DOCSLIB.ORG

A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws Andrew Michael Winters University of South Florida, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws Andrew Michael Winters University of South Florida, Wintersa@Mail.Usf.Edu University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 3-20-2015 A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws Andrew Michael Winters University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons Scholar Commons Citation Winters, Andrew Michael, "A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5603 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws by Andrew Michael Winters A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Douglas Jesseph, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Alexander Levine, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Otávio Bueno, Ph.D. John Carroll, Ph.D. Eric Winsberg, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 20th, 2015 Keywords: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Naturalism, Ontology Copyright © 2015, Andrew Michael Winters DEDICATION For Amie ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my co-chairs, Doug Jesseph and Alex Levine, for providing amazing support in all aspects of my tenure at USF. I greatly appreciate the numerous conversations with my committee members, Roger Ariew, Otávio Bueno, John Carroll, and Eric Winsberg, which resulted in a (hopefully) more refined and clearer dissertation. Many of my past teachers and mentors also contributed to the ideas developed herein: Graeme Forbes, Kathrin Koslicki, Robert McDermott, Bradley Monton, Robert Rupert, and, especially, Michael Tooley (who introduced me to the debate on laws of nature). I appreciate the patience and support of my family while completing the dissertation: Bonnie Ward-Strauss, Rich Strauss, Liz Sale, Mike Sale, Carolyn Reid-Sale, Jim, Joy, and Scott Dawson, Jim and Connie B. Earsley, and Bernice and Conrad Ward. Of course, many friends, colleagues, and teachers helped me think through these issues and made my time as a graduate student that much more enjoyable. There are too many of you to list here, but special thanks to Dan Collette, Anthony Fernandez, Mark Goodwin, Sacha Greer, Dahlia Guzman, Brett Hackett, Emre Keskin, Michael Morris, Erika Oshiro, Candice Shelby, Aaron Spink, Liz Swan, Zach Vereb, Christine Wieseler, and, especially, to Dave Eck for being an awesome officemate. To anyone I left out, coffee is in order! None of this could have been accomplished without the support and care of Amie Winters, thank you. Let’s hope that this is the last one. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1: ATTENUATED METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM ..................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Suspending Judgment ................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Papineau’s Formulation ................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Scientific Concepts ....................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Implications ................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 2: THE PRIMA FACIE IMPLAUSIBILITY OF SUBSTANCE .............................. 11 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Neo-Aristotelianism and Substance ............................................................................ 13 2.2 Lowe and Substance ................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Change and Substance ................................................................................................ 19 2.3.1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Substance: Independent, Fundamental, and Non-Relational? .................................... 28 2.4.1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 39 2.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 40 CHAPTER 3: THE UNNATURALNESS OF SUBSTANCE ..................................................... 42 3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 42 3.1 Quantum Field Theory ................................................................................................ 43 3.1.1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 48 3.2 Extended Synthesis ..................................................................................................... 50 3.2.1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 62 3.3 Potential Objections .................................................................................................... 63 3.3.1 Is Metaphysics Already Naturalized? .......................................................... 64 3.3.2 Is Metaphysics Primary? .............................................................................. 68 3.3.3 Is Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics Naturalizable? ......................................... 73 3.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 76 CHAPTER 4: AN ONTOLOGY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE ...................................................... 78 4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 78 4.1 A Brief History of Process .......................................................................................... 78 4.2 Naturalism and Processes ........................................................................................... 83 4.3 Quantum Field Theory ................................................................................................ 