Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

[JimC]

Whats this image about,



it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

It is me who should be laughing that you cant get ur head out this guys ass.. name me one original piece of innovative science or even idea he got right that future generations will revere him for ?

you ought to be kicking his lazy ass, not licking it

Actually, the Dawk meme has an interesting history. Born as a humourous, self-deprecating label for a group of old RDF reprobates, it survived the various purges, and has retained an ironic flavour hard to describe to those unaware of its history. I rather think that Mr P is linking it to the meme of beating one's head against a brick wall...

In any case, you will not find hero worship of Dawkins on this site. Overall, I think he has made a very important contribution to both evolutionary and atheistic thought, but I don't regard him as immune from criticism in either area. However, in rejecting the woo of "Earth as organism", he would be in company with the vast majority of serious practicing biologists. To some (possibly including yourself), an overwhelming majority view is perfect evidence for a conspiracy against some new model of science, one that hardly ever survives in the rigorous Darwinian environment of peer reviewed journals...

[Brain Man]

Whats this image about,



it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

It is me who should be laughing that you cant get ur head out this guys ass.. name me one original piece of innovative science or even idea he got right that future generations will revere him for ?

you ought to be kicking his lazy ass, not licking it

Actually, the Dawk meme has an interesting history. Born as a humourous, self-deprecating label for a group of old RDF reprobates, it survived the various purges, and has retained an ironic flavour hard to describe to those unaware of its history. I rather think that Mr P is linking it to the meme of beating one's head against a brick wall...

In any case, you will not find hero worship of Dawkins on this site. Overall, I think he has made a very important contribution to both evolutionary and atheistic thought, but I don't regard him as immune from criticism in either area. However, in rejecting the woo of "Earth as organism", he would be in company with the vast majority of serious practicing biologists. To some (possibly including yourself), an overwhelming majority view is perfect evidence for a conspiracy against some new model of science, one that hardly ever survives in the rigorous Darwinian environment of peer reviewed journals...

Well im not sure what dawkins has done. I have all of his books. They contradict each other and are far from concise. Good for people not in these fields perhaps and beginners, but i would debate that as well. All the material in these books is better gained from his sources. The God delusion was good as a general guide to religious psychology, i will grant him that, although again just about everything in it I have seen elsewhere.

The question is IF the journal system represents science anymore, and was it really so cut throat previously. Do you know many scientists in the biological fields that are working don't think it does ? Elseviers model is now a profit only one. Bullshit is the term biologists, neuroscientists etc use to refer the journal system at lunch. They want it completely revised. Open access, instant acceptance into repositories for distribution and many more problems solved such as copyright for diagrams done away with. It can take up to six months of battle just to be able to use somebody else images..an image that scientist will give you permission to use almost 100% of the time and in a timely manner. Half the time the journal don't respond to such requests unless they can charge a fee, and they never even paid the original scientist for the image. They actually charged extra for processing it.

The original premise was good, but peer review used to be a very casual coffee table process that allowed people to be creative without jumping through too many hoops. Theres a limit to what most people want to go through with in a given task. i.e. If you had to crank your car up manually, get in, boot up your cars computer, troubleshoot some virus it got, check all the systems manually and then be able to drive, you would end up taking a taxi !! A person only wants to go through this kind of trouble on the area they are interested in..i.e. The problem they are trying to wrestle with. As publication is only a means to share ideas, with some kind of quality control its too much trouble, you basically have to be in a position to employ somebody to deal with it. And you know what that means ?

As soon as you have to employ people to do something you need to have a hierarchical mindset, be a good manager of people, and a skilled group player. That is often the antithesis of the type of person who makes an innovative scientist. Add in the funding system, that means resources and lots of people trying to extract jobs in an overcrowded overcompetitive environment.

Lovelock had the right idea, taking on personal projects and playing about in his back garden. You used to complete your doctorate and that was it, you could play about, have casual meetings with colleagues, brainstorm innovative theories round lunch, and have projects without asnwering to a monthly assesor. Thats when science was not mainstream. Today its almost a corporate style environment, and increasingly more so. So the people that populate science are more ready to go at each other, skilled at cutting each other apart just for the sake of it. Nobody has time for new concepts for the fascination of concepts themselves. They only have time for anything which has interest to themselves.

