Conference Report: The Generalized Theory of

Conference Report: The Generalized Theory of Evolution Mel Andrews & Elmo Feiten March, 2018

An abbreviated version of this conference report appeared in The Reasoner, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2018.

Andrews & Feiten

Introduction

Report: The Generalized Theory of Evolution

academic community. While this forum proved no place for clear-cut answers nor conceptual una-

What does a generalization of evolutionary thenimity, the potential was abundantly evident for ory entail? Does such a theory exist in consenpromising theoretical developments yet to emerge sus use amongst biologists and philosophers of biout of the diverse and highly interdisciplinary enology?

The phrasing of the conference title itcounters that took place during the four days of

self suggests a positive reply. Though convincing