I think that everyone sensible agrees that group selection happens within an ontology with the categories ‘individual selection’ and ‘group selection’. The question is whether it’s ever useful from the perspective of an ontology with the category ‘gene’s eye view selection’ and whether, in the earlier ontology, it’s a good idea to set priors strongly against group selection being needed to explain any individual phenomenon.
I think that everyone sensible agrees that group selection happens within an ontology with the categories ‘individual selection’ and ‘group selection’.
From the 1960s through Dawkins’ Selfish Gene—and even today, in John Alcock’s Animal Behavior—you can find many examples of prominent biologists stating that group selection, including species selection, is either flat-out impossible, or so improbable that it should never be considered; and that people who suggest it is possible are fools. (It should set off big red flashing warning lights in peoples’ minds when they see the author of a scientific work criticizing not just a view, but the people who hold it.)
There is more acceptance of it today among scientists; but many lay-people, including many well-informed lay-people on this newsgroup, still think that the religious zealotry of Richard Dawkins against group selection in The Selfish Gene represents the state of the field today. I infer that Eliezer, who is somewhat influential on this site, holds that view, since his post claiming that group selection is impossible has a green dot of approval, while mine showing that it happens in nature does not.
The question is whether it’s ever useful from the perspective of an ontology with the category ‘gene’s eye view selection’
I don’t understand. If group selection occurs; and if it is never useful from some perspective; then that is a wrong perspective.
Well, regarding the gene’s eye view, the example I just cited above (Henrich 2010) about group selection in culture is not relevant; while the main example in this post (selection against SC species in flowering plants) is purely genetic. So group selection is relevant to the gene’s eye view.
Picking out the circumstances in which it would be a likely suspect to explain an observation would be the next step.
But I get the impression that a lot of readers here are still stuck way back at the “group selection can’t possibly exist!” step.
I think that everyone sensible agrees that group selection happens within an ontology with the categories ‘individual selection’ and ‘group selection’. The question is whether it’s ever useful from the perspective of an ontology with the category ‘gene’s eye view selection’ and whether, in the earlier ontology, it’s a good idea to set priors strongly against group selection being needed to explain any individual phenomenon.
From the 1960s through Dawkins’ Selfish Gene—and even today, in John Alcock’s Animal Behavior—you can find many examples of prominent biologists stating that group selection, including species selection, is either flat-out impossible, or so improbable that it should never be considered; and that people who suggest it is possible are fools. (It should set off big red flashing warning lights in peoples’ minds when they see the author of a scientific work criticizing not just a view, but the people who hold it.)
There is more acceptance of it today among scientists; but many lay-people, including many well-informed lay-people on this newsgroup, still think that the religious zealotry of Richard Dawkins against group selection in The Selfish Gene represents the state of the field today. I infer that Eliezer, who is somewhat influential on this site, holds that view, since his post claiming that group selection is impossible has a green dot of approval, while mine showing that it happens in nature does not.
I don’t understand. If group selection occurs; and if it is never useful from some perspective; then that is a wrong perspective.
Some category can be useful within some methodology but not within some other methodology.
Well, regarding the gene’s eye view, the example I just cited above (Henrich 2010) about group selection in culture is not relevant; while the main example in this post (selection against SC species in flowering plants) is purely genetic. So group selection is relevant to the gene’s eye view.
Picking out the circumstances in which it would be a likely suspect to explain an observation would be the next step.
But I get the impression that a lot of readers here are still stuck way back at the “group selection can’t possibly exist!” step.