Thats just the way it is..Still no big deal.. and it could be a lot,lot worse. I mean we all grew up knowing what the corporate world was like, so anybody going into science with an ambition to be innovative just needs to keep in mind the reality is not like the history they read. Its going to be more like working for microsoft..

[macdoc]

Or you make enough so that like Craig Venter you just say



His challenge to the Genome bureaucracy was classic and much needed cobweb clearing.
I think NASA is in the throes of what you decry as well.

That's why Burt Rutan is a needed foil.

[Brain Man]

Or you make enough so that like Craig Venter you just say



His challenge to the Genome bureaucracy was classic and much needed cobweb clearing.
I think NASA is in the throes of what you decry as well.

That's why Burt Rutan is a needed foil.

Ventner now has the Sanger institute practically begging him for information..although ive heard a few not to glowing stories about Venter from one of his staff. i.e. He basically lies to them half the time.

typical example. I am supposed to have comprehensive PostDoc access to Elsevier. I logged in to read a one page Lovelock article and got this.

Gaia as seen through the atmosphere
Atmospheric Environment (1967), Volume 6, Issue 8, August 1972, Pages 579-580
J.E. Lovelock

This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier. Click the Continue button below to proceed.

I think they want £20 to read one page. If i dont want to pay it will takes a week or two to get department permission along with a justification for access. Try reading on a serious multidisciplinary subject with this kind of system. The journals have different bureaucracies. Although it does force you to think more to fill in gaps with only abstracts and papers you can access, write to the authors themselves etc..which has its benefits..

The idea itself of just casual browsing through scientific literature has gone up the spout though...

[Mr P]

Whats this image about,



it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

It is me who should be laughing that you cant get ur head out this guys ass.. name me one original piece of innovative science or even idea he got right that future generations will revere him for ?

you ought to be kicking his lazy ass, not licking it

WOW!!! Cheap fucking shot there
I put the Dawk rabbit back up in honour of Jain as she was upset at the loss of our community when RDF went tits up.. if you must know.

As you have no valid couter to Lovelocks own words then you might as well concede the point you're desperately trying to force through. Paranoid fantasies are no substitute for reasoned argument.

Nice try 1/10 must try harder

[Brain Man]

Whats this image about,



it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

It is me who should be laughing that you cant get ur head out this guys ass.. name me one original piece of innovative science or even idea he got right that future generations will revere him for ?

you ought to be kicking his lazy ass, not licking it

WOW!!! Cheap fucking shot there
I put the Dawk rabbit back up in honour of Jain as she was upset at the loss of our community when RDF went tits up.. if you must know.

As you have no valid couter to Lovelocks own words then you might as well concede the point you're desperately trying to force through. Paranoid fantasies are no substitute for reasoned argument.

Nice try 1/10 must try harder

I covered ur conspiracy assertions in the previous page. I citied the orginal lovelocks Gaia articles. Nothing of darwin in there. That was all bolted on afterwards. Basically it went like this.

The systems theorist including Lovelock thought they could come up with whole new paradigms to describe life. There are are a whole group of them. Margulis, maturana, Varela etc. They presented their ideas and...

Nothing..Lovelocks Gaia was a systems theory, totally ignored by the science community. You can see these papers on my reply to you on the previous page. There is no mention of mutation or natural selection in the original theory.

So he writes up his theories again, presenting them more forcefully to attract mainstream scientific attention in an entire book "a new look at life on earth" where the word "mutation" is mentioned just once in 180 pages, and the phrase natural selection just a few times.

Now the big keywords are in there, he starts to turn some heads, i.e. Dawkins and gould, but they barely want to look at what he has to say, as its not fitting with darwinism,and he is publicly ridiculed. i.e He took a wrong stratgy as he and the other systems theorist were starting to define life in new terms, so all Lovelock did was use some keywords to attract attention to a new way of thinking that darwin fixators like dawkins did not like. He should never have conceded anything.

And the story continues in varying cycles of Lovelock then running daisyworld, which tries to push darwinism under systems theory..getting a hard time, then giving in and putting in more darwinism in his later books which is where you came in.. I dont know whats in that later book ive lost interest in Lovelock at this stage, and refer only to the original cybernetics innovators. Lovelock has simply allowed himself to be shoved around too much to be reliable.

