Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:33:17 +0100
Hi LS:
A nice example of the esthetic aspect of DQ, expressed in the DQ and SQ
Principle as "Dynamic Quality is more pleasing than static quality,"
appeared in the NY Times book review Jan. 18
The review was about a book called 'Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism."
The reviewer described a battle currently being fought between those
biologists who attribute evolution solely to the workings of genes,
represented by Richard Dawkins, and those who favor biological pluralism,
represented by Stephen Jay Gould.
Here's what caught my eye:
"Theoretical biologists sometimes seem to be divided by esthetic
considerations as much as scientific ones. Where purists like Dawkins
thrill to the cold logic of mathematical rigor, pluralists like Gould get
their pleasures from the tangled bank of biological diversity. I suspect
this is why the debate often seems so intangible. They aren't arguing about
facts, but about which is more fun -- the ingenious equations of population
genetics or the curious contrivances of the flamingo's beak and the panda's
thumb. Given this, it is not surprising that the two sides can't agree. Who
is to say if there is more value in the lucidity of mathematics or in the
variety of nature?"
A couple of points about this passage. First, it's great to see one of our
principles directly confirmed by someone who probably never heard of the
MoQ. Second, it's good to reminded that esthetic considerations have often
been used as indicator of "truth" in the scientific community. Third, it's
dawned on me that some of the Squad's differing views are more about
esthetics than anything else.
Platt
Catch 29: Rational proof cannot be proved rationally. (Thanks Hugo!)
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST