Below are two responses to Metaviews 157 in which my Swarthmore student Ben Geller offered a defense of sociobiology. Dan Berger writes from Bluffton College in Ohio to offer examples from chemistry of non-reducible processes. Berger criticizes Geller's naïve "ontological reductionism."

Similarly, George Ellis writes from the University of Cape Town in South Africa to criticize Geller's reductionistic faith that sociobiology can explain the life of Mohandes Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Ellis writes:

"...it is astonishing that anyone can have the confidence to so naively dismiss the lives and works of some of the greatest men who have lived this century. It is quite clear that Ben Geller has not undertaken any serious moral agonising himself, but he should at least read a book like `Martin Luther King Jr: The Making of a Mind', by Ansbro, before presuming to make this kind of judgement on the motivation underlying King's life."

We should not be too harsh on my young student at Swarthmore, remembering that the field sociobiology is filled with distinguished scientists who are making similarly grand claims about explaining away morality, meaning and purpose within an evolutionary biological paradigm.

-- Billy Grassie

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Dan Berger" <bergerd@bluffton.edu> Subject: RE: [METAVIEWS] Metaviews 157: Rolston Redux: In Defense ofSociobiology

Ben Geller's essay assumes that epistemological reduction of biology and chemistry to physics, at least in principle, is true, and that ontological reduction follows.

I will begin with definitions:

"Epistemological reduction" is the explanation of "higher" processes in terms of "lower," as when the ideal gas law is explained in terms of molecular kinematics, or the periodic table in terms of atomic structure. Epistemological reduction can usually be proved or disproved within the realm of empirical evidence, that is to say, within science.

Incidentally, the former example is problematic; see G.K. Vemulapalli and H. Byerly, "Remnants of Reductionism," Foundations of Chemistry, 1(1), 17-14 (1999). The latter example is simply wrong; see E.R. Scerri, "The Periodic Table and the Electron," American Scientist, 85(6) (November--December 1997). Of this, more anon.

"Ontological reduction" is a more metaphysical position, holding that all events are ultimately caused by the interactions (which may be random) of the smallest - "most fundamental" - known entities. Proof or disproof of ontological reduction seems (to me) similar to proof or disproof of the existence of God.

Ben Geller's essay assumes that epistemological reduction of biology and chemistry to physics, at least in principle, is true, and that ontological reduction follows. HOWEVER...

There is a consensus emerging in the philosophy of chemistry that chemistry (to say nothing of biology) is NOT epistemologically reducible to physics. The question of ontological reduction is another matter; proponents of "the [epistemological] autonomy of chemistry" often remain convinced of ontological reductionism (all three writers cited above are examples). There is a good deal of recent commentary about how philosophers of science have taken the epistemological reduction of the "special sciences" to physics on faith - with "faith," of course, being considered pejorative.

The primary evidence for the non-reducibility of chemistry to physics is the fact that few if any fruitful chemical concepts can be reduced to physical ones. Some of the most fruitful chemical concepts (for example atomic and molecular orbitals, and chemical bonds) have been shown to be nonsense at the level of quantum physics! There is an ongoing project among chemists and philosophers of chemistry to prove what chemists have known for decades, that these concepts are NOT nonsense at the level of chemistry. Chemists on one hand have assumed that their proven concepts reduce to physics because, after all, epistemological reduction is true, isn't it? On the other, there has been resistance to "chemical common sense" on the part of philosophers of science because of their commitment to epistemological reduction and the fact that it is easily shown that chemical concepts (and in this one must include solid-state physical ideas such as band-gap theory) are physical nonsense.

Not only is chemistry not reducible to physics, but biology is not reducible to chemistry, perhaps not even in an ontological sense. I believe Michael Polanyi (himself a physical chemist) pointed this out in Science in the early '60s. He noted that, were biology predetermined - or even fully explainable - by chemistry, the wonderful variability of the genetic code would be impossible. Only complete interchangeability of nucleotides allows DNA to code for so many different proteins. If a particular nucleotide sequence or sequences were more stable thermodynamically (hence chemically), all DNA strands would contain that/those sequence(s); DNA strands which did not would sooner or later be converted into strands that did.

Geller's reasoning, that epistemological reduction implies ontological reduction, fails because of the failure of epistemological reduction. On the other hand, some of the very philosophers who have documented the failure of epistemological reduction stoutly maintain the independent truth of ontological reduction. Whether they are correct remains to be established; one might make a comment or two about taking *ontological* reduction on faith...

A few recent references in the philosophy of chemistry:

J. Schummer, "The Chemical Core of Chemistry I: A Conceptual Approach" HYLE 4, 129-162 (1999). The full text of HYLE is available online at http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~philosophie/hyle.html, starting with volume 3.

Synthese 111(3) (1997) is a special issue devoted to the philosophy of chemistry.

Foundations of Chemistry is a new journal (1999) devoted to the history and philosophy of chemistry. The first issue contains articles such as Peter H. Plesch, "On the Distinctness of Chemistry";
G. Krishna Vemulapalli and Henry Byerly, "Remnants of Reductionism";
Lee McIntyre, "The Emergence of the Philosophy of Chemistry"; and Robert J. Good, "Why are Chemists 'Turned Off' by Philosophy of Science?"

