DOCSLIB.ORG

Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics Richard H. Zander Missouri Botanical Garden St. Louis, MO, USA [email protected] Abstract Systematics based solely on structuralist principles is non- science because it is derived from first principles that are inconsistent in dealing with both synchronic and diachronic as- pects of evolution, and its evolutionary models involve hidden causes, and unnameable and unobservable entities. Structural- ist phylogenetics emulates axiomatic mathematics through emphasis on deduction, and “hypotheses” and “mapped trait changes” that are actually lemmas and theorems. Sister-group- only evolutionary trees have no caulistic element of scientific realism. This results in a degenerate systematics based on pat- terns of fact or evidence being treated as so fundamental that all other data may be mapped to the cladogram, resulting in an apparently well-supported classification that is devoid of evolutionary theory. Structuralism in systematics is based on a non-ultrametric analysis of sister-group informative data that cannot detect or model a named taxon giving rise to a named taxon, resulting in classifications that do not reflect macroevo- lutionary changes unless they are sister lineages. Conservation efforts are negatively affected through epistemological extinc- tion of scientific names. Evolutionary systematics is a viable alternative, involving both deduction and induction, hypoth- esis and theory, developing trees with both synchronic and diachronic dimensions often inferring nameable ancestral taxa, and resulting in classifications that advance evolutionary the- ory and explanations for particular groups. Keywords classification, conservation, empiricism, evolution, phyloge- netics, structuralism (Author-generated reprint) January 21, 2011; accepted April 9, 2011 Biological Theory 5(4) 2010, 383–394. c 2011 Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 383 Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics Biological systematics does not exist as independent of chang- deduction from, e.g., fossils and polyploidy, and induction to ing philosophies in other fields. Structuralism (Overton 1975; extend the theory to all evidence and species. It is founded Matthews 2001) was introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure on empiricism in rejecting hidden causes and unnamed or un- (1857–1913) to linguistics (Balzer et al. 1987; Barry 2002), observable entities. Moreover, it is nondoxastic because we and spread as a postmodern “rejection of all things past” to ar- require that all theories and assumptions be falsifiable or at chitecture, art, anthropology, literary theory, psychology, psy- least have some demonstrable causal connection with natural choanalysis, mathematics, and, as is now evident, to system- phenomena. The only quasi-fundamental patterns in science atics (Rieppel and Grande 1994: 249). It is intended to replace are certain laws and principles of physics (Giere 2005), and empiricism, which involves observation, data, and experiment even these are presented in such a way as to be subject to fal- leading to testable hypotheses, and empiricism rejects hidden sification. The magic is in the greatly advanced understanding causes and unnameable or unobservable entities. Structuralism of nature through scientific theorization based on all available emphasizes the importance of irreducible hidden structures facts, and competition between alternative theories. that are essentially engraved in the ground of being, exist at all Phylogenetics projects an aura of the exactitude and cer- times as axiomatic, and are not properly dealt with by theories tainty of mathematics. It is, however, not consistent because of changes or processes in nature (Piaget 1970; Gilbert et al. its apparently fundamental patterns are generated only by 1996; Brading and Landry 2006). Such ahistorical and syn- sister-group analysis. A whole dimension, accessible through chronic structure is, in structuralism, the ultimate reality that ancestor–descendant analysis, is ignored, yet is critical to evo- contributes to the human-mediated appearance of what we ob- lutionary theory as being directly involved in inferences of serve. Although the word “structuralism” is sometimes used to “descent with modification.” Phylogenetics is axiomatic in the refer to biological developmental design limitations on evolu- sense that sister-group trees are taken as lemmas and traits tion, in this article it refers to apparently fundamental nesting or distributions mapped thereon as theorems (though these patterns of similarity that imply evolutionary relationship. are incorrectly called “hypotheses”). It is largely deductive, citing the “hypothetico-deductivism” of Popper (1959) but substituting observed pattern for hypothesis. It rejects empiri- Science, Mathematics, and Phylogenetics cism in rejecting or at least relegating non-phylogenetically Science, mathematics, and phylogenetics may be compared informative data and in relying on unnameable “shared ances- with reference to patterns in nature. Mathematics is consistent tors” as hidden causes. And it is doxastic, as adherents believe in all dimensions, bounded only by Godel’s¨ Incompleteness that sister-group analysis of evolution is the only acceptable Theorem and certain intuitionist inroads on axioms (Kline basis for classification because it reflects facts of present-day 1980). It is axiomatic, using lemmas (proven statements used evolutionary relationships, not theory. Phylogenetics is nei- as logical stepping stones) and theorems (statements proven on ther mathematics nor science because of the categorical pre- the basis of previous true statements). It is entirely deductive scriptions and proscriptions