11.03 The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis - Beyond Networks: The Evolution of Living Systems

Module 11 of "Beyond Networks" considers the strange and quixotic quest for a unified "synthetic" theory of evolution, and looks at the interface between scientific argumentation and academic politics in evolutionary biology. This lecture looks at the debate about the extended evolutionary synthesis. It discusses four problems with arguments for an extended synthesis: (1) There is not synthesis to extend. (2) The extended synthesis is not a synthesis (it does not even seriously try). Each of its subfields would progress equally well if the extended synthesis did not exist. (3) It misses the fundamental point, remaining diffuse and well within established ways to think about evolution. (4) And last but not least, it is not a theory in any meaningful sense of the word. Instead, it is an exercise in rebranding old ideas, a political tool to focus attention and funding to a specific set of topics and researchers in the field. In this way, it is very similar to Ernst Mayr's original synthesis, which was really a constriction to keep unwanted contributors and dissenters out. Vacuous debates about the extended synthesis create unnecessary divisions in the field of evolutionary biology and generate a smokescreen that distracts from serious underlying issues that hinder progress towards a deeper understanding of evolution. Political manoeuvring disguised as theoretical debate qualifies as what philosopher Harry Frankfurt calls "bullshit." In the next lecture, we will take a look at the reasons why scientific bullshit is increasing, and how it makes serious and open explorations of deep philosophical and scientific issues increasingly difficult these days.
For primary sources on the extended evolutionary synthesis, I recommend the original papers by Pigliucci (2007; Evolution, Vol. 61: p. 2743) and Müller (2007; Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 8: p. 943), or the book Evolution: the Extended Synthesis (2010), edited by Pigliucci and Müller. This book contains contributions that are arguing both for and against an extended synthesis. The quality of the book chapters varies widely, but there are some real jewels in there. I do not recommend the 2014 exchange in Nature (Vol. 514, p. 161), but if you think I'm drawing a straw man and if you want to see the debate at its most shallow and conceited, then treat yourself. More informative is Laland et al. (2015; Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Vol. 282: 20151019), which attempts to provide some unifying themes underlying the extended synthesis.
For this lecture, I lean heavily on a number of papers that analyse or criticise the extended evolutionary synthesis. It is important to note that all opinions and interpretations uttered in this lecture are mine, and are not necessarily shared by the authors.
Fábregas-Tejeda & Vergara-Silva (2018; Theory in Biosciences, Vol. 137: p. 169) attempt to identify the structure of the extended synthesis (but can't find any). Buskell (2020; Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology & Biomedical Science C, Vol. 80: 101244) looks at the evolutionary synthesis through an agenda-based analysis. Gawne et al. (2017; BioEssays, Vol. 40: 1600265) argue that the extended synthesis should have focused on the multi-level organisation of organismic development, rather than diffusing its attacks into areas of evolutionary genetics that are very well established. Svensson (2018; Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 45: p. 1) points out that reciprocal causation is nothing new in evolutionary genetics, and recommends Levins & Lewontin (1985, The Dialectical Biologists) as a good source for dialectical thinking in evolution. Last but not least, Stoltzfus (2017; Biology Direct, Vol. 12: p. 23) provides the best argument to date why we do not want another synthesis in evolutionary biology.
Wimsatt's quote on what kind of debates are worth having is from his 1994 (Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 20 (Supplement): p. 204), which has been reprinted as chapter 10 of his book Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings (2007). If you only read one book about the philosophy of science in your life, make it this one!

[@jaircastillo6900]

Great video!!

[@michelluc8829]

If think that the debate is that nonewhistanding the validity of the statistical approach of evolution embodied in population genetics, there is a need for a structural approach explaining the mechanisms involved in phenotypic variation, without that it's a bit like approaching criminality on the sole statistical aspect of it, it could be totally accurate but nonetheless useless to find solutions without taking into account the socioeconomic factors.

[@mehrshadgafarzadeh2944]

Great