In otherwords he gave in and let systems theory be shoehorned into darwinsm. Thats his perogative. Thankfully the other systems theoriest havent given in.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore systems theory, go ahead, be like everybody else that was ever behind the cutting edge in the dumbass or just plain lazy cliques of history with your daft insults that dont even have a relevant appication to the discussion at hand. Its just a laugh to me, ive seen and heard it all before. I dont posess Lovelocks mistake to actually have any kind of belief that more than a tiny fraction of people have the insight or desire to be in on anything major, or to think that they just need persuaded, by stepping into their language, hoping for an even trade. You never try to do that. You have to start again and concede only whats you know to be true. its always been that way. I have everyting you have i.e. Darwinism and all the traditional stuff, biophysics, computational informatics etc. and I have this whole new arsenal of systems theory to take it to another level. That cocktail is turning out to put me way ahead of the field with some pretty serious projects.

If youre not interested, think its crap etc..your loss..nothing i can really do...

[Mr P]

You still can't deny Lovelocks own words, you have to construct a paranoid fantasy based on nothing more than an argument from ignorance (he didn't mention Darwin in the original draught, therefore it falsifies evolution). You taint the character of a respected scientist (with a very interesting hypothesis) simply to promote your own idelogical presupposition. It's you with your head in the sand.

[Brain Man]

You still can't deny Lovelocks own words, you have to construct a paranoid fantasy based on nothing more than an argument from ignorance (he didn't mention Darwin in the original draught, therefore it falsifies evolution). You taint the character of a respected scientist (with a very interesting hypothesis) simply to promote your own idelogical presupposition. It's you with your head in the sand.

what words ? theres no darwinism in Gaia till the pressure started about 15 years later. The increase of the inclusion of darwins terms occurs in proportion to the ridicule and term of time being ignored. Early scientists had to be polite and make diplomatic references to religion to stop themselves getting shafted. Its just the way things are. I am not comparing science to religion, just that it doesnt matter what the information is, when information becomes groupish, you are expected to pay reverence or get a shit time. Its part of human nature.

You obviously know nothing of the history of systems theory. Go do some reading in this area then come back. I dont mind being proven wrong. Ive cited the original articles, given you a brief history to the background of cybernetics. I have some of the key books on the subject as pride of place in my library, but am quite happy to learn more IF you can put me right. There a lot more to it, but im not doing any more work on this subject unless you do.

[Mr P]

My original response still stands, Lovelock even made a comparison between Gaia and the gene-centric view of natural selection (as I quoted earlier). Your attempts to sully the reputation of a highly respected scientist are pathetic.

[Brain Man]

My original response still stands, Lovelock even made a comparison between Gaia and the gene-centric view of natural selection (as I quoted earlier). Your attempts to sully the reputation of a highly respected scientist are pathetic.

Lets stick to facts, rather than vague repetitions of your point.

1972. darwin refs 0. Gaia as seen through the atmosphere

1974. darwin refs 0. Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere- The Gaia hypothesis

WORKS ARE IGNORED. DAWKINS RIDICULES LOVELOCK

"After initially being largely ignored by most scientists, (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period, the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, such as Ford Doolittle, Dawkins and Gould"

1979. darwin refs 8. Gaia: a new look at life on earth

DAWKINS PRESSURISES LOVELOCK ON NATURAL SELECTIONS MECHANISMS.

1983 "Lovelock responded to criticisms by developing the mathematical model Daisyworld with Andrew Watson to demonstrate that feedback mechanisms could evolve from the actions or activities of self-interested organisms, rather than through classic group selection mechanisms.[25]"

2000. darwin refs 15. The ages of Gaia: a biography of our living Earth

Clearly the inclusion of Darwinism is to satisfy this pressure.

Or do you need to hear it from the authors themselves ?

"Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He notes also that his theory suggests experiments in many different fields, but few of them in biology, which most of his critics are trained in."

In the meantimes Margulis (Carl sagans wife) splits from Lovelock and maintains her position to this day, having the strength somehow not to concede.

e,g, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look At Evolution 1998...Lynn Margulis

"Margulis is an innovator - forceful in imparting her ideas. She portrays herself as a rebel from early in her career, arguing here that she was sceptical of "genes in the nucleus determin[ing] all the characteristics of plants and animals." Her misgivings received scant support, however, without a replacement thesis. She found one in symbiosis - the association of multiple organisms. It took many years of investigation, including initial rejection of her attempts to publish, before the idea of SET [Serial Endoymbiosis Theory] found acceptance. So much attention had been focussed the DNA in the cell nucleus that organelle structure and function had been essentially overlooked as irrelevant. That these organelles might have been independent organisms at some point was too novel. Her account of the struggle to gain recognition is related as one of dogged persistence, nearly devoid of outside support .