in axiomatic structuralism (see (mathematical induction is not the same as inductive reason- Giere 2005). A phylogenetic tree is linguistically “pseudo- ing, it is actually a rigorous deduction). It ignores causes and referencing,” imbuing a representation with import it lacks, real entities. Moreover, it is doxastic, as we have faith that it and there is no real magic in that. is true because a deduction must be true if based on a true first principle (Chesterton [1933] 1956: 154). It is also somewhat Classification magical in that mathematical concepts, no matter how convo- luted or pyramidal, can be expected to work well every time Classification is the structured language by which coherent in real situations. groups in nature are represented. A protothetic classification Science (including evolutionary systematics as distinct (based on first principles) may be internally consistent and pre- from phylogenetics) is paraconsistent, as there may be con- cise (Rieppel 2011), but is empty without process-mediated tradictory theories but we need them to deal with nature; e.g., content (Gilbert et al. 1996; Rieppel 2010). Axiomatic ge- wave and particle theories of light, polythetic species descrip- ometry, for instance, did not replace empiricism when it was tions, and different species concepts. It does not, however, discovered, but established empiricism on a firm and regular- ignore any fundamental dimension, i.e., one not reducible to ized basis in both applied and research venues. It is tempting component terms, like length and force. It is non-axiomatic and to treat theoretically refractory but otherwise pattern-forming corrigible because scientific theory is expected to be continu- phenomenon as metaphysical Platonic structures, but any set ously tested by new facts. It is based on hypotheses and theories of phenomena can be treated as well-documented observa- involving causal explanations (Frost-Arnold 2010) with a foot- tions in search of a theory. Even the almost magical Prin- print in natural phenomena. It uses both deductive and induc- ciple of Least Action now has a well-established theoretical tive reasoning (Cleland 2001), say, theory of evolution using explanation through quantum effects in the mesocosm (Hanc 384 Biological Theory 5(4) 2010 Richard H. Zander et al. 2003). Structures discovered in fields other than mathe- 1990) is an extended metaphor that creates its own context. matics and physics are mostly real in some sense (“Meinong’s Metaphor is established, and is reified as part of the story or Jungles” sensu Jacquette 1996), yet, though important to prac- image. In phylogenetics, the structuralist problem is demon- titioners despairing of subjective or multiple analytic view- strated in the following figures of speech: simile: “evolution points, are hardly of the import and demonstrable value of is like a tree”; metaphor: “evolution is a tree”; pataphor:“the mathematical and physical axioms. There are, however, uses tree is evolution.” A phylogenetic tree is presented as a pat- for structuralist forms of analysis in an empirical context (van aphor. On the other hand, a structuralistically reified metaphor Fraasen 2007). The structuralist slogan, “theoretical knowl- of an evolutionary tree, the cladogram, only represents a set edge is knowledge of structure only,” on the other hand, can of nested parentheses modeling sister-group relationships of be pitted, in science, against the long-accepted completeness extant taxa. Although phylograms with branch lengths noted criterion that science must explain how things manifest them- on them seem to clothe the tree limbs with information, these selves as content in reality, namely through an inferred or ob- distances involve nodes, which are not named (except with the served process (Dewey 1950: 12; Giere 2009). Phylogenetics uninformative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fourth Perspective: Evolution and Organismal Agency
    The Fourth Perspective: Evolution and Organismal Agency Johannes Jaeger Complexity Science Hub (CSH), Vienna, Josefstädter Straße 39, 1080 Vienna Abstract This chapter examines the deep connections between biological organization, agency, and evolution by natural selection. Using Griesemer’s account of the re- producer, I argue that the basic unit of evolution is not a genetic replicator, but a complex hierarchical life cycle. Understanding the self-maintaining and self-pro- liferating properties of evolvable reproducers requires an organizational account of ontogenesis and reproduction. This leads us to an extended and disambiguated set of minimal conditions for evolution by natural selection—including revised or new principles of heredity, variation, and ontogenesis. More importantly, the con- tinuous maintenance of biological organization within and across generations im- plies that all evolvable systems are agents, or contain agents among their parts. This means that we ought to take agency seriously—to better understand the con- cept and its role in explaining biological phenomena—if we aim to obtain an or- ganismic theory of evolution in the original spirit of Darwin’s struggle for exis- tence. This kind of understanding must rely on an agential perspective on evolu- tion, complementing and succeeding existing structural, functional, and processual approaches. I sketch a tentative outline of such an agential perspective, and present a survey of methodological and conceptual challenges that will have to be overcome if we are to properly implement it. 1. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to interpret Darwinian evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin’s original framework grounds the process of evolution on 2 the individual’s struggle for existence (Darwin, 1859).