89 4.3.1 Tropes .......................................................................................................... 92 i 4.3.2 Invariant Factors .......................................................................................... 95 4.3.3 Processes ...................................................................................................... 96 4.3.3.1 Summary ..................................................................................... 104 4.4 Development ............................................................................................................. 105 4.4.1 Countable but not Fundamental ................................................................. 106 4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 108 CHAPTER 5: STRUCTURE AS METASTABLE PROCESSES ............................................. 110 5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 110 5.1 The Structure of Stuff ............................................................................................... 111 5.2 Stable Processes ........................................................................................................ 120 5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 134 CHAPTER 6: A PROCESS FRAMEWORK FOR ONTIC STRUCTURAL REALISM ......... 135 6.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 135 6.1 Ontic Structural Realism and Naturalized Metaphysics ........................................... 136 6.1.1. Radically Naturalized Metaphysics .......................................................... 137 6.1.2 Regulative Principles ................................................................................. 139 6.1.3 Unification and Modeling .......................................................................... 142 6.1.3.1 Summary ..................................................................................... 151 6.2 Ontic Structural Realism and Process Metaphysics .................................................. 152 6.2.1 Commonalities ........................................................................................... 153 6.2.2 Objections to Ontic Structural Realism ....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comment Fundamentalism and Science
    SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science Communication ISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/ Comment Fundamentalism and science Massimo Pigliucci The many facets of fundamentalism. There has been much talk about fundamentalism of late. While most people's thought on the topic go to the 9/11 attacks against the United States, or to the ongoing war in Iraq, fundamentalism is affecting science and its relationship to society in a way that may have dire long-term consequences. Of course, religious fundamentalism has always had a history of antagonism with science, and – before the birth of modern science – with philosophy, the age-old vehicle of the human attempt to exercise critical thinking and rationality to solve problems and pursue knowledge. “Fundamentalism” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences 1 as “A movement that asserts the primacy of religious values in social and political life and calls for a return to a 'fundamental' or pure form of religion.” In its broadest sense, however, fundamentalism is a form of ideological intransigence which is not limited to religion, but includes political positions as well (for example, in the case of some extreme forms of “environmentalism”). In the United States, the main version of the modern conflict between science and religious fundamentalism is epitomized by the infamous Scopes trial that occurred in 1925 in Tennessee, when the teaching of evolution was challenged for the first time 2,3. That battle is still being fought, for example in Dover, Pennsylvania, where at the time of this writing a court of law is considering the legitimacy of teaching “intelligent design” (a form of creationism) in public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • ”What Is It Like to Be a Robot?” Review of David Mcfarland's Guilty Robots, Happy Dogs
    :KDW,V,W/LNHWR%HD5RERW" *XLOW\5RERWV+DSS\'RJV7KH4XHVWLRQRI$OLHQ0LQGVE\'DYLG0F)DUODQG 5HYLHZE\'DQLHO&'HQQHWW %LR6FLHQFH9RO1R 6HSWHPEHU SS 3XEOLVKHGE\University of California PressRQEHKDOIRIWKHAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences 6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.14 . $FFHVVHG Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience. http://www.jstor.org Fall Focus on Books learn to appreciate some of the advances respect, that they go back to Harvard out the terrain using what you already and controversies in evolutionary de- Press and propose to use the current know to interpret what you find. For- velopmental biology while reading Greg version of their book as the seed for a tunately, David McFarland has chosen Wray. Then again, there is no essay on community-wide, online, open-ended the second option in Guilty Robots, the role of phenotypic plasticity in evo- effort. Of course, it would also be nice if Happy Dogs: The Question of Alien lution, a topic that has acquired central it were open access, but that’s another Minds, and there is much food for status during the past two decades; after story.
    [Show full text]
  • Process and (Mixed) Reality: a Process Philosophy for Interaction in Mixed Reality Environments