===========

I like Lovelock but his track record is strong start, weak finish, while Margulis is the reverse.

Could be par for the course. Womens testosterone levels increase with age, while mens decrease. Lovelock was already well into middle age when a youngish Dawkins started getting nasty on him. Lovelocks Testosterone levels start falling, wants social acceptance, puts flowers on the cover of all his books etc..You can see in lovelocks interviews hes not a bull type.

U cant deny it...ok you probably will no matter how well strong I put my case...but can you provide some data to break to hypothesis i present here..or are we just going to get a repeat of your one example that you dont even cite the quote or the year...

Prove me wrong...i dont know what line u are referring to, but i predict its post 1978...

But like i say its your loss. If you want to get past this pointless argument you might be able to climb out to something interesting and fruitful like how systems theories are managing to to a good job of replacing the limits of darwinism..

Thats if you can handle it that is...but it doesnt look like you are ready..

When you are give me a shout..

[Mr P]

Are you aware of how the scientific process works? Dawkins and others public criticisms are a small part of the (often brutal) peer review process. Lovelock simply responded to valid criticisms by the extention and revision of his hypothesis, as that is the nature of the process to which he has devoted his life.

Science is a dynamic and open ended process used to increase knowledge. The hypotheses of every scientist must survive many revisions and falsification attempts before they have collated enough supporting evidence to be elevated to theory status. Lovelock is simply continuing this process in a principled and respectable manner, even though it could still turn out that he's way off the mark.

You seem to misunderstand how science works and that is where your misinterpretation of the Gaia hypothesis lies. It's as though you agreed with its original synthesis but now that it's been updated in the light of new evidence it no longer agrees with your preconceptions. The conclusion you seem to be drawing is that Lovelock must have been unduly influenced by an outside vested interest. Another cheap shot on your part to protect your pet idea... that is the antithesis of the scientifc process.

[macdoc]

While you make some valid points I don't think he is misinterpreting at all. Interlocking neural networks in life forms of all levels are more and more being seen in a Bayesian and "systems" view of which genetics and evolution within a species is only one factor..not THE factor.

I'd say Mr. J has presented a supported case. I can't comment on Margolis tho.

[Brain Man]

Are you aware of how the scientific process works? Dawkins and others public criticisms are a small part of the (often brutal) peer review process. Lovelock simply responded to valid criticisms by the extention and revision of his hypothesis, as that is the nature of the process to which he has devoted his life.

Science is a dynamic and open ended process used to increase knowledge. The hypotheses of every scientist must survive many revisions and falsification attempts before they have collated enough supporting evidence to be elevated to theory status. Lovelock is simply continuing this process in a principled and respectable manner, even though it could still turn out that he's way off the mark.

You seem to misunderstand how science works and that is where your misinterpretation of the Gaia hypothesis lies. It's as though you agreed with its original synthesis but now that it's been updated in the light of new evidence it no longer agrees with your preconceptions. The conclusion you seem to be drawing is that Lovelock must have been unduly influenced by an outside vested interest. Another cheap shot on your part to protect your pet idea... that is the antithesis of the scientifc process.

Well i see you are now admitting that it was a response to that situation he found himself in.previously you weren't conceding that the situations was real except that it was all made up. That certainly took a bit of work, i.e. providing you with the entire sequence of events, just to get you to climb down from that.

So in that light I am not sure if i have time to deal with you if you are so lazy as to just pass insults, then expect somebody to do all the legwork. What would it be like if we were to get into a real debate on systems theory vs darwinism. I dont think i want to find out. I have too much to do. If you are interested in the subject ill give you pointers on it and thats it.

My position is that Evolution fits well with genetics, but is limited when it comes to complexity, the interaction of complexity and descriptions of the complexity the drives evolution now (i.e. cultural information) and will drive it in the future..such as artificial intelligence.

Regarding what you say about revising theories. I am perfectly aware of this. Ive revised papers myself and know only too well from experience the thin line between revising because it seems true to you, and revising because of pressure to do so. Lovelock comes across as somebody who revised under pressure, as from what i have read so far, he has not fully expounded in any kind of depth (which would indicate he is expressing a truth in line with the other truths he expounds) how evolution and systems theory operate as bedfellows. i.e. If it suddenly dawned on him how it all fits together, then why are the references to natural selection still so scant in what are 200 page books ? It should be a major realization that takes at the very least a full chapter of his current works.

[Brain Man]

While you make some valid points I don't think he is misinterpreting at all. Interlocking neural networks in life forms of all levels are more and more being seen in a Bayesian and "systems" view of which genetics and evolution within a species is only one factor..not THE factor.

I'd say Mr. J has presented a supported case. I can't comment on Margolis tho.

Thats the point i tried to make originally before we got sidetracked ... that the systems approach can be applied across all disciplines. i.e. systems tools, can jump from complexity in the brain, astronomy, ai, cultural networks..where as darwins terms have to be shoehorned anywhere outside of genetic systems. The systems descriptions appear to work better in general.

Well Margulis is just trying to hammer the point of systems interconnection between organisms, species or cells vs the strict competition view. Just found this from Dawkins himself..

n 1995, prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins had this to say about Lynn Margulis and her work:“ I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it.[5]

but she sure had to fight for it

"Lynn Margulis attended the University of Chicago as an undergraduate, earned a master's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1960, and received her Ph.D. in 1963 from UC Berkeley. In 1966, as a young faculty member at Boston University, she wrote a theoretical paper entitled The Origin of Mitosing Eukaryotic Cells.[2] The paper however was "rejected by about fifteen scientific journals," Margulis recalled.[3] It was finally accepted by The Journal of Theoretical Biology and is considered today a landmark in modern endosymbiotic theory."

[Mr P]

Well i see you are now admitting that it was a response to that situation he found himself in.previously you weren't conceding that the situations was real except that it was all made up. That certainly took a bit of work, i.e. providing you with the entire sequence of events, just to get you to climb down from that.

You're either puposefully misrepresenting what I said or you simply don't understand. I haven't climbed down from my initial argument, I was tackling your paranoid conspiracy fantasy by giving you an education in how science works. You're still proposing a paranoid conspiracy theory based on nothing more than your inflexible preconceptions. Lovelock responded to the situation he found himself in by continuing the scientific process, not backing down in the face of criticism to garner popular appeal amongst his peers as you seem to suggest.

Did you not understand my response?

So in that light I am not sure if i have time to deal with you if you are so lazy as to just pass insults, then expect somebody to do all the legwork. What would it be like if we were to get into a real debate on systems theory vs darwinism. I dont think i want to find out. I have too much to do. If you are interested in the subject ill give you pointers on it and thats it.

Wow!! you're good with these cheap shots aren't you... all these display are the weaknesses and hypocracies in your argument. You accuse me of throwing insults but I don't see how a criticism of your approach can be taken as a personal insult, especially in light of the following:

it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

It is me who should be laughing that you cant get ur head out this guys ass.. name me one original piece of innovative science or even idea he got right that future generations will revere him for ?

you ought to be kicking his lazy ass, not licking it

And you accuse me of throwing insults

My position is that Evolution fits well with genetics, but is limited when it comes to complexity, the interaction of complexity and descriptions of the complexity the drives evolution now (i.e. cultural information) and will drive it in the future..such as artificial intelligence.

Are you going to argue memetics is a science

Regarding what you say about revising theories. I am perfectly aware of this. Ive revised papers myself and know only too well from experience the thin line between revising because it seems true to you, and revising because of pressure to do so. Lovelock comes across as somebody who revised under pressure, as from what i have read so far, he has not fully expounded in any kind of depth (which would indicate he is expressing a truth in line with the other truths he expounds) how evolution and systems theory operate as bedfellows. i.e. If it suddenly dawned on him how it all fits together, then why are the references to natural selection still so scant in what are 200 page books ? It should be a major realization that takes at the very least a full chapter of his current works.

All of this is nothing more than a re-hash of your earlier argument to which I've already given a response. You're simply trying to promote your personal anti-darwinian agenda by discrediting another scientist. You appear to be guilty of the very crime that you accuse Gould and Dawkins of.