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptual Variation and Structuralism
    NOUSˆ 54:2 (2020) 290–326 doi: 10.1111/nous.12245 Perceptual Variation and Structuralism JOHN MORRISON Barnard College, Columbia University Abstract I use an old challenge to motivate a new view. The old challenge is due to variation in our perceptions of secondary qualities. The challenge is to say whose percep- tions are accurate. The new view is about how we manage to perceive secondary qualities, and thus manage to perceive them accurately or inaccurately. I call it perceptual structuralism. I first introduce the challenge and point out drawbacks with traditional responses. I spend the rest of the paper motivating and defending a structuralist response. While I focus on color, both the challenge and the view generalize to the other secondary qualities. 1. Perceptual Variation Our perceptual experiences tell us that lemons are yellow and sour. It’s natural to infer that lemons really are yellow and sour. But perceptions vary, even among ordinary observers. Some perceive lemons as slightly greener and sweeter. This gives rise to a challenge that forces us to rethink the nature of perception and the objectivity of what we perceive. For concreteness, I’ll focus on the perceptions of two ordinary observers, Miriam and Aaron. I’ll also focus on their perceptions of a particular lemon’s color. These restrictions will make the challenge easier to understand and the responses easier to compare. But the challenge and responses are perfectly general. Toward the end of the paper I’ll return to sourness and the other secondary qualities. When Miriam and Aaron look at the same lemon, their perceptions differ.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogenetic Structuralism'
    'BIOGE~TIC STRUCTURALISM'STRUCTURALISM" AND THE LOCATION OF STRUCTURES*STRUCTURES~'< In the heyday of 'high' structuralism it was sometimes argued, explicitly or implicitly, that the ultimate 'explanation' of cultural structures was to be found in the properties of 'the human mind'. This argument, it was perhaps felt, shifted the problem of explanation to the realm 'of philosophr, which many anthropologists considered outsiqe their concern. It was not surprising, therefore, that $ceptics ofaof, a more materialist persuasionpersuas'ion would critiofze structuralist analysis for being an essentially idea11stormentalistidealJtst or mentalist undertaking.undertakirig. Even so, the analytical value, of the notion of structures (in the Levi-Straussian sense,'hasbeen increasingly recognized, even by anthro­ pologists of a materialistmateria~ist stance (e.g. in the 'structural marx.i;sm'marx,j;sm' of MauriceNaurice Godelier (1973) and JonathanJonatl1an Friedman (1974),(1974)1 to the extent that nowadays only the most ardent 'vul¢ar'vul$ar materialists' feel they can do without it. This devefopment has not, however, done away with the problem of t~e locatiori of structures; the problem has only been push~d into the background, because other problems were.were felt: by most to be of more immediate concern. , .' ~ptwhether~f.lt'whether or not we have been bothered by the location problelflproblelf1 we should all welcome the pioneering work of two auth'prl;j,auth'prl;l, Charles Laughlin, an anthropologist, and Eugene d' Aqui!i, ~ psych~atrist, in which they lay the foundations " of aneW structural approach, 'biogenetic structuralism'. In the introduction to the book they state: !~ f f ., Th~majorTh~rnajor onttllbgical-:assumptiononttJlbgical-:assumption upon which biogenetic str\.ibturalismstr~bturalism is founded is that there exists no reality intervening between the central nervous system and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Poststructuralism Understanding Movements in Modern Thought Series Editor: Jack Reynolds
    understanding poststructuralism Understanding Movements in Modern Thought Series Editor: Jack Reynolds Th is series provides short, accessible and lively introductions to the major schools, movements and traditions in philosophy and the history of ideas since the beginning of the Enlightenment. All books in the series are written for undergraduates meeting the subject for the fi rst time. Published Understanding Existentialism Understanding Virtue Ethics Jack Reynolds Stan van Hooft Understanding Poststructuralism James Williams Forthcoming titles include Understanding Empiricism Understanding Hermeneutics Robert Meyers Lawrence Schmidt Understanding Ethics Understanding Naturalism Tim Chappell Jack Ritchie Understanding Feminism Understanding Phenomenology Peta Bowden and Jane Mummery David Cerbone Understanding German Idealism Understanding Rationalism Will Dudley Charlie Heunemann Understanding Hegelianism Understanding Utilitarianism Robert Sinnerbrink Tim Mulgan understanding poststructuralism James Williams For Richard and Olive It is always about who you learn from. © James Williams, 2005 Th is book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No reproduction without permission. All rights reserved. First published in 2005 by Acumen Acumen Publishing Limited 15a Lewins Yard East Street Chesham Bucks HP5 1HQ www.acumenpublishing.co.uk ISBN 1-84465-032-4 (hardcover) ISBN 1-84465-033-2 (paperback) Work on Chapter 3 was supported by British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British
    [Show full text]
  • Society: a Key Concept in Anthropology - Christian Giordano and Andrea Boscoboinik
    ETHNOLOGY, ETHNOGRAPHY AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY - Society: A Key Concept In Anthropology - Christian Giordano and Andrea Boscoboinik SOCIETY: A KEY CONCEPT IN ANTHROPOLOGY Christian Giordano and Andrea Boscoboinik University of Fribourg, Department of Social Sciences, Pérolles 90, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. Keywords: Society, Culture, Evolutionism, Functionalism, Structuralism, Post- Structuralism, Dynamic Anthropology, Diffusionism, Relativism, Interpretive Anthropology, Postmodern Anthropology Contents 1. Introduction: semantic ambiguities of the concept of anthropology 2. Pioneers of Social Anthropology: Evolutionism and Society 3. The Idea of Society in British Anthropology: Functionalism 4. The French School: Structuralism 5. From Structuralism to Post-Structuralism and Their Influence on Agency Theory 6. Against Stability: Dynamic Anthropology 7. Diffusionism, Historicism and Relativism in Franz Boas: Culture as the Expression of Society in American Anthropology 8. Beyond seemingly objective facts: the interpretive anthropology of Clifford Geertz 9. Postmodern Anthropology: The Advent of Methodological Individualism and the Omission of Society. 10. Conclusion. Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary In this chapter, we present the major anthropological currents that directly or indirectly made use of the notion of society in their theoretical reflections and analyses of empirical data. Having first clarified the polysemic nature of the term anthropology, we analyze the theoretical framework of early anthropologists who drew upon the evolutionist theories stemming from natural science. We then analyze British functionalism,UNESCO-EOLSS whose theoretical basis chiefly consists in a criticism of evolutionism, which was regarded as too speculative. Functionalism is characterized by its interest in institutions that, through their functions, generate cohesion in societies deemed primitive. TypicalSAMPLE of British functionalism is CHAPTERSthe empirical orientation of research put forward by Bronislaw Malinowski.
