Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!
Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in September 2013, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
- [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 7 years or so. Meanwhile, my "old" Blogger.com entry page has just (since October 1, 2012) been phased out; after which time, I shall try to continue posting my future dialogues URL links, by using one of my local library internet browsers, which I think will be compatible to these "new" Blogger entry pages!? Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.]
- 1) Opinion: A Diverse Perspective -- RE: Reductionismvs. Holism in Modern Biology and History: Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics andPhysiology!? (TheScientistCAN; September 1) -- Wherein under my 5-point Commentary couldn't be all posted, using my old and a library browser, so I shall post my comments en masse herein under:
1] I thought the American cell biologist, embryologist EE Just’s (1883-1941) correct view on the “nuclear-cytoplasm” interactive physiology, might have had come from his holistic view and perception (or his scientifically-trained view and conception) of “cells and organelles” theories, theories that soon began to empirically define and refine our Modern Biology in the early 20th century (see the “modern cell theory” in Comment 2 below); and not originated from his culturally-unique life experiences per se, as an African American intellectual, that has had been broadly characterized in the nice but brief article above!? -- As socio-intellectually, when having the opportunity of revisiting or reviewing any (active, retired, or deceased) scientist’s works and ideas, we (readers-reviewers including practical scientists, historians, philosophers, and critics alike) must do science* a justice: by objectively scrutinizing and focusing on the merits, datasets, facts, methods, concepts, novelty, and practicality (but not coaxed controversies or sensationalism that may be subliminally or hubristically infused with certain undisclosed personal ideologies, egotism, and/or scientism) of the scientific works under review: reviewing strictly within each work’s scientific and historical context and process, despite the scientist’s cultural background, such as, the ethnicity, subjective ideology, or gender issues; issues that have had been too often and invariably infused and abused by the many culturally-biased ideologues, pseudoscience sensationalists, positivists, and sophists alike, in the past and present; just as in the ongoing case of “Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Physiology” issues* that are being reviewed, scrutinized, and commented herein under:
2] Specifically and philoscientifically, in 1837, there were 2 contrasting but equally defining biological theories (ie, biomorphism vs. cell physiology) that had had been independently hatched out in Europe: one the “evolutionary transformism” theory of organisms -- or the naturalism of “geo-biomorphism” theory that would be labored from a global, monumental, and phenomenal naturalist works or the macro view and gross descriptions, explanations, and extrapolations in the 19th-century naturalism, anamorphism, and of the philoscientific positivist reductionism in animal and plant biomorphism, transmutation, paleontology, geology, geography, taxonomy of plants and animals by their observed appearance and assumed evolutionary transformism and transmutations in fossils and in life specimens; and by observations of their domestication and husbandry propagation and their observed characteristics and traits selection-model systems of the time -- especially observed by the young, keen British, inquisitive, aspiring geologist, naturalist (not a specialist in cells, organelles, anatomy, physiology, or embryology of the time) Charles Darwin (1809-82): the only Darwin who would later publish his naturalist global view of organisms or his macro “geogenic” evolutionary transformative (not “genetic” germline or gamete developmental; see Comments 4 & 5 below) per gross “natural phenomenology” or his naturalist speculations and articulations of the “geo-bio” origins, propagations, trait-selections, trait-mutations, reproductions, survival adaptations, and transformations of organisms on Earth: in a grand masterpiece treatise that he would entitle “On the Origin of Species” in 1859; laying out thereof and therein his naturalist and selectionist foundation (modeled on domestication and husbandry breeding propagation-selection processes) for the modern interpretations and reinterpretations of “evolution” of the organisms on Earth; and subsequently for the evermore competitive hermeneutics of “evolutionism vs creationism” debates of our life-origins and species-creations (including the natural philoscientific, positivist, evolutionist, sophist, reductionist, religionist, intelligent design-creationist, etc) ever since (see my 2011 comments therein under and more below)!?
And: two the “developmental cell” theory -- the thesis that was derived from the increasingly-detailed observations and physiology of both animal and plant cells (including their organelles) as the basic and functional units of organisms of the time or the inquired holism in both the developmental and growth cell biology and physiology -- by the 2 students of Johannes Peter Muller (1801-58) at Berlin’s Humboldt University; and, the duo modern cell theorists (not evolutionists nor reductionists) were identified as the botanist Matthias Schleiden (1804-81) and the animal physiologist Theodor Schwann (1810-82) as recently reported by Kate Yandell in “The Scientist” therein (August 1, 2013)!?