    Process and (Mixed) Reality: A Process Philosophy for Interaction in Mixed Reality Environments Timothy Barker iCinema Centre for Interactive Cinema, The University of New South Wales ABSTRACT These events are experienced within interaction with MR environments as interconnections are formed between multiple Mixed Reality (MR) environments deployed in the service of art contemporaneous entities, including the coded regime of the present a radical shift in aesthetics. These relatively recent artistic digital and the physical and affective regime of the user. experiments open up many questions relating to the traditional The interactive encounter of media art that takes place in MR distinction between subjects and objects. I seek to grapple with environments is essentially performative; the work of art is these questions of reception by viewing works by pioneering brought into being through the processes of interaction, the artists such as Jeffrey Shaw, Dennis Del Favero, Ulrike Gabriel process by which the user physically does something in order to and the artist group Blast Theory. Rather than viewing interaction activate the work. In this sense the aesthetics of interactive media within the reductive logic of a psychologized subject that art always involve becoming rather than being; in short, they apprehends a static object – that is the case in so much aesthetic always involve process. Thus, when we think about the theory – I seek to position the aesthetic encounter with MR performative nature of both interaction and technology, the environments as a hybrid process. In this paper, by using A. N. distinction between the way in which something is performed and Whitehead's process philosophy, I propose interaction as the the way in which something is aesthetically comprehended cannot coming together of two conditions; the condition of the machine be maintained.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Philosophy.Pdf
    I N T R O D U C T I O N What Is Philosophy? CHAPTER 1 The Task of Philosophy CHAPTER OBJECTIVES Reflection—thinking things over—. [is] the beginning of philosophy.1 In this chapter we will address the following questions: N What Does “Philosophy” Mean? N Why Do We Need Philosophy? N What Are the Traditional Branches of Philosophy? N Is There a Basic Method of Philo- sophical Thinking? N How May Philosophy Be Used? N Is Philosophy of Education Useful? N What Is Happening in Philosophy Today? The Meanings Each of us has a philos- “having” and “doing”—cannot be treated en- ophy, even though we tirely independent of each other, for if we did of Philosophy may not be aware of not have a philosophy in the formal, personal it. We all have some sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the ideas concerning physical objects, our fellow critical, reflective sense. persons, the meaning of life, death, God, right Having a philosophy, however, is not suffi- and wrong, beauty and ugliness, and the like. Of cient for doing philosophy. A genuine philo- course, these ideas are acquired in a variety sophical attitude is searching and critical; it is of ways, and they may be vague and confused. open-minded and tolerant—willing to look at all We are continuously engaged, especially during sides of an issue without prejudice. To philoso- the early years of our lives, in acquiring views phize is not merely to read and know philoso- and attitudes from our family, from friends, and phy; there are skills of argumentation to be mas- from various other individuals and groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Knowledge Bases to Make Factories Smarter
    at – Automatisierungstechnik 2019; 67(6): 504–517 Survey Felix Ocker*, Christiaan J. J. Paredis and Birgit Vogel-Heuser Applying knowledge bases to make factories smarter Anwendung von Wissensbasen zur Steigerung der Intelligenz von Fabriken https://doi.org/10.1515/auto-2018-0138 und Produktion sowie generische Top-Level-Ontologien. Received November 19, 2018; accepted February 7, 2019 Die Anwendung solcher generischen Ontologien ermög- licht die Gewinnung neuer Erkenntnisse durch die Inte- Abstract: Knowledge Bases (KBs) enable engineers to cap- gration des Wissens verschiedener Domänen, Interessens- ture knowledge in a formalized way. This formalization gruppen und Unternehmen. Um die Lücke zwischen Top- allows us to combine knowledge, thus creating the ba- Level-Ontologien und bestehenden domänenspezifschen sis for smart factories while also supporting product and KBs zu schließen, führen wir eine zwischengelagerte Ebe- production system design. Building comprehensive and ne, die “Intermediate Engineering Ontology” (IEO), ein. reusable KBs is still a challenge, though, especially for knowledge-intensive domains like engineering and pro- Schlagwörter: Intelligente Fabriken, Intelligentes Engi- duction. To cope with the sheer amount of knowledge, en- neering, Wissensbasen gineers should reuse existing KBs. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of domain-specifc KBs for pro- duction and engineering, as well as generic top-level on- 1 Introduction tologies. The application of such top-level ontologies of- fers new insights by integrating knowledge from various In a world that continues to become more interlinked, we domains, stakeholders, and companies. To bridge the gap collect an ever increasing amount of information [1]. This between top-level ontologies and existing domain KBs, we impacts complex and knowledge-intensive professions es- introduce an Intermediate Engineering Ontology (IEO).
