have determined the preservation of some forms and
the extinction of others, -- in fact the whole history of the earth, inorganic
and organic, throughout a large portion of geological time."  (_Island Life_,
second edition, 1892.)

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu or connect
to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information.


<27:16>From g-cziko@uiuc.edu Tue Nov  7 11:18:51 1995

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:18:27 +0000
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: g-cziko@uiuc.edu (CZIKO Gary)
Subject: Selectionism: Lessons Learned from Darwin-L

[from Gary Cziko <g-cziko@uiuc.edu>]

Over the past several weeks there has been considerable discussion on
Darwin-L about what I call "universal selection theory" (UST), the blind
(yet intelligently constrained) conjecture that the emergence of all
adapted complexity is a result of blind variation and selective retention
(BVSR), an idea going back to Karl Popper and Donald T. Campbell and one
major theme of my recent book _Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory
and the Second Darwinian Revolution_ (the other theme is the movement from
providential through instructionist to selectionist explanations in many
areas of inquiry).

I am unable to respond to each of the many posts that either supported or
criticized my arguments.  But I would like to attempt to synthesize and
summarize what I see as the major issues and to acknowledge what I have
learned from this interesting discussion.  So here goes.

1. The Universality of Selection.

In the course of these discussions I have been frequently referred or
alluded to as a "panselectionist," "ultraselectionist," and "just-so-story
adaptationist," in spite of my repeated insistence that I see selection
theory limited to explanations of clear instances of adaptedness, and that
not all change in the universe (indeed perhaps only a small proportion,
including what happens during biological evolution) is adaptive.  Perhaps
it would be better to drop the "universal" (nobody talks about "universal
relativity" or "universal quantum theory") and just use "selection theory."
But since I see my theory as an extension of Dawkins's "universal
Darwinism" (in which he argues that if life exists anywhere else in the
universe it must have arisen through Darwinian selection), I am rather fond
of the "universal" part (a universal account of all adaptedness).

The folly of invoking Darwinian selection to account for nonadaptive,
nonliving phenomena is made apparent in a delightful story provided by Ron
Amundson (which he attributes to Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini) in his
"Trials and Tribulations" essay:

 A young boy asked, Father, why do rocks fall to the ground"?  His father
 answered, "When the world was young, my son, some rocks tended to rise away
 from the earth, some floated in midair, and some fell to the ground.  But
 now all of the rising and floating rocks have drifted off into space.  The
 ones that remain are the ones which fall to the ground.  Why do all rocks
 fall to the ground?  Natural selection, dear boy."

So we do not need UST to explain the falling behavior of rocks (or that of
horses falling off cliffs).  We DO need it to account for the ability of
horses to live on a diet of grass and water; their ability to run, mate,
and reproduce; and to account for why diamonds and not lumps or coal are
used in industrial drills.  I have learned that I must continually
emphasize that I see UST needed only to account for the emergence of
adapted complexity, or risk being seriously misunderstood.

2. The Blindness of Variations.

I realize now that many people took the blindness (B) of BVSR to refer to
VSR (variation and selective retention) and not just to V (variation).
While in natural selection it could be said that selection is also blind
since there is no agent deciding what should be selected and what
eliminated (Dawkins's "blind watchmaker"), blind selection is NOT a
necessay condition for a selectionist process.  The selection involved in
modern "artificial" selection (plant and animal breeding) is anything but
blind, but the process is still thoroughly Darwinian and selectionist.  All
that is needed is differential retention and reproduction of the
variations; whether this "filtering" be blind or purposeful does not change
(at least not for me) the selectionist, Darwinian nature of the process.
Indeed, it was Darwin's realization of the power of artificial (purposeful)
selection, together with his reading of Malthus, that provided the
essential clue as to how natural selection operated.

But more on nonpurposeful vs. purposeful selection later and back to the
blind variations.  As I have stated many times, "blind" does not mean that
all variations are equally likely or that they are unconstrained.  My
searching-for-the-light-switch example shows how useful constraints can
evolve during the cumulative BVSR process, but that additional success (the
acquisition of new knowledge) always depends upon additional blind gropings
("Hey, let's try this and see what happens!").  The variations can also be
systematic (in the way that an archaeologist uses a grid to systematically
search a dig, or in the way a radar antenna sweeps the sky in continuous
circles, or in the way a blind man taps his cane systematically from left
to right and back again--a particularly appropriate example of blind
variation!), and still be blind.

The recognition that the variations involved in organic evolution are both
constrained and blind (which I believe is rather uncontroversial) should
make my argument clearer.  This is why I very much wanted to get answers to
the two questions I posed (twice) to Elihu Gerson:

"Are the variations produced in the course of biological evolution (due to
genetic mutation and sexual recombination) blind?  Yes or no."

"Are the variations produced in the course of biological evolution (due to
genetic mutation and sexual recombination) constrained?  Yes or no."

I was unsuccessful in obtaining answers from him (or anyone else, as I
recall).  But I suspect that most Darwin-L subscribers would have no
problem in answering "yes" to both questions, therefore acknowledging that
variations can be both constrained and yet retain the blindness essential
to the discovery of new solutions.  Sexual recombination is a good example
of blind but constrained genetic variation.  The genes you inherit from
your parents come in pairs, one from your mother and one from your father.
But your father's and mother's genes also come in pairs, and which one you
receive from each parent is a 50/50 coin flip.  So sexual recombination is
blind (and in this case also random and equiprobable), but heavily
constrained since recombination usually respects the gene as units and
doesn't just randomly choose half of all the nucleotide sequences of your
mother and shuffle them in with half of your father's.  So the variation
produced by sexual recombination is quite blind but still very highly
constrained, which is probably one reason why sexual reprodction is so
popular among all sorts of organisms (in addition to the fun of sex, of

So I have learned that I must emphasize that blindess describes the
variations, not necessarily the selection.  And I need to try to  make it
clearer how variation can be both blind and constrained.