3] As such, socio-intellectually, philoscientifically, and pedagogically, it was no surprise that Just’s professional training and pursuits, might have had inquired, acquired, focused, and adopted the then preeminent “developmental and growth” cellular physiology and embryology, among the holism in the practical scientific inquiry, methods, and empiricism of the continental Europe of his time -- while not been seduced, bemused, sidetracked, confused, short-sighted, or corrupted by the then equally preeminent naturalist, positivist, selectionist reductionism in biomorphism or “evolutionist biology” namely the neo-Darwinism that had had been brewing since the passing of Darwin in England (1882): As after which time, the 1859 Darwinism of the “natural selection” (NS) explanation of evolution or the NS as a “metaphor” that may be akin to the Scottish economist Adam Smith’s (1723-90) “invisible hand” epiphenomena in socioeconomics (or the NS “invisible forces” in “Darwinian NS orthodoxy” of otherwise philoscientific Naturalism, the NS orthodoxy that would later be further infused subliminally and/or hubristically -- but not empirically -- by the varied positivist, reductionist, and/or selectionist imaginations: in and of their gross evolutionist narratives or rhetoric; selectionist explanatory analogies and assertions; reductionist complacencies and pseudoscience expediencies; etc) had had since been morphed (or literally extrapolated and reductively transformed) into his cousin Sir Francis Galton’s (1822-1911) per pseudogenetic selectionist “eugenics” theory (as brilliantly and radiantly laid out in Galton’s 1883 book “Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development”); and which had had further been morphed into the subsequent neo-Darwinist, evolutionist, pseudoscience of the Modern Synthesis (MS) doctrine -- or the “evolutionism” synthesis manifesto, the reductionist proclamation that was basically concocted by the then prevailing pseudogenetic selectionist, positivist, evolutionist, and eugenicist mutually-coaxed consensus and declaration (but not by any substantiated scientific empiricism at all) in the 1930s-40s -- and this neo-Darwinist evolutionism (including the 1960s-70s MS inspired, spawned, and parasitic “biologism” and “geneticism” which turning thus otherwise the prototypic “philoscientific Darwinism” into its penultimate “evolutionist, positivist, and reductionist Scientism”) that I have had been consistently and persistently refuting ever since the post-genomics era of today and beyond worldwide!?
4] Whereas -- also trained as an embryologist and biologist -- the 1933 Nobel laureate, geneticist Thomas Morgan (1866-1945) had had consistently advanced and contributed his works and ideas in the field of genetics* -- pioneering by using “fruit flies” as an organism model-system (experimenting and focusing genetics* at the “germline” chromosomal level) -- while uprightly refuting the pseudoscience of eugenics (or neo-Darwinism cum Galtonism of his time) that had had been soon widely propagated since the early 20th century until its dissolution in the late 1960s: a pseudogenetic selectionist history which was all too well documented in the publications of “The Eugenics Review” (from 1909 to 1968) by the Galton Institute in UK!?
Meanwhile, please note that the field of genetics* was initiated and founded -- by using “peas plants” as a germline (from seed to plant phenotype or trait-expression and experimentation) or “heredity propagation and hybridization” model-system in the mid-1800s in continental Europe -- by the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel (1822-84): the pioneering experimentalist in “proto-genetics” who had had previously and formally trained in the continental scientific inquiry and holism inquiry traditions in mathematics, physics, natural sciences, botany, etc; especially in the developmental and growth “germline heredity” theory and the empirical application and practice of the statistical methods thereof and thereon (in biology and genetics*); the statistical methods that were absolutely not inquired, acquired, trained, nor empirically required and tested by the then aspiring naturalist Darwin and his like-minded contemporaries at all in England of his time (see how Darwin derived his philoscientific theory of “evolution” in my Comment 2 above); nor had had the concept of the germline inheritance or genetics* been (even today) fully (or holistically) acquired, appreciated, nor comprehended, or critically inquired by his subsequent pseudogenetic evolutionist, reductionist, selectionist, evolutionary-parasitic followers and worshippers, namely the neo-Darwinists of the late 19th - 20th centuries past; even today and beyond (see also John Edser’s comments on neo-Darwinism to that effect and affect since the 1960s-70s above -- from “Opinion: A Diverse Perspective” therein under; July 29, 2013)!?