    [Show full text]
  • Resilience, Safety Management, Social Structuralism and Systemic
    Specht & Poumadère Interrogating Resilience. Safety management, Social structuralism and Systemic adaptation. Specht Maryline1, Poumadère Marc2 1Université René Descartes Paris 5 – Sorbonne, France [email protected] 2 Institut Symlog, Paris, France [email protected] "Something new has to be built to abolish the previous narrowness, because no reform by itself can destroy a system which, in spite of its shortcomings, can fulfil given requirements - or else it would not exist – in the absence of any system above it which could do better" Pavel Florenski, 1905. Abstract. In this article we propose a theoretical discussion around the resilience concept and practice. Based upon a safety managerial trend aiming to diffuse safety culture through training within a pharmaceutical industry, analysis are initiated to define how organizational resilience (attached to safety culture) interweaves with risk factors and can be developed through training. Classical safety management aims at developing various systems, technical as well as organizational, to prevent and protect against dangers. Training, in this case, is a matter of risk assessment development. We suggest a new perspective stemming from human management. Its axis is to identify the frame of psychological resilience and to consider how it can be sustained. Psychological resilience appears to be a three-dimensional phenomenon less linked to risk assessment than to cultural structuralism and systemic adaptation. Along with the discussion, the question of training towards psychological resilience is discussed as well. It appears that resilience is questioned by uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity, and framed by structural, symbolic and relational systems; risk factors awareness, prudence and justice standards, along with systemic adaptation, altogether can sustain flexible and adaptative responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers: from Structuralism to Postmodernity
    FIFTY KEY CONTEMPORARY THINKERS From structuralism to postmodernity John Lechte London and New York FIFTY KEY CONTEMPORARY THINKERS In this book, John Lechte focuses both on the development of structuralist theory and on key thinkers opposed to this tendency. For the specialist and the general reader alike, it is an indispensable reference book on this century’s most important intellectual revolution. In each of the fifty entries, John Lechte skilfully illuminates complex thought with unusual clarity. He also provides comprehensive bibliographical information and suggestions for further reading. From early structuralism, Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers guides us through post-structuralism, semiotics, post-Marxism and Annales history, on to modernity and postmodernity. It includes chapters on Bakhtin, Freud, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Derrida, Lacan, Kristeva, Saussure, Irigaray and Kafka among others. Literary figures who have changed the way language is conceived are considered, together with philosophers, linguists, social theorists, feminists and historians. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers shows that thought in the twentieth century emphasises the relational dimension of existence rather than an essential dimension. This kind of thought leads on to nihilism, but also to the point where nihilism might be overcome. In explaining new developments in literature, art and philosophy, John Lechte helps readers to achieve a more profound understanding of the underpinnings of post- war thought and culture. John Lechte, a former student of Julia Kristeva, teaches social theory and the sociology of representation at Macquarie University, Australia. He has also worked in the fields of history, semiotics and politics, and has an abiding interest in psychoanalysis. He has taught and published widely on many aspects of modern thought.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Structuralism. Vol. 2
    DJFHKJSD History of Structuralism Volume 2 This page intentionally left blank History of Structuralism Volume 2: The Sign Sets, 1967-Present Francois Dosse Translated by Deborah Glassman University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis London The University of Minnesota Press gratefully acknowledges financial assistance provided by the French Ministry of Culture for the translation of this book. Copyright 1997 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota Originally published as Histoire du structuralisme, 11. Le chant du cygne, de 1967 anos jour«; Copyright Editions La Decouverte, Paris, 1992. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Published by the University of Minnesota Press III Third Avenue South, Suite 290, Minneapolis, MN 554°1-2520 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper http://www.upress.umn.edu First paperback edition, 1998 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dosse, Francois, 1950- [Histoire du structuralisme. English] History of structuralism I Francois Dosse ; translated by Deborah Glassman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v. 1. The rising sign, 1945-1966-v. 2. The sign sets, 1967-present. ISBN 0-8166-2239-6 (v. I: he: alk. paper}.-ISBN 0-8166-2241-8 (v. I: pbk. : alk. paper}.-ISBN 0-8166-2370-8 (v. 2: hc: alk. paper}.-ISBN 0-8166-2371-6 (v. 2: pbk. : alk. paper}.-ISBN 0-8166-2240-X (set: hc: alk. paper}.-ISBN 0-8166-2254-X (set: pbk.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Theory 5(4) 2010, 383–394
    Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics Richard H. Zander Missouri Botanical Garden St. Louis, MO, USA [email protected] Abstract Systematics based solely on structuralist principles is non- science because it is derived from first principles that are inconsistent in dealing with both synchronic and diachronic as- pects of evolution, and its evolutionary models involve hidden causes, and unnameable and unobservable entities. Structural- ist phylogenetics emulates axiomatic mathematics through emphasis on deduction, and “hypotheses” and “mapped trait changes” that are actually lemmas and theorems. Sister-group- only evolutionary trees have no caulistic element of scientific realism. This results in a degenerate systematics based on pat- terns of fact or evidence being treated as so fundamental that all other data may be mapped to the cladogram, resulting in an apparently well-supported classification that is devoid of evolutionary theory. Structuralism in systematics is based on a non-ultrametric analysis of sister-group informative data that cannot detect or model a named taxon giving rise to a named taxon, resulting in classifications that do not reflect macroevo- lutionary changes unless they are sister lineages. Conservation efforts are negatively affected through epistemological extinc- tion of scientific names. Evolutionary systematics is a viable alternative, involving both deduction and induction, hypoth- esis and theory, developing trees with both synchronic and diachronic dimensions often inferring nameable ancestral taxa, and resulting in classifications that advance evolutionary the- ory and explanations for particular groups. Keywords classification, conservation, empiricism, evolution, phyloge- netics, structuralism (Author-generated reprint) January 21, 2011; accepted April 9, 2011 Biological Theory 5(4) 2010, 383–394.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Developmental and Historical Structuralism
    RB-72-53 INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENTAL AND HISTORICAL STRUCTURALISM Klaus F. Riegel University of Michigan 1 To appear as a chapter in K. F. Riegel (Ed.), I Structure, Transformation, Interaction: Develop­ mental and Historical Aspects (Vol. I. Topics in Human Development). Basel: Karger, 1973. Educational Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey November 1972 Introduction to Developmental and Historical Structuralism Klaus F. Riegel The following essay introduces structuralism from several different angles. In the first section of this introduction, the concept of structure (and in extension those of schema, pattern, gestalt, etc.) will be contrasted with that of function (and in extension those of activity, interaction, transforma­ tion, etc.). Such a comparison will not merely reconfirm the old dichotomy as introduced into psychology by James and Titchner, but will emphasize the mutual dependency of structure and functions. In this attempt we rely on Piaget's interpretations and, thus, emphasize genetic aspects. Reference will also be given to recent trends in linguistics, especially to Chomsky's transformational grammar. In the second section, we trace the origin of these ideas to some reformu­ lations in mathematics proposed during the second half of the 19th century by Dedekind, Frege, Russell and others. The new emphasis stressed the analysis of relational orders and classes and thus contributed to the foundation for structural interpretations. Further steps in this direction were taken in Carnap's early work, which is represented in the third section. Carnap provides explicit descriptions of structural interpretations, by relying on some positivists of the late 19th century, especially Mach, Poincare and Avenarius. whose contributions-­ unfortunately--have frequently been viewed in clear antithesis to structural descriptions.
    [Show full text]
  • An Essay on Late Structuralism
    An Essay on Late Structuralism Bill Gibson¤ March 2002 Abstract This paper traces the evolution of structuralist thought from the early European and Latin American structuralists through the late structuralism of Taylor and his followers. The genesis of the structuralist method is located in the writings of the early structuralists and necessarily leads to what neoclassicals call ad hoc theory. It is argued that simulation models are the logical outgrowth of the structuralist methodological trajectory and the validity of structuralist method is established by it scope as well as its realism. 1. Introduction In this essay I examine the scope and method of the structuralist school in an attempt to identify precisely how it di¤ers from the neoclassical system, in both its mode of analysis and its criteria for validity. There are four conclusions reached: …rst, the work of Taylor and his followers can be seen as a coherent outgrowth of not only Latin American Structuralism, as is often observed [25], but also the European or Early Structuralism of Levi-Strauss, Godlier and Piaget [27], [22] Piaget [37]. The early work, both Latin American and European, focused on rigidities and frictions in local economies [5] while in the late structuralism of Taylor and his followers, theory not only must account for the “macrofoundations” of behavior, but also global foundations, that is the constraints the evolution of the global system itself imposes on the players. Third, late structuralism is often criticized as ad hoc theorybecauseisnotgroundedinoptimizationmodels ¤Department of Economics, University of Vermont, Old Mill Burlington, VT 05405 USA 413-548-9448 e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Vitalism in a Chiropractic Programme – a New Zealand Case Study
    Vitalism in a chiropractic programme – A New Zealand case study Marina Fox A thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education 2017 School of Education Supervisor: Andrew Begg ix Attestation of Authorship: I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material published or written by another person (except where explicitly defined in the acknowledgements), nor material that to a substantial extent has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institution of higher learning. Marina Fox ii Contents Contents .................................................................................................. iii Abstract .................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ................................................................................ vii List of Tables and Figures ....................................................................... ix CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 Background and definitions ...................................................................... 1 Background of the author ......................................................................... 3 Research question ................................................................................... 4 Objectives ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]