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy — PHIL 1310 Prof
    Introduction to Philosophy — PHIL 1310 Prof. Thomas — TR 10:50-12:05 (CRN: 12211) Philosophy Prof. John — WEB (CRN: 11862) This course is a survey of basic themes in philosophy, addressing & Religious Studies such fundamental concerns as the nature of morality and beauty, the relation of mind and body, and the existence of free will, through discussion and analysis of readings. Course Listings Introduction to Critical Thinking — PHIL 1330 (CRN: 11863) Prof. Jones-Cathcart — WEB Spring 2015 An introduction to reasoning skills. This course focuses on the recognition of informal fallacies and the nature, use, and evaluation of arguments, as well as the basic characteristics of inductive and deductive arguments. Introduction to Logic — PHIL 2350 (CRN: 12218) Prof. Merrick — MWF 11:00-11:50 An introduction to deductive logic including translation of sentences into formal systems, immediate inferences, syllogisms, formal fallacies, proofs of validity, and quantification. Ethics and Society — PHIL 2320 multiple sections, see Schedule of Classes This course features a study of selected texts reflecting a variety of ethical systems—with at least one major text from each of four historical periods (antiquity, medieval, early modern, and contemporary). Ethical theories examined will include: deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue theory. Kant and the 19th Century — PHIL 3321 (CRN: 13276) Prof. Merrick — MWF 9:00-9:50 Contemporary Ethical Theory — PHIL 3341 (CRN: 12219) Prof. Jauss — MWF 10:00-10:50 We will begin with Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (the First Critique) and consider this text according to its established The subject matter of ethics includes not only straightforwardly objective: namely, to offer a critique of reason by the use of reason.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx, Process, and the Metaphysics of Production: the Relations of Change
    Running head: MARX AND PROCESS 1 Marx, Process, and the Metaphysics of Production: The Relations of Change ---------------------- ------- ABSTRACT: In this essay I offer a reading of Karl Marx which deviates from traditionalapproaches. I should like to explicate the metaphysics of process in Marx‟s philosophy. This work will make explicit a Marxianconcept of change and transformation in the flow of history—as Marx‟s vision of history is adynamic unfolding. On my view, Marx‟s underlying structure which serves to support his metaphysics of process is production. In The German Ideology(1845-1846) Marx writes, “The way men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part” (Tucker, 1978, p. 150). It is from the departure of real human relations that we see Marx beginning his analyses. I contend that that these relations (human production) have ontological primacy. As I see Marx as a philosopher of change, I contend that the modern process philosopher is better suited to understand the metaphysics of Marx—and therefore the dynamics of production—in pursuit of the revolutionary struggle. MARX AND PROCESS 2 Marx, Process, and the Metaphysics of Production In this essay I will offer a reading of Karl Marx which deviates from more traditional philosophical approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI
    bs_bs_banner MIDWEST STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY Midwest Studies In Philosophy, XXXVII (2013) New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI I The so-called “New Atheism” is a relatively well-defined, very recent, still unfold- ing cultural phenomenon with import for public understanding of both science and philosophy.Arguably, the opening salvo of the New Atheists was The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published in 2004, followed in rapid succession by a number of other titles penned by Harris himself, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens.1 After this initial burst, which was triggered (according to Harris himself) by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, a number of other authors have been associated with the New Atheism, even though their contributions sometimes were in the form of newspapers and magazine articles or blog posts, perhaps most prominent among them evolutionary biologists and bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers. Still others have published and continue to publish books on atheism, some of which have had reasonable success, probably because of the interest generated by the first wave. This second wave, however, often includes authors that explicitly 1. Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004); Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage, 2006); Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006); Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking Press, 2006); Victor J. Stenger, God:The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007); Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve Books, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Moral Theory: a Process Response
    MODERN MORAL THEORY: A PROCESS RESPONSE by BRADFORD O. DOWNS (Under the Direction of William Power) ABSTRACT The dominant consensus in modern moral theory suggests that comparative judgments concerning moral values can be adequately made apart from theism. Building on the thought of Charles Hartshorne and other process thinkers, I hold that values such as good, desirability, or importance are meaningless unless we posit God, properly understood in a metaphysical theory, as real and the basis or telos according to which moral values are established and measured. INDEX WORDS: Process, Process Theology, Neoclassical, Moral Theory, Theistic Arguments, Global Argument, Charles Hartshorne, Immanuel Kant MODERN MORAL THEORY: A PROCESS RESPONSE by BRADFORD O. DOWNS A.B., The University of Georgia, 2001 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2003 © 2003 Bradford O. Downs All Rights Reserved MODERN MORAL THEORY: A PROCESS REPSONSE by BRADFORD O. DOWNS Major Professor: William Power Committee: Carolyn Medine Bradley Bassler Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I INTRODUCTION Moral Theory and the Ground of Moral Assertions………………1 II MODERN MORAL THEORY Ethical Nihilism: A Response to Secularism……………………………4 The Modern Consensus in Moral Philosophy…………………………………5 Autonomy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 III THE MORAL RELIGION