3. Nonpurposeful vs. Purposeful Selection.

New adapted complexity can emerge whether the selection itself is due to
the blind and stupid consequences of physics or the purposeful and
intelligent action of a human being.  In genetic algorithms, the programmer
includes an evaluation function in the program which decides which bit
strings (program "genomes") are fittest and will consequently be allowed to
have sex and reproduce.  This evaluation criterion is decided by a
purposeful programmer for a particular reason (e.g, it describes a function
which fits some data with little error).  This purposeful selection does
not make the process any less selectionist in nature.  In natural
selection, the evaluation function is the ability to reproduce.  What is
important is that there be a "filter" which blocks some variations and lets
others pass through.  Whether this "filter" is dead, stupid, and blind, or
alive, intelligent, and sighted makes no fundamental difference to its
selectionist character (as Darwin fortunately recognized).

It is interesting to consider that the selection involved in natural
selection is not necessarily purposeless, either.  Sexual selection is an
important factor in organic evolution.  Peahens seem to prefer peacocks
with large, colorful tails, and shun those with small, drab ones.  So there
is a purposeful element in the selection and evolution of peacocks
(although admittedly it is a "lower-level" purpose since the peahen is not
consciously scheming to have handsome sons who will be successful in
passing on her genes).  For those unwilling to ascribe any purpose to
nonhuman animals (although I have no such reluctance), then consider sexual
selection among humans.  If the purposeful selection of scientific theories
by scientists means that this process cannot be Darwinian (because the
selection is purposeful and intelligent), then, by the same reasoning, the
evolution of the human species (as it involves sexual selection) cannot be
Darwinian either (as it is also purposeful, if perhaps somewhat less

4. Selection "All the way down"

My arguments for UST have often met the criticism that while selection may
account for the emergence of human abilities to obtain knowledge about the
world, selectionist processes have no or little role in the actual
knowledge generating process of humans.  In philosophical circles, this is
known as Bradie's contrast between EEM (the evolutionary epistemology of
methods) and EET (the evolutionary epistemology of theories).  The idea
(hope?) is that evolution has made us so damn smart so that we no longer
need mechanisms of within-organism (behavioral, cognitive, or neural)
selection for obtaining new knowledge of our world.  Ron Amundson seemed to
be of this opinion when he wrote:

"As we proceed 'higher' on the hierarchical stages from evolution to
psychology to social or scientific development, we should expect the
explanatory force of naturalistic selection to gradually disappear" (pp.

But why should we expect this disappearance of selectionist processes?  In
contrast, we might well expect that evolution would instead discover the
power of cumulative BVSR for use WITHIN ORGANISMS.  So the role of
within-organism selection may instead play a larger role in 'higher'

For example, I understand that that immune system of some (all?)
non-mammals contains a fixed repertoire of antibodies which does not change
over the course of the organism's life.  In constrast, the mammalian immune
system uses a selectionist mechanism which involves the generation of a
large repertoire of novel antibodies (using recombination somatic and
hypermutation of b-lymphocyte genes) and reproducing (with varitions) those
which are successful in binding with antigen (the very Darwinian
clonal-selection theory of antibody production).

Similarly, "lower" (medusa, earthworm) organisms have rather hard-wired
nervous systems and are quite limited in what they can learn.  Humans, in
contrast, have much more plastic nervous systems and current
neurophysiological research suggests that both cognitive development and
learning depend on a type of "neural Darwinism" (e.g., Changeux, Edelman,
Calvin, Schatz).

But again, I am repeating for the most part arguments already contained in
my book and so if any of you find these arguments interesting, you already
know where to find a more complete treatment.  Also to be found in my book
are many arguments and examples for the uses of UST, both for explaining
the emergence of adapted complexity in many different fields of inquiry and
for engineering adapted complexity to serve human needs (as in genetic
programming, computer simulations, and directed molecular evolution for
drug development).

(For those wanting more in-depth and less interdisciplinary treatments of
UST from psychologial and philosphical perspectives, I suggest the two
fairly recent books appended below, one by a Plotkin (psychologist), the
other by Munz (philosopher).

5. Differences Between Organic and Cognitive Selection

The discussion on Darwin-L has made me better realize that there ARE
important differences between among-organism (phylogenetic) biological
selection and within-organism (ontogenetic)
neural/antibody/cognitive/cultural selection.  The fact that
cognitive/cultural selection is purposeful while biological selection is
not (except for the complications of sexual selection and breeding noted
above) is one such difference.  The fact that "bad" within-organism
variations (e.g., a deficient scientific theory) does not lead to the
elimination of the responsible scientist is another.  This also means that
adaptive scientific and cultural evolution can take bigger leaps than
biological evolution which as a rule must be gradual since large
phylogenetic leaps are very unlikely to be viable (although this does not
prevent the occasional "hopeful monster" from being so).  The units of
selection, the replicators, and the criteria for selection are all
different.  And, of course, there are many intelligent and useful
constraints and biases on the variations produced cognitively and
culturally (although, I maintain, still essentially blind when working at
the frontiers of our current knowledge).

So I suppose for a biologist or psychologist these differences might be
considered important enough that lumping organic and
neural/antibody/cognitive/cultural selection together might seem crude and
downright misleading.  But from my perspective, it is the similarities
which are quite striking.  This is because three principal explanations
have been offered in the past (and still are) for the emergence of adapted
complexity--(a) providence (designed by an super-intelligent and powerful
creator; (b_ instruction (e.g., Lamarckism, template theory of antibody
production, induction), and (c) selection, with the first two explanations
replaced by the third in many areas of science (a major theme my book).
From this broader perspective, the similarities between among-organism
biological selection and within-organism cognitive/neural/cultural
selection are quite apparent.  But I readily admit that much can be learned
by focusing on the differences (many of which have been brought up by
Darwin-L participants, for which I am grateful) as well as on the
similarities.  (But might it be that the peripheral differencs are easiest
to discern only after the central similarities are recognized?)

6. Resistance to Darwinian Selectionism

Finally, I find it hard to resist speculating that the resistance met by
UST (in particulary, within-organism BVSR) shares some characteristics with
the resistance met by Darwin's theory.  Darwin's theory was rejected by
many (and still is) because humans were considered too special to be the
consequence of an unplanned series of historical events.  Even Alfred
Russel Wallace fell back to creationism when it came to accounting for

Similarly, it seems that today there is resistance to within-organism,
neural/cognitive/cultural BVSR because we humans are too special, too smart
to require a process of trial-and-error elimination to advance our
knowledge.  Philosophers want justified, certain knowledge, not the
fallible speculations that Popper's evolutionary epistemology provides (I
understand that Popper was very black sheep among mainstream philosophers).
Psychologists want smart cognitive processes that can reliably turn
sensory experience into knowledge with no fumbling, no groping, no blind
trials.  This "no fumbling" approach is seen as a sign of intelligence.  As
Amundson wrote:

" . . . a purposeful and intelligent God _could have_ created the natural
world in seven days.  It took natural selection four billion years. The
moral of the story is this "If you've got intelligence, use it." (p. 429)

But if intelligence is considered to be the ability to figure out what to
do when you don't know what to do (that is, extending oneself beyond one's
current abilities and skills to solve novel problems), then it may be
impossible to avoid cognitive BVSR to obtain new knowledge or skills.  I
suppose God might be able to circumvent BVSR in solving His problems, but
that puts us into the domain of skyhooks and miracles. (And by the way,
genetic algorithms can work quite quickly on today's computers, suggesting
that selectionist mechanisms can happen quite quickly in the vastly more
sophisticated human brain--no need to wait four billion years.)

So where to go from here?  While I am a bit concerned about being
overwhelmed again by reactions to UST, I am always interested in getting
good criticism of my conjectural, speculative, blind thought trials (now
this is one instance where I don't expect my use of "blind" to be
questioned!).  Indeed, my Popperian-inspired UST means that I must welcome
and cherish such criticism.  Hopefully, I will someday be able to reject
UST and replace it with something better (using quite purposeful selection
on my part).  I may not be able to respond to all of the reactions this
note may elicit, but I will read and do my best to learn from them.

In this vein, I am still waiting for an alternate, nonselectionist account
(also nonmiraculous, please) of the emergence of adapted complexity (note
that we may not need selectionism for just plain-old (nonadapted)
complexity anymore if Stuart Kauffman's self-organized "order for free"
proves adequate to that task).


P.S.  I am starting to pull information together for my another book,
tentatively entitled _The Adaptive Mind: The Darwinian Revolution in
Cognitive Science_, in which I intend to provide empirical research
findings in neurophysiology, psychology and anthropology which help us to
understand the human mind as BVSR machine.  It would be much appreciated if
anyone having relevant references not already on the Selection Theory
Bibliography (http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/facstaff/g-cziko/stb/) would send them
to me.


Amundson, Ronald. (1989). The Trials and Tribulations of Selectionist
Explanations. In _Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology_ K. Hahlweg & C.A.
Hooker, eds. SUNY Press. BD161 .I86 1989

Munz, Peter. (1993). _Philosophical Darwinism: On the origin of knowledge
by means of natural selection_. London: Routledge.

Plotkin, Henry. (1994). _Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge_.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


<27:17>From HAAVN@Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Wed Nov  8 17:46:58 1995

From: "Bruce Janz" <JANZB@Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA>
Organization:  Augustana University College
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:07:02 MDT
Subject: CIRLA Conference Update

Update for "Liberal Arts and the Future of University Education"

I am pleased to announce our first keynote speaker. His name is Dr.
Peter Emberley, director of Centre for Liberal Education and Public
Affairs at Carleton University, and Professor in the department of
Political Science at Carleton. He is the author of several books,
including *Bankrupt education: The decline of liberal education in
Canada* (co-authored with W. R. Newell), *Values education and
technology: The ideology of dispossession*, and the forthcoming
Penguin release *Zero tolerance: Hot-button politics in Canada's
universities*. He is also an expert on George Grant, having edited
*By loving our own: George Grant and the legacy of Lament for a
nation* and co-editing volumes 1-4 of the collected works of Grant.

His concern for the state of the liberal arts has also led him to
spearhead a new degree program and college, based at Carleton
University, called the College of the Humanities. The struggles and
issues that occur in such a project gives Dr. Emberley more than a
theoretical appreciation of the issues at stake.

Besides his scholarly activity, he brings to the conference an
established public presence. He has been on CBC's Morningside,
Cross Country Check-up, Wild Rose Country, and other forums
discussing the state of education in Canada. He has been keynote
speaker at several conferences in the United States. And, he will
be on a speaking tour in 1996 to promote his upcoming book and
highlight the issues of our conference as well. We believe he is a
very good addition to our program.

We are working on other keynote addresses, and of course, are
accepting paper and session proposals as well. Don't leave your
proposal to the last minute.

Bruce Janz

|Bruce B. Janz                                                       |
|Assistant Professor of Philosophy                                   |
|Director, CIRLA (Centre for Interdisciplinary                       |
|   Research in the Liberal Arts)                                    |
|Augustana University College                           (403)679-1524|
|4901-46 Avenue                                        1-800-661-8714|
|Camrose, Alberta                                  Fax: (403)679-1129|
|CANADA T4V 2R3                 e-mail: JANZB@CORELLI.AUGUSTANA.AB.CA|


<27:18>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Nov  9 00:46:56 1995

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 01:46:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 9 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro


1623: WILLIAM CAMDEN dies.  Camden studied at St. Paul's School and at Oxford
University, where his interest in antiquities began to develop and where he
later endowed the first professorship in history at an English university.
Following the example of an earlier generation of continental European
antiquarians, Camden spent much of his life travelling widely in the British
Isles collecting and describing Roman remains, transcribing inscriptions, and
searching through ecclesiastical and public archives.  The product of his
labors, _Britannia_ (London, 1586), was the first comprehensive historical and
topographical survey of British antiquities, and it established a new standard
of scholarship for an entire generation of British historians.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu or connect
to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information.


<27:19>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue Nov 14 12:54:17 1995

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:52:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 14 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro


1797: CHARLES LYELL is born at Kinnordy, Forfarshire, Scotland.  After making
preparations for a career in law, Lyell's interests will turn increasingly
toward geology, and his _Principles of Geology_ (1830-1833) will become one
of the foundational works on the historical sciences published during the
nineteenth century: "When we study history, we obtain a more profound insight
into human nature, by instituting a comparison between the present and former
states of society.  We trace the long series of events which have gradually
led to the actual posture of affairs; and by connecting effects with their
causes, we are enabled to classify and retain in the memory a multitude of
complicated relations -- the various peculiarities of national character --
the different degrees of moral and intellectual refinement, and numerous other
circumstances, which, without historical associations, would be uninteresting
or imperfectly understood.  As the present condition of nations is the result
of many antecedent changes, some extremely remote and others recent, some
gradual, others sudden and violent, so the state of the natural world is the
result of a long succession of events, and if we would enlarge our experience
of the present economy of nature, we must investigate the effects of her
operations in former epochs."  (_Principles of Geology_, vol. 1, 1830.)

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu or connect
to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information.


<27:20>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu Thu Nov 16 18:18:10 1995

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 19:16:27 -0500
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (Darwin List)
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy C. Ahouse)
Subject: Maynard-Smith reviews Dennett

Hi Darwin-L,

        A couple of months ago Bob O'hara suggested an article describing a
debate around Helena Cronin's book (Griffiths, 1995).  That article lead to
a smallish discussion on this list about Dennett's livid defense of Cronin.
Gould had reviewed part of her book negatively (Gould, 1992).  Dennett and
John Maynard-Smith came back hard (Dennett, 1993; Maynard-Smith, 1993).
Now that Dennett's book (Dennett, 1995) is out, we might get another round
in the New York review.  This time it starts with a (predictable) kiss job
by Maynard-Smith (Maynard-Smith, 1995).

        It will be interesting to see if SJ Gould can keep himself out of
the nastiness that passes for academic criticism when it comes from Dennett
and now Maynard-Smith;

        "Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side
of the Atlantic.  Because of the excellence of his essay, he has come to be
seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist.  In
contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work
tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth
bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he
is at least on our side against the creationists.  All this would not
matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false
picture of the state of evolutionary theory." (Maynard-Smith, 1995)


        I have previously mentioned to this list (and found some resonance
here) that I find Dennett's approach (building a straw opposition and then
savaging it) disappointing (at a minimum).  I found his effort ponderous
and so incomplete (if not incorrect) as to be useless for students or
colleagues - and not even usable as that kind of book you give to in-laws
to help them understand what it is that you are willing to work late into
the night to understand.

        There have been a few other reviews of Dennett that I have looked
at (Gottlieb, 1995; Masters, 1995; Papineau, 1995; Rorty, 1995) and some
that I haven't yet tracked down (Holt, 1995; Lewin, 1995).  So far I only
liked Master's piece and it was too short.  Most of the rest seem to
regurgitate the story as Dennett frames it... too bad really.  Maybe
Griffiths will weigh in.

        I don't mean to start another go 'round - we have our own strident
defender of vapid selectionism on this list ... so Cziko you can write to
me directly ;-)  I just wanted to give the interested among you the
heads-up on the Maynard-Smith piece.

        - Jeremy

p.s. Saddest to me is that this kind of self righteous
simple-answers-evolutionary-theory might be stemmed if some of these folks
took a good course in ecology or developmental genetics.

Dennett, D. (1993). Confusion over evolution: an exchange. In "New York
Review of Books", 14 January. pp. 43-44.

Dennett, D. C. (1995). "Darwin's dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings
of life." Simon & Schuster, New York.