5] In retrospect -- contrary to the recently excellent works (of genomics and epigenomics) as advanced by the ENCODE project, duly observed above and elsewhere worldwide -- the MS neo-Darwinism had had indeed irreparably recapitulated, precipitated, and perpetuated the 1883 Galtonian pseudogenetic selectionist, evolutionist, reductionist, and eugenicist notion of a pseudoscientific status quo or rhetoric (eg, phrenology; Galtonism or heredity of "intelligence" or "geniuses"; psychometrics; biologism or biologization of "altruism"; geneticism or anthropomorphism of "gene" and "meme"; etc; see more discussions below) in our modern history and biology: the pseudogenetic evolutionist dogma that had had replaced the Galtonian failed extrapolations of the NS theory in their reformulation that the 1900 rediscovery of the 1865 Mendelian genetics, must “constitute, fit, and fulfill” the “evolutionary (transformism) mechanisms” that had had been “missed” in the 1859 Darwin’s NS thesis; thus the MS neo-Darwinism was indeed rhetorically transformed and reductively synthesized so as to complement and extend Darwin’s NS theory as the then prevalently neo-Darwinists and evolutionists who might have had interpreted it as a fit and fix: in a sleight of hand or a sneakily "robbing Peter (or Mendel) to pay Paul (or Darwin)" synergism of sophistry and their pseudogenetic selectionist and determinist penmanship or in the MS evolutionists critical scientific and ethical lapses: 1) by rhetorically, irreversibly or unilaterally a positivist patching up of the NS missed “conceptual, empirical, and practical” deficiencies (or the NS orthodoxy) with the empirically-verified Mendelian “germline” concept or foundational genetics (not evolutionary transformative biomorphism; see my Comment 2 above) per “developmental and growth mechanisms” as their newfound or reformulated “evolutionist mechanisms” in their MS neo-Darwinist evolutionism doctrine or dogma (since the 1930s-40s in England: claiming as if Darwinism had predicted the Mendelian germline genetics, genetics that the NS thesis had had conceptually and empirically missed nor anticipated during Darwin’s life time; see my Comments 2-4 above); and 2) by conveniently or consistently and persistently per amnesic negating of the historical and pseudoscientific facts that the pseudogenetic selectionist, reductionist, and determinist flawed extrapolations or extensions of the NS rhetoric or metaphors, had had indeed misled the British super-elitist, polymath Galton to pursue and advocate his 1883 superstitiously-formulated selectionist “eugenics” theory (and fallacies); and subsequently the neo-Darwinism cum Galtonism had also spread and emboldened the Aryan supremacists, the Nazis, the Third Reich to justify, simulate, and pursue their own eugenicist 1933-45 Holocaust policies and campaigns before and during World War II (1939-45) in Europe (see how the NS theory had had been morphed into the eugenics theory in my Comments 3 & 4 above and more below)!?
Furthermore, the MS neo-Darwinist dogma had had even been morphed, saturated, and punctuated in the currently world-renowned pseudogenetic determinist, super-egotist, and reductionist in biology extraordinaire Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene” and in its loaded hopping and replicating “gene” and “meme” metaphors, rhetoric, semantics, and fallacies since 1976 -- or to be more exact: the neo-Darwinists have had indeed committed themselves to their philoscientific ineptitude and multitude of fallacies in their supercilious evolutionist, positivist pseudoscientific and pseudogenetic irreproachability, irretractability, irreparability, nor testability, nor accountability in their evolutionism since the late 19th century; let alone their concurrently evermore devoid of self-scrutinizing of their own evolutionist theoretical works and dogmas, and/or self-disciplining of their irrationally contracted pseudoscience hubris and scientism* (rooted ideologically rhetorically in their positivism, reductionism, eugenicism or Galtonism; reformulated by co-opting Mendelian germline genetics into Darwinism as their now MS neo-Darwinism*; and further parasitically extended into the 1960s-70s biologism and geneticism alike), in our now evermore advanced and specialized fields of practical science and philosophy inquiries and pursuits, today and beyond, worldwide!?
Thus having committed themselves to persistently and blindly idolize and synonymize Darwinism as “evolutionary biology” (including biologism, geneticism, etc) or insisting neo-Darwinism as a science* argument that the MS neo-Darwinism can “selectively, effectively, and sufficiently” explain “everything” on Earth nowadays, the evolutionary neo-Darwinists are in fact increasingly relegating the 19th-century great naturalist’s grand philoscientific masterpiece treatise to the dustbin of their now evermore evolved, transformed, malignantly rhetorical, pseudogenetic selectionist, determinist, evolutionist metaphors, fantasies, fallacies, pseudoscience, and scientism* literature worldwide (see “A Metaphor Too Far” and my 2011 comment therein under)!? -- All of Darwin’s works and ideas would have had remained under the utterly neo-Darwinist pseudoscience wraps and dogmas: forever fossilized, unscrutinizable, unchallengeable, unfalsifiable; and wasted big time, especially in the name of our concurrent neo-Darwinist scientism* and its evolutionary rhetoric, dogma, semantics, and wordplays since the mid 20th century (see the world-renowned and parasitic neo-Darwinist-biased psycholinguist Steven Pinker’s confused defense of “scientism” instead of “science” in our concurrently practical science-philosophy and existential humanity issues, inquiries, and debates worldwide therein -- TheNewRepublicUSA; August 6, 2013 -- a disappointing read** indeed, caveat lector)!?
*Footnote: See my comments on “Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Psychiatry” issues therein under (PsychiatricTimesUSA; June 3, 2010)!?
**Pinker's scientism: One which was recently clear-mindedly refuted by the TNR literary editor Leon Wieseltier therein (TheNewRepublicUSA; September 3, 2013) -- and subsequently the typically-confused Pinker vs the more enlightened Wieseltier debate on the subject matters of "science vs the humanities" ensues thereof and therein (TheNewRepublicUSA; September 26, 2013)!?
Best wishes, Mong 9/8/13usct3:31p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).