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Religion
    Philosophy 2800 Professor Haskins Winter/Spring 2002 Office: Humanities 2029 Humanities 2072 Phone: (251) X 6588; email: [email protected] Tues-Thurs. 12-1:20 Office Hours: Mon. 3:30-4:30 and by appt. Philosophy of Religion This course introduces a few of the most important philosophical debates about religion from medieval times to the beginning of the twenty-first century. Among the main topics discussed will be: the problem of defining "religion" as a philosophical and a cultural phenomenon ; arguments for and against the existence of God; the problem of reconciling scientific and religious worldviews; the rationality of religious belief; and the question of what forms religion might, and should, and should not, take in our postmodern and global age. This is a philosophy course, which means that emphasis will be placed not on individual religions and their histories so much as on critical reflection about general questions that a wide spectrum of religious experience and practice raises. Our philosophical readings are taken from an array of pre- modern and modern philosphers of religion. Huston Smith’s The World’s Religions, one of the required texts, contains chapters on the major religious traditions which will provide helpful background for our more general discussions. In referring to “critical reflection” above I mean that the goal of the course is not to defend any specific religious (or for that matter non-religious) point of view, including my own, even though my opinions on various issues will be evident from time to time. It is to offer intellectual tools for sorting through the cacophony of opinions and arguments about religion, spirituality, god, and related matters that is a vital (if also sometimes politically and existentially troublesome) part of our culture and that, as much as anything else in our culture today, needs the emphasis on the clear and rational evaluation of arguments that philosophy at its best tries to encourage.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Buddhism and Process Philosophy on Ideation
    WHY IDEAS ON IDEAS MATTER: EARLY BUDDHISM AND PROCESS PHILOSOPHY ON IDEATION John Becker Abstract: The formation of ideas is a universal characteristic of humankind. However, the nature of ideation and the ensuing convictions is fraught with ontological and ethical implications. This article seeks to explore the issues of ideation and establish the implicit substance-based ontology that accompanies it from a Buddhist and Whiteheadian perspective. The early Buddhist sutras identify extreme positions as resulting in unbeneficial practices and conceptions. These findings are correlated with Alfred North Whitehead’s criticism directed towards substance orientated epistemology. Both Buddhism and Whitehead share the conviction that absolute or essentialist claims are suspicious, and they both attempt to create a scheme of presuppositions and language that better appropriate lived human experiences. The Buddha, as with Whitehead, explored new modes of terminology to sidestep such reified understandings of nature. The article concludes with some advantages of event-based ontology that envisions the actuality of the universe as consisting of events and experience as opposed to substance. Humanity’s current rapport with knowledge is precarious. Bombarded with sectarian news outlets, social media campaigns, and postmodern critiques, discerning authentic information seems nearly impossible in a cultural context where lies slip into veracity and truths smack of deceit. The issue, to an extent, is not misinformation, but the fidelity ascribed to it. As Frederick Nietzsche noted long ago, “convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies” (Nietzsche 1996: 179). His observation is apt, that is, falsities in themselves are relatively harmless if firm convictions do not accompany them.
    [Show full text]
  • Nurture Becomes Nature:! the Evolving Place of Psychology in the Theory of Evolution! Tutor: Prof
    UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO-BICOCCA! ! Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione! Dipartimento di Scienze Umane per la Formazione “R. Massa”! Dottorato di Ricerca in Scienze della Formazione e della Comunicazione! XXVI Ciclo! Curriculum “Sviluppo Organizzativo e Comunicazione Multimediale”! ! ! ! Nurture becomes nature:! the evolving place of psychology in the theory of evolution! ! ! ! Tutor: Prof. Romano MADERA! ex Prof. Dietelmo PIEVANI! Tesi di Dottorato di! Giorgio TARDITI SPAGNOLI! Matricola 744875! ! ! Anni Accademici 2011-2013! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! To my three mentors:! ! Ernst Haeckel! who recapitulated the Body until the two columns of the Soul World.! ! Ex Deo Nascimur.! ! Carl G. Jung! who individuated the Soul until the threshold of the Spirit World.! ! In Christo Morimur.! ! Rudolf Steiner! who freed the Human Spirit in the lap of the World Spirit.! ! ! Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus.! "2 Background to the thesis here presented! At the beginning of this PhD project I focused my research on the status of the so called Extended Synthesis (ES). Taking as the main reference the book Evolution – The Extended Synthesis edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Müller (2010). The first phase of this work consisted in the bibliographical research necessary to tackle the caveats of the ES while the second phase was aimed to acknowledge its theoretical aspects so to integrate it in the current theory of evolution.! Delving deeper into this aspect I and Sara Baccei, a PhD student of Biology at the Zoo.Plant.Lab. of the Biology Department at the University Milan-Bicocca, did a research that could bound together an empirical perspective with a theoretical one. So Baccei added her knowledge in molecular biology to my philosophical perspective on evolvability, or the “evolution of evolution”, a central theme in the ES (Pigliucci, 2008).
    [Show full text]