Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Evolution, Philosophy, and Metcalf

I have been slightly puzzled to find Stephen Metcalf, of the Slate Culture Gabfest, consorting with anti-evolutionists, or at least taking them seriously. For some background, you can read an article co-written by philosopher Jerry Fodor, and recently endorsed by Metcalf, as well as a discussion of the article, in which I participated. The upshot is that Fodor, et al, make philosophical arguments against Darwinian natural selection. Few philosophers, and no serious scientists of which I am aware, give these arguments much credence, but they appear to have a hold on the minds of some very bright and well educated people, and I find this troubling.

With today's podcast, suddenly I think get it. I judge that Metcalf's real goal is to defend the study of English literature, and of the humanities generally, as a worthy endeavor in its own right, and to reject the notion, apparently fashionable in some circles, that we should try to interpret literature, for example, in the context of evolutionary psychology. With this goal, I am in complete accord, and would not have it otherwise. But the flirtation with the work of Fodor and like-minded folk is the intellectual equivalent of "forward leaning," preemptive warfare. Fight the terrorists in their homeland so we don't have to fight them here! But this is a grave error.

This attempt of certain humanities partisans to sally forth and strike at evolution in the heart of the sciences recalls the Army of Northern Virginia's ill-begotten venture into the Pennsylvania countryside, and will surely share its fate. What may seem, initially, like a bold and brilliant tactical stroke will ultimately bring them only to ruin. Traipsing around out there, their supply lines are long and vulnerable, they don't know the territory, and sooner or later, they are going to engage with an army that is far larger and better equipped. And this Fodor fellow is no Lee, either. He's more like J.E.B. Stuart, flashily racing about, showily making a lot of fuss, and achieving nothing substantive, leaving the cause worse off than before.

When they keep their argument grounded in the humanities, and advocate the study of literature, and its rightful place as an essential part of the intellectual heritage of Western civilization, they will find that they have allies. They are, in fact, fighting a two-front battle here, and in today's podcast, Metcalf spends some worthy energy going after their true, main opponents--the internal ones. These are the people that drank the Kool-Aid of all the deconstructionist, identity studies, and Marxist/capitalist theorizing, and destroyed the meaningful discussion of great texts on their own merits, as all three Culture Gabfesters appear to lament. Hear, hear! I could not agree more, and I think that is where the cause is truly to be won or lost. To rescue English departments, they need get back to talking about the ideas and passions of great books, stories, and poems. This is, in one sense then, an internal civil war within the humanities, or at least English departments. Having studied science (though I minored in the humanities) at an engineering school, my own resources to help them in the internal humanities fight are limited.

But as to second front, the lesser, but real, encroachments from certain overreaching science types who are trying to aggressively push concepts like evolutionary psychology into the study of literature, I am happy to help man the barricades. A caveat: Ultimately, of course, there will be some things to be gained from the nascent field of evolutionary psychology. Since the brain most assuredly evolved, then the things that our brains are capable of are likewise the product of evolution, QED. However, to suggest that we are today at a state where we can begin to discuss literature within the context of brain scans is absurd in the extreme. We do not, as yet, have a remotely coherent theory of how intelligence arises from the firing of neurons, and so talking about literature in those terms is a tad, um, premature, to say the least. It is as if, having discovered quantum mechanics, we immediately began trying to describe the preparation of a seven course gourmet meal in terms of quarks and leptons. Sure the quarks and leptons are down there, but they tell us precious little about the taste of butter on the tongue. Generally, the application of brain scans to interpretation of literature is, today, about as scientific as phrenology, and should be treated similarly.

So let us not waste time and precious mental energy disputing the rather ironclad evidence of the evolutionary origins of the human body, including our marvelously intricate brains. Instead, let us use those brains to wrestle with ideas, great and small, in the realms of great literature, and film, and music, and... podcasts!