Daniel J. Berger |PH 419-358-3379 Assoc Prof of Chemistry|FX 419-358-3323 Bluffton College |
Bluffton OH 45817-1196|bergerd@bluffton.edu http://cs.bluffton.edu/~berger/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=
From: "Ellis, GFR, George, Prof." <ellis@maths.uct.ac.za> Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] Metaviews 157: Rolston Redux: In Defense of

just to say how fascinating this document [Metaviews 157. 11/28/99: Ben Geller] is as a clear statement of unshakable faith in an unprovable metatheory. Its main interest is in the wishful thinking that permeates it and the lack of understanding of the non-reducibility of emergent levels of order. Thus for example

> [DNA's] "information" is really an abstraction for "molecules




> that faithfully replicate."

This is the usual reductionist trick: the claim that's all there is to it, there is nothing more than this! Does Geller really not understand how, quite apart from the fact that this information encodes how to create a macroscopic living being, which feature in no sense whatever is encapsulated in the phrase "molecules that faithfully replicate", the DNA molecule encapsulates an entire evolutionary history in its structure which cannot in any serious sense be reduced to statements in physics and chemistry? He continues

> There is good reason to believe that mitotic cells will soon be




> produced from conditions similar to those which yielded organic




> molecules.

This is pure fantasy and/or wishful thinking - unless he knows something the rest of us don't. Does he really not know the complexity of a cell, with its hundreds of thousands of enzymes and feedback loops, mitochondria, membrane, nucleus, and so on? What process does he believe will do this? He continues

> there is also no reason to assume that biology is not reducible




> to chemistry and physics (that is, if given enough time and




> effort it could be done).

yes indeed there is - the very notion of biological information cannot be reduced to physics nor chemistry. It is a different category of classification, structure, and understanding that is involved. Physics cannot comprehend these structures. They may be partially explainable by physics, but that is an entirely different matter. To put it simply: Campbell's splendid text on Biology will never ever be supplanted by a physics text!

He continues, as he admits, into an even more ambitious area - on the basis of a series of `just so' stories with no serious scientific or philosophical support. Thus

> the only good is that which selection leads us to view as good, all




> the while maintaining the currently selected good (however




> self-deluding) in their own lives

He cannot prove this - it is a statement of what he would like to be true. The most extraordinary part of his document is the breathtakingly arrogant assumption that underlies his dismissive statements:

> Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi sought fame, power and a




> greater probability that their offspring could live reproductive




> lives, all the while deluding themselves into believing that they




> were serving a larger good.

No wonder scientific reductionism has won such a bad name for itself! I suppose one has to partly allow for the exuberance of inexperienced youth, but it is astonishing that anyone can have the confidence to so naively dismiss the lives and works of some of the greatest men who have lived this century. It is quite clear that Ben Geller has not undertaken any serious moral agonising himself, but he should at least read a book like `Martin Luther King Jr: The Making of a Mind', by Ansbro, before presuming to make this kind of judgement on the motivation underlying King's life.

> However untenable these explanations are to some, the fact remains




> that there is evidence supporting all of them, and to dismiss this




> evidence out of a vague, undefined sense of discomfort is an




> unfortunate mistake.

Deliver the goods, Mr Geller: provide the solid evidence you claim exists that Ghandi and Luther King were deluded when they believed they were serving a greater good; and give some supporting evidence -
any at all - that their behaviour was intended to provide `a greater probability that their offspring could live reproductive lives'. You are making moral statements about the behaviour of two individuals. What is the evidence for these statements?

> I realize that what one is in danger of doing is fitting the




> phenomena to the theory, rather than formulating a theory that




> fits the data. If one assumes that Darwinian evolution will




> account for all phenomena, then it is likely that one could devise




> a theory to explain any action, moral or otherwise.

Precisely. Most are at the level of `just so stories' that are also able to explain anything. Their testability is minimal.

> Perhaps there is no numerical evidence (how exactly would one go




> about conducting such a study?), but no theory that speculates as




> to the causes of morality is going to be universally verifiable in




> the sense of the rigorous scientific method.

Exactly. It is the underlying philosophical stance that dominates in these `explanations'.

> At some point, one must conclude that a threshold has been




> reached, and that the theory is valid on a larger scale than is




> specifically warranted by the data.

In other words we move from evidence-supported theory to philosophically-supported faith. Geller's evolutionary-based faith is one possible view, supported to some degree by evidence. There are other viable philosophical schemes that take the normative nature of morality much more seriously, and are at least as well supported by evidence. His whole thesis is very thin in this area. But then he has dismissed the religious possibility in a few passing words -
presumably that option does not fit his pre-chosen philosophical assumptions, which shape the faith he has adopted.

George F R Ellis Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7700, Cape Town, South Africa Tel: (27) (21) 650-2339 Fax: (27) (21) 650-2334 Cosmology group web page: http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/cosmos/ Mathematics department web page: http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/ UCT web page: http://www.uct.ac.za/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   1999.12.11