Gottlieb, A. (1995). We are all cousins: Darwin's Dangerous Idea. In "The
Spectator", Vol. 275, 23 September. pp. 34-36.

Gould, S. J. (1992). The confusion over evolution. In "New York Review of
Books", 14 January. pp. 47-54.

Griffiths, P. E. (1995). The Cronin Controversy. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 46,

Holt, J. (1995). Bookshelf: Wholly DNA: Defending natural selection. In
"The Wall Street Journal", 4 August. pp. 6 (sec. A).

Lewin, R. (1995). Disrobing the Naked Ape. In "Los Angeles Times", 14 May.
pp. 3 (sec BR).

Masters, J. (1995). The Rules of the Game. In "Book World", 16 July. pp. 8.

Maynard-Smith, J. (1993). Confusion over evolution: an exchange. In "New
York Review of Books", 14 January. pp. 43.

Maynard-Smith, J. (1995). Genes, Memes, & Minds. In "New York Review of
Books", 30 November. pp. 46-48.

Papineau, D. (1995). Natural Selections. In "The New York Times Book
Review", 14 May. pp. 13 (sec 7).

Rorty, R. (1995). Cranes and Skyhooks. In "Lingua Franca", pp. 62-65.

        Jeremy C. Ahouse
        Biology Department
        Brandeis University
        Waltham, MA 02254-9110
ph:     (617) 736-4954
fax:    (617) 736-2405
email:  ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu

        "I am a carnivorous fish swimming in two waters, the cold water of
art and the hot water of science." -Salvador Dali


<27:21>From mayerg@cs.uwp.edu Sat Nov 18 12:42:46 1995

Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 12:42:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Maynard-Smith reviews Dennett
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

	I feel a bit sheepish putting in a few good words for John
Maynard Smith, for he scarcely needs my approbation, but some members of
the list, especially non-biologists, may be unfamiliar with him and his
work, and they might be misled by Jeremy Ahouse's comments.

	Jeremy's comment mentions others besides Maynard Smith (i.e.
Dennett and Cziko), and I am not certain if all of his characterizations
are directed specifically at Maynard Smith as opposed to these others, but
they include terms such as "predictable", "nast[y]", "harsh", "strident",
"vapid", "self righteous", and needing "a good course in ecology or
developmental genetics."  This is not the sort of characterization that I
would make of Maynard Smith.

	Taking the last item first, far from needing to take such courses,
Maynard Smith could _offer_ such courses, which, I daresay would be
salutary for all of us to take.  Although primarily an evolutionary
biologist, Maynard Smith is well known for his ecological work, and is the
author of _Models in Ecology_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974).  As an
evolutionist, his greatest interests have been in adaptation, and thus the
organism-environment relation (i.e. ecology) has always been at or near
the surface of his work.  His earliest work, on the locomotor and feeding
adaptations of vertebrates, is explicitly about how it is that organisms
function in their environments.  As regards developmental genetics, this
is in fact the field in which Maynard Smith has done his most important
laboratory work, especially notable being his work on bristles in
_Drosophila_ with K. Sondhi.  Although it has been some years since this
has been the primary focus of his work, he has continued to write on the
subject, contributing, for example, to a volume on _Development and
Evolution_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983) edited by the noted non-Darwinian
developmental biologist Brian Goodwin.

	As regards the tone of his arguments, I think that familiarity
with the body of his writings would show that to characterize it as
strident or self-righteous is incorrect.  Far from it, his tone has
almost always been fair, critical, and amicable, although forthright in
the presentation of his own views.  Maynard Smith has disagreed on
various issues with various other biologists over the years (including
Gould), and engaged in published debates, but on the whole
these have been conducted in such a manner that the criticsm is, (as W.D.
Matthew, the paleontologist, put it concerning his debates on
zoogeography with T. Barbour) "peculiarly welcome, not merely because
of its couteous and considerate tone, but because of the author's wide
field experience and knowledge". In his writings and at meetings,
Maynard Smith has been in fact a conciliator, trying to find points of
agreement and value in opposing opinions.  He co-authored with several
developmentalists a paper on the nature of developmental constraints in
the _Quart. Rev. Biol._ in an explicit attempt to find common ground.

	As far as his particular relation with Gould is concerned, I would
first point out that the two have longstanding differences of opinion on
several issues, such as species selection, the locus of selection,
adaptation, etc.  Nonetheless, there is not a hint of animosity by either
party in many published comments; far from it, Maynard Smith once wrote,
in a review of a collection of Gould's essays that "Often he infuriates
me, but I hope he will go right on writing essays like these," and this is
typical.  Maynard Smith has been among those more population-genetically
oriented evolutionary biologists who have welcomed the incorporation of
paleontological and developmental viewpoints, including Gould's (see,
e.g., _Nature_ 309:401-402, 1984).  It is of course possible that their
views of one another have changed, and there is some hint of it in recent
exchanges:  Maynard Smith found Gould's review of Cronin "curiously
ill-tempered"  (and, indeed, if Gould's review were ill-tempered [I have
not seen it], it would be unusual for Gould), and Gould thought Maynard
Smith was acting as a "good cop" in his reply, but a policeman
nonetheless.  And Maynard Smith's latest in the _NY Review of Books_ might
be read as further evidence of a change, but the harshest statement (about
being "confused") is a report of a consensus of others' views; that
Gould's views are mistaken (and thus misleading to non-biologists) is
something Maynard Smith has said all along.

	I don't think Maynard Smith is best characterized as predictable
either.  In fact, I was quite surprized at the most theoretically
important claim in his review of Dennett (about the difficulty of
distiguishing designed vs. evolved adaptations).  I happen to think he
errs on this point (and thus would probably agree with Gould), but it does
point out that his views are not recited from some platform.  It is worth
mentioning in this context that, despite Maynard Smith's support of a
gene-centered view of evolution and his interest in animal behavior and
sociobiology, it was his review, with N. Warren (_Evolution_ 36:620-627,
1982), of Lumsden and Wilson's _Genes, Mind, and Culture_ that most
decisively critiqued the strong program of human sociobiology, and it was
all the more damning because it was written with such evident sympathy and

	Maynard Smith is one of the most important and influential
evolutionary biologists of our time, arguably the most significant figure
in British evolutionary biology since Fisher and Haldane.  Although one
may disagree with him, one ignores his views at one's own peril.
Evolutionary biologists on the list will be well familiar with his several
books and many papers; others might wish to look at a collection of his
more popular essays and book reviews entitled in the USA _Did Darwin Get
It Right_ (Chapman and Hall, NY, 1989), but with another title (something
with the word "sex" in it, I think) in the UK.

	Having said perhaps more than a few words on Maynard Smith's
behalf, I would like to say that, except as historical researches, I hope
that such analyses of a disputant's character and credentials would be
unnecessary, and not something we will regularly engage in.

Gregory C. Mayer


<27:22>From ronald@hawaii.edu Sat Nov 18 19:47:43 1995

Date: 	Sat, 18 Nov 1995 15:47:10 -1000
From: Ron Amundson <ronald@hawaii.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Maynard-Smith reviews Dennett


I generally appreciate and agree with Gregory's defense of J. Maynard
Smith.  I know from discussion that Gould took M.Smith's criticism of his
(G's) review of Cronin in good spirits, though he considered Dennett's to
be out of line.  Gould generally considers M. Smith to be a thoughtful and
resonsible critic.  As does Richard Lewontin, in fact.   As Gregory
notes, M. Smith has in the past described Gould as not representing
mainstream biology; that fact alone would in part justify Jeremy's
comments about how that part of his review is "as would be expected."

I haven't seen the review Jeremy cites and I was surprised at his
description of M. Smith.  On the other hand, Jeremy's 'personalizing' the
discussion is hard to avoid in some of these contexts; a lot of Dennett's
book attributes to non-Dawkinsians some manner of mystical yearnings for
vitalism or something.  Ad hominem begets ad hominem.

I also do appreciate Jeremy's bibliography of reviews of Dennett; the
book is too new for the review catalogs to list them.


Ron Amundson
University of Hawaii at Hilo


<27:23>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu Mon Nov 20 08:43:10 1995

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:44:01 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy C. Ahouse)
Subject: Re: Maynard-Smith reviews Dennett

Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu> writes:

>        I feel a bit sheepish putting in a few good words for John
>Maynard Smith, for he scarcely needs my approbation, but some members of
>the list, especially non-biologists, may be unfamiliar with him and his
>work, and they might be misled by Jeremy Ahouse's comments.

        Jeremy Ahouse responds:

        Gregory Mayer should not feel sheepish about this at all.  J M-S
has done interesting things esp in ecology and bringing game theory into
the loop.  Given his long background in this area - I am a bit surprised to
see him embrace the arguments that Dennett provides - except maybe as "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend."  (This is why I offered references to the
Dennett & M-S reaction to Gould in the earlier Cronin episode.)

        I do think that his use of a review in NYR to suggest that Gould's
science is not up to snuff - even as he does so by hiding behind reporting
what others think - was "harsh".  I offered the whole quote - because I
assumed that you (all) would be struck by the same thing.

        My frustration with part of this debate (and my characterizing the
Cziko/Dennett position (not necessarily J M-S's) as vapid selectionism)
comes from sense that they are not engaging the _good stuff_ (developmental
genetics) and willfully misreading other people's positions (savaging
strawmen).  I am shoulder to shoulder with Dennett (and I think Cziko) in
thinking that using (very) local explanations to understand global
phenomena is a wonderful step in the history of our relationship to
describing the world around us - Dennett refers to the psychological impact
of this as a "universal acid."  Additionally, I agree that appeals to magic
are long out of fashion (one of my favorite Sydney Harris cartoons shows a
physicist in front of the board deriving some result... the equations move
from the upper left to the lower right and are interrupted in the middle
with the words "and a miracle occurs"... the person looking on offers "this
step may need some clarification").  It is Dennett and Cziko's claim that
their colleague are being led by the nose by desires for miracles that made
me  suspicious that this rhetorical flourish - was leading to some deep
caricature of their fellow (circa 1995) researchers.

        I have been asked by Dan Dennett to stop badmouthing him and show
in detail how his characterization of Gould's arguments are unfair,
mistaken, or even misleading*.  At this point, this seems very
appropriate... though on a Monday morning looking out at Thanksgiving week
ahead of me, I don't know if I will be able to offer this for you all to
chew on before you are chewing on your stuffing and cranberry dressing.  I
hadn't done so explicitly, thus far, because I didn't know if there would
be an interest in it, I had spent a good deal of time trying to pry Cziko
from his pan-selectionist stance with examples (note that he insists that
his stance is not this), and then there is the old research that has to be
done and the fellowships to be written.  Plus, I (not so) secretly hoped
someone else would do it.

        While I prepare a short review of this subject I would ask you to
read the Cronin exchange and see how the words strike you.  I will confess
that until I came upon them I had a generally warm feeling toward Dennett
having seen him speak here in the Boston area and enjoying his book
"Consciousness Explained" - it was in reading that review that it occurred
to me that something was up.  I recall asking (not telling) this list, why
would he write so angrily?  (For those of you less interested in the soap
opear aspects of this lovers tiff** read Cronin herself)

        In any case, let me reemphasize that my words of disdain were for
M-S only in that he chose an inapropriate forum for a broadside (you are
encouraged to judge his words yourself - as I know you would anyway).  And
I will quickly and enthusiastically admit that my encouraging the others to
take a good ecology or developmental genetics course was presumptuous and
unfair - they may well have done this already - they just don't write as if
they are sensitive to the diversity or the recent progress in these fields.

        Happy Thanksgiving,

        - Jeremy

*>Every now and then somebody forwards me a diatribe by you about me, and I
>must not be getting the good ones, since so far, all they contain is
>condemnation without details. "ponderous" "incomplete" etc. plus your
>claim that it is I who was creating and savaging straw men. Well, why
>don't you give me some details. My analysis of Gould's confusions over
>the years was sent to Gould more than a year before publication, with an
>invitation to respond, to clarify, to show me where I was misinterpreting
>him or being unfair. He did, eventually, respond and we spent several
>hours going over the draft of my chapters. I made every change he could
>support with text and/or argument. He has not responded since then. I am
>completely confident that I have been more than fair to Gould, and I have
>been receiving words of support from biologists (of every persuasion)
>From all over the world. Gould has chosen not to comment. Maybe one of his
>supporters, such as you, would like to try to show, in some detailed way,
>where my analysis is unfair, mistaken, or even misleading. Or you may go
>on badmouthing me, I don't care, since I won't take you seriously if you
>don't make an attempt to give me details. You may share this message with
>others, if you wish.
>Dan Dennett

**I must assume that all of the participants in this "debate" do really
care about a) getting it right, b) not trivializing things that are
complicated, and c) are galvanized by and enthusiastic about Darwinian
explanations and evolution in particular.

Jeremy Creighton Ahouse
Biology Dept.
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02254-9110

        (617)736-4954 Lab
             736-2405 FAX


<27:24>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu Mon Nov 20 12:44:36 1995

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:44:34 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy C. Ahouse)
Subject: thanks


        Thanks for the defense.  I overstepped in putting M-S in with
Dennett and Cziko, he actually works on these problems and has an earned
opinion.  I was just taken aback by his comment (or reportage about his
friends feelings) about Gould.

        I guess this will get me to write a short screed (let's hope it
isn't received as one) about Gould as mystic, a diluted definition of
algorithms, ... (any suggestions as to good morsels to hold up to the
light).  Darn, but I didn't want to have to study D's Dang Idea - but I
guess I brought this upon myself.

        The problem as I see (part of) it is that this is seen as a
struggle for the hearts and minds of the interested lay audience.  This is
captured in M-S's review "All this would not matter, were it not that he is
giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary

        This also is what drives Dennett... his colleagues don't get
evolution and they tell him that Gould is on their side.  So any response
will have to be at a meta-level.

        But I am in it - I don't know if I can take enough steps back...
these are actual issues for me in understanding developmental regulation
and evolution's part in that.

        have a great week.  As a vegetarian, Thanksgiving is always an
opportunity to cook something weird and wonderful - are Turkey dinners a
big deal in Hawaii?  We definitely are having spiced cider and fireplace
weather- brrrrr.




<27:25>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA Tue Nov 21 09:26:43 1995

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Ken JACOBS)
Subject: Re: Maynard-Smith sniping at SJG
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:24:59 -0500 (EST)

Some of the comments in this thread seem to be surprised at
Maynard-Smith's suggestion that SJG's ideas are less than
unanimously received with praise by colleagues, all the while
that his popular status soars.  I offer up only one source to
suggest that this has been a long-standing issue:

Davis, B.D. 1983  Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press.  Public Interest
73:41-60  [followed by Gould reply Pub.Int. 75:148-151, and reply PubInt

Ken Jacobs	anthropologie	U de M 	jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca


<27:26>From RMBURIAN@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Tue Nov 21 09:30:51 1995

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 10:01:59 EST
From: "Richard M. Burian" <RMBURIAN@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: Gregory Mayer's Characterization of Maynard Smith
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Dear Darwin-L members,
   As one of the co-oranizers of the meeting that resulted in the
the Quarterly Review of Biology article ("Developmental Constraints and
Evolution..." QRB 60 (1985):265-287) to which Gregory Mayer refers in
discussing John Maynard Smith's character and the
character of his contributions to the various debates in which he has
been engaged, I feel I must second and support what Mayer says.  This
conference involved eleven people, chosen for the divergence of their
viewpoints, but also for their willingness to listen seriously to others
and take their arguments into account.  Afte 3 1/2 days, it appeared
very likely that we would not reach any sort of consensus, although we
would have clarified the grounds of disagreement among us.  And then
John stepped forward and said, in effect, "If I may go to the board, I
think I can outline the things we have accomplished."  In the process,
he laid out what became the outline of the piece that nine of us wrote
together.  He also signified clearly where he disagreed and why with
various positions.  There can be no question that he was searching
for common ground, playing the role of tough-minded conciliator _and_
advocate, but insisting that the alternatives that his colleagues
were ready to defend as viable against his arguments remain in the paper.
   There was absolutely no question as to who should be first author and
why -- the form and organization of the paper (which would not have come
about without his intervention) are his even though it stakes out a num-
ber of positions that he did not then share (or fully share).  And in the
course of our work he was absolutely clear about the respect he held for
those with whom he disagreed (including, among others, Gould, whom I
mention only because he has been part of the discussion on this list) and
the need to properly represent their positions in order that the debate
cover open issues and provide them with full and fair treatment.
   While I have not yet read the exchanges that have occasioned the
heat (and some light) on our list by Gould, Dennett, Cronin, Maynard
Smith et al., I cannot imagine that Jeremy Ahouse's characterization
of Maynard Smith's occasional acerbic comments are correct in their
ascription of motive and personal animus.
   Perhaps I should add, for the record that the order of authors in
the QRB piece put Maynard Smith as first author by unanimous consent,
the two organizers in alphabetical order, and the six others who stayed
the course at the meeting and all subscribed to the contents of the
paper in alphabetical order.
   Please read this as a plea to keep our debates on issues and not
personalities.  We have enough to argue about on substance without
adding animus which (nearly always) detracts from the substance of
the arguments.
Dick Burian

Richard Burian       voice:  540 231-6760     rmburian@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Science Studies      fax:    540 231-7013               or
Virginia Tech                                  rmburian@vtvm1.bitnet
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247                              or
USA                                               rmburian@vt.edu


<27:27>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Nov 23 00:33:43 1995

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 01:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 23 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro


1553/1616: PROSPERO ALPINI, botanist and physician, is born at Marostica,
Italy; he will die on this day at Padua in 1616.  One of the first European
physicians to study plants in a non-medicinal context, Alpini will travel to
Egypt and Crete, and will publish the first description of the Egyptian flora,
_De Plantis Aegypti_ (1592).  In 1603 Alpini will assume the directorship of
the botanical garden at the University of Padua; his son, Alpino, will succeed
him in this position after Alpini's death.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu or connect
to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information.


<27:28>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sat Nov 25 00:26:45 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 01:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 25 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro


1690: EDWARD LHWYD, pioneering antiquarian and student of dialect history,
writes from Oxford to his friend and colleague JOHN RAY at Black Notley:

  Considering your local words since I read your letter, I find some amongst
  the north-country words to bear affinity with the Welsh, both in sound and
  signification, which possibly may be some remains of the British tongue
  continued still in the mountainous parts of the north.  Of these, if you
  please, I shall hereafter send you a catalogue; but in the mean time I
  must confess, that although they may agree in sound and sense, it will be
  difficult to distinguish whether they have been formerly borrowed from the
  Britons, or whether they are only an argument that the ancient British
  language had much affinity with those of Germany, Denmark, &c.  I omit the
  supposition of the Welsh borrowing them from the English, in regard I find
  them not (at least but very few of them) used by the borderers of both
  nations; and the Britons might leave them in Westmoreland, Cumberland, &c.,
  having heretofore lived there; but the English of those parts could
  communicate nothing of their language to the Welsh, in regard they have
  never lived in Wales nor have bordered on them. Moreover, some of these
  words are in the 'Armorican Lexicon,' and the Britons that went to Armorica
  left this country before the Saxons came in.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu or connect
to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information.


<27:29>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon Nov 27 22:40:30 1995

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 23:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Chronicon -- An Online Journal of History (fwd)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

--begin forwarded message--------------

I would like to remind you all that the homepage of Chronicon is at
http://www.ucc.ie/chronicon.  Chronicon is a new, online, peer reviewed
journal of history.  We hope to publish the first issue in the spring of
1996. You are all welcome to view our homepage, to which submission
guidelines will shortly be added.  Anyone wishing to submit articles for
conisderation is most welcome to email the editors at chronicon@ucc.ie

Apologies for any duplicate copies of this mail you receive

Mike Cosgrave
Joint Editor, Chronicon

--end forwarded message----------------


<27:30>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Wed Nov 29 12:53:19 1995

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 29 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro


1627: JOHN RAY is born at Black Notley, Essex, England.  He will attend
Trinity College, Cambridge, and will become one of the leading naturalists
and antiquarians of his generation.  Ray's earliest works will be in botany,
and his catalog Cambridge plants, _Catalogus Plantarum Circa Cantabrigiam
Nascentium_ (1660), will set a standard for local floras.  He will be best
remembered for his influential volume on natural theology, _The Wisdom of God
Manifested in the Works of Creation_ (1691), but Ray will span the entire
range of historical inquiry from the creation of the world in _Miscellaneous
Discourses Concerning the Dissolution and Changes of the World Wherein the
Primitive Chaos and Creation, the General Deluge, Fountains, Formed Stones,
Sea-Shells Found in the Earth, Subterraneous Trees, Mountains, Earthquakes,
Vulcanoes, the Universal Conflagration and Further State, are Largely
Discussed and Examined_ (1692), to the history and geography of the English
language in _A Collection of English Words Not Generally Used, With Their
Significations and Original, in Two Alphabetical Catalogues, the One of Such
as are Proper to the Northern, the Other to the Southern Counties_ (second
edition, 1691).

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu or connect
to the Darwin-L Web Server (http://rjohara.uncg.edu) for more information.

Darwin-L Message Log 27: 1-30 -- November 1995                              End

© RJO 1995–2016