Cognitive Poetics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Spolsky
Keyword(s):  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Human Potential ◽  
Cognitive Poetics ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Brain Science ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Central Hypothesis ◽  
Cognitive Literary Theory ◽  
Cognitive Literary Studies

Northrup Frye expressed a scholarly impatience with what seemed to him the inconsequentiality of literary study, asking if criticism might provide “a coordinating principle, a central hypothesis, which, like the theory of evolution in biology, will see the phenomena it deals with as parts of a whole" (1957). Cognitive literary theory did not actually answer to Frye’s scientism until almost fifty years later, and when it did, it moved quickly in many directions. But it did not (and still has not) coalesced into a unified theory. The vigor and excitement of the field derive from its openness to many different areas of brain science, the wide reach of its attention to so many varieties of works of imagination—their production, their reception, and their history— and its resistance to a centralizing dogma. In her introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies, Lisa Zunshine, scholar in the field and its best historian, describes cognitive literary critics as working “not toward consilience with science but toward a richer engagement with a variety of theoretical paradigms in literary and cultural studies" (2015). Scholars from most traditional humanities fields: philosophers (both analytical and phenomenological and philosophers of mind and of language), cultural, literary, and art historians, literary critics and linguists, for example, and social scientists as well (anthropologists, archaeologists, and ethologists), have found the various fields of brain science to offer new perspectives on some persistent questions. Studies by developmental psychologists have made major contributions. And as brain imaging has become more powerful and widely used, the hypotheses of neurophysiologists and neurobiologists have come into the picture. Evolutionary biology has made perhaps the largest contribution by providing the overriding argument in the field—namely that human potential, individual behavior, and group dynamics can be studied as emerging phenomena. This begins with bodies that have over the millennia grown into worlds in which competition and cooperation have built and continue to build cultural life.

Challenging the Modern Synthesis

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Original Essays ◽  
New Biology ◽  
Conceptual Foundations ◽  
Orthodox View

Since its origin in the early 20th century, the modern synthesis theory of evolution has grown to represent the orthodox view on the process of organic evolution. It is a powerful and successful theory. Its defining features include the prominence it accords to genes in the explanation of development and inheritance, and the role of natural selection as the cause of adaptation. Since the advent of the 21st century, however, the modern synthesis has been subject to repeated and sustained challenges. In the last two decades, evolutionary biology has witnessed unprecedented growth in the understanding of those processes that underwrite the development of organisms and the inheritance of characters. The empirical advances usher in challenges to the conceptual foundations of evolutionary theory. Many current commentators charge that the new biology of the 21st century calls for a revision, extension, or wholesale rejection of the modern synthesis theory of evolution. Defenders of the modern synthesis maintain that the theory can accommodate the exciting new advances in biology, without forfeiting its central precepts. The original essays collected in this volume—by evolutionary biologists, philosophers of science, and historians of biology—survey and assess the various challenges to the modern synthesis arising from the new biology of the 21st century. Taken together, the essays cover a spectrum of views, from those that contend that the modern synthesis can rise to the challenges of the new biology, with little or no revision required, to those that call for the abandonment of the modern synthesis.

scholarly journals A Field Guide for Teaching Evolution in the Social Sciences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristine Legare ◽  
John Opfer ◽  
Justin Busch ◽  
Andrew Shtulman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Teaching Evolution ◽  
Field Guide ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Social ◽  
Evolution Understanding

The theory of evolution by natural selection has begun to revolutionize our understanding of perception, cognition, language, social behavior, and cultural practices. Despite the centrality of evolutionary theory to the social sciences, many students, teachers, and even scientists struggle to understand how natural selection works. Our goal is to provide a field guide for social scientists on teaching evolution, based on research in cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and education. We synthesize what is known about the psychological obstacles to understanding evolution, methods for assessing evolution understanding, and pedagogical strategies for improving evolution understanding. We review what is known about teaching evolution about nonhuman species and then explore implications of these findings for the teaching of evolution about humans. By leveraging our knowledge of how to teach evolution in general, we hope to motivate and equip social scientists to begin teaching evolution in the context of their own field.

Historical Origins

2021 ◽  
pp. 11-45
Author(s):  
J. Arvid Ågren
Keyword(s):  
Population Genetics ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Living World ◽  
Selfish Gene ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Third ◽  
Historical Origins ◽  
The Way

This chapter traces the origins of the gene’s-eye view through three sections of evolutionary biology. The first is adaptationism, the tradition that takes the appearance of design in living world to be the cardinal problem a theory of evolution needs to explain. The chapter shows how this view has been especially prominent in British biology, owing the strong standing of natural theology and the writings of William Paley. The second is the emergence of population genetics during the modern synthesis. Here, the work of R.A. Fisher was particularly important. The third and final section was the levels selection debate and the rejection of group selection. G.C. Williams led the way the way and the origin of the gene’s-eye view culminated with the publication of The Selfish Gene.

The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development

2020 ◽  
pp. 3-42
Author(s):  
Robert Vitalis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
American Science ◽  
The Way

We now know that the ‘birth of the discipline’ of international relations in the United States is a story about empire. The foundations of early international relations theory are set in not just international law and historical sociology but evolutionary biology and racial anthropology. The problem is the way in which scholars today deal with the place of race in the thought of John Hobson, Paul Reinsch, and virtually all other social scientists of the era. The strand of thought that still resonates in our own time about empire, states, and the like is raised up and depicted as the scientific or theoretical core in the scholars’ work, while the strand that involves now archaic racial constructs is downgraded and treated instead as mere ‘language’, ‘metaphors’, and ‘prejudices’ of the era. To undo this error and recover in full the ideas of early international relations theorists it is necessary to bring the work of historians of conservative and reform Darwinism to bear on the first specialists and foundational texts in international relations.

Russian Darwinism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Vucinich
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Scientific Philosophy ◽  
Scientific Materialism ◽  
Inheritance Of Acquired Characteristics

The Russian scientific community welcomed Darwin’s evolutionary theory and made it a basis of research in a wide range of biological sciences. Russian evolutionary studies in embryology, paleontology, microbiology and pathology attracted international attention. The vast scope of Darwin’s popularity in Russia was dramatically manifested in 1909, on the occasion of the national celebration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of the great English scientist and the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. All universities, naturalist societies, and many newspapers and popular journals took part in the celebration, which produced a hundred praiseful publications on Darwinian themes. University philosophers, steeped in metaphysical idealism and spiritualism, linked Darwinism to what they called ‘modern scientific materialism’ and rejected it wholly. They were strongly predisposed to welcome modern revivals of metaphysical vitalism. Freelance philosophers, usually associated with heterodox ideological movements and influenced by Auguste Comte’s positivism or various modern neopositivist and Neo-Kantian currents, credited Darwinism with making science a major topic of modern philosophy. A new discipline, known as ‘scientific philosophy’, rapidly developing in the West, made its first appearance in Russia. In the Soviet Union, Darwin’s evolutionary theory followed a course of cataclysmic ruptures. During the 1920s, Soviet scientists made significant contributions to the study of the role of the genetic environment in biological evolution and helped set the stage for an evolutionary synthesis of Darwinism and genetics. The Stalinist era (1929–53) marked a drastic departure from the prevalent currents in evolutionary biology. It was dominated by the rise of Lysenkoism, a pseudo-science identified as ‘creative Darwinism’, and was guided by a diluted version of the Lamarckian idea of evolution as a product of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lysenkoism rejected the Darwinian conception of natural selection, downgraded the role of physico-chemical analysis in biology, and paid no attention to molecular biology. In 1948 Lysenkoism was officially recognized as the Marxist theory of evolution. Under Lysenko’s influence, genetics was proclaimed a ‘bourgeois science’ and was made illegal. The downfall of Lysenkoism in 1964 brought the re-establishment of genetics, a full-scale return to true Darwinism, and a re-intensified interest in ‘evolutionary synthesis’.

Sociobiology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Human Behaviour ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Darwinian Theory ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Mendelian Genetics ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Mental Testing

Following Darwin, biologists and social scientists have periodically been drawn to the theory of natural selection as the source of explanatory insights about human behaviour and social institutions. The combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian theory, which did so much to substantiate the theory of evolution in the life sciences, however, has made recurrent adoption of a biological approach to the social sciences controversial. Excesses and errors in social Darwinism, eugenics and mental testing have repeatedly exposed evolutionary approaches in the human sciences to criticism. Sociobiology is the version of Darwinism in social and behavioural science that became prominent in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Philosophical problems of sociobiology include challenges to the explanatory relevance of Darwinian theory for human behaviour and social institutions, controversies about whether natural selection operates at levels of organization above or below the individual, questions about the meaning of the nature–nurture distinction, and disputes about Darwinism’s implications for moral philosophy.

scholarly journals Sewall Wright, 21 December 1889 - 3 March 1988

1990 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 567-579 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Population Genetics ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Natural Populations ◽  
Coat Colour ◽  
Balance Theory ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Shifting Balance Theory ◽  
Sewall Wright ◽  
Shifting Balance ◽  
Active Research

Sewall Wright's active life spanned the development of genetics from a new discipline when the principles of inheritance were still being elucidated to the technology of recombinant gene construction and insertion. He was one of the major pioneers of population genetics, which gave a quantitative basis to the studies of evolution, of variation in natural populations and of animal and plant breeding. He contributed most significantly to methods and ideas over a long period, indeed his four volume treatise was written long after he formally ‘retired’ and his last paper (211) was published a few days before his death at the age of 98. In the field of population genetics Wright developed the method of path coefficients, which he used to analyse quantitative genetic variation and relationship, but which has been applied to subjects as diverse as economics, the ideas of inbreeding coefficient and F -statistics which form the basis of analysis of population structure, the theory of variation in gene frequency among populations, and the shifting balance theory of evolution, which remains a topic of active research and controversy. Wright contributed to physiological genetics, notably analysis of the inheritance of coat colour in the guinea pig, and in particular the epistatic relationships among the genes involved. There was a critical interplay between his population and physiological work, in that the analysis of finite populations on the one hand and of epistatic interactions on the other are the bases of Wright’s development of the shifting balance theory. A full and enlightening biography of Sewall Wright which traces his influence on evolutionary biology and his interactions with other important workers was published recently (Provine 1986) and shorter appreciations have appeared since his death, notably by Crow (1988), Wright’s long-time colleague. This biography relies heavily on Provine’s volume, and does no more than summarize Wright’s extensive contributions. Many of his important papers have been reprinted recently (1986).

Biology and Theology: Contemporary Issues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celia Deane-Drummond
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Intelligent Design ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Science And Theology

Contemporary issues in biology and Christian theology are still dominated by the legacy of 19th-century biologist Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Debates in evolutionary biology in relation to religious belief have been reinforced by historical myths that stress conflict over integration. More conservative branches of Christianity, often allied to particular Protestant traditions, argue for a form of popular theology that attempts to compete with science, namely, creationism. More sophisticated versions of this position may appear under the guise of intelligent design, though creationism and intelligent design are not synonymous. The mirror image of this position has developed among biologists who identify themselves as new atheists, adding further fuel to the fire of an existing controversy. Methodologically speaking, the engagement of biology and theology will depend on different philosophical presuppositions according to basic models of (a) conflict, (b) independence, (c) dialogue, and (d) integration. The biological sciences also have broader relevance to allied subject domains including, for example: (a) ecological, agricultural, animal, and environmental sciences; (b) anthropological, social, and political sciences; (c) medical sciences, including genetic science and embryo development; and (d) new technologies that include bioengineering. Theological engagement with the biological component of each of these domains is particularly intense where there are controversial ethical issues at stake that seem to challenge specific Christian beliefs about human nature or divine purpose. A more positive approach to the biological sciences that draws on research in the constructive systematic theological task, while avoiding historically naïve forms of natural theology, is starting to emerge in the literature. Within Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christian traditions, there is a spectrum of possible positions, such that the field of science and theology as a whole tends to be ecumenical in orientation rather than divided along denominational boundaries. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, however, give greater precedence to official statements by their respective churches that then influence public reception of controversial issues in biology and theology in particular ways.

Th. Dobzhansky and the development of evolutionary biology in the USSR

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 346-371
Author(s):  
Mikhail B. Konashev
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Synthetic Theory ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of

Th. Dobzhansky played a special role in the reception and development of the “synthetic theory of evolution,” as well as in the establishment of scientific connections between Soviet and U.S. evolutionists, and first and foremost, geneticists. These connections greatly influenced the development of Soviet genetics, of evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology as a whole, and in particular the restoration of Soviet genetics in the late 1960s. A discussion of Dobzhansky’s correspondence and collaboration with colleagues in his native country, moreover, allows for an improved understanding of the complex and dramatic history of Soviet genetics and evolutionary theory. It also provides novel insights into the interactions between scientists and authorities in the Soviet Union (USSR).

scholarly journals Darwin would have loved DNA: celebrating Darwin 200

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindell Bromham
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Genetics ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
To Come ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection ◽  
Biology Research

Analysis of DNA sequences now plays a key role in evolutionary biology research. If Darwin were to come back today, I think he would be absolutely delighted with molecular evolutionary genetics, for three reasons. First, it solved one of the greatest problems for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Second, it gives us a tool that can be used to investigate many of the questions he found the most fascinating. And third, DNA data confirm Darwin's grand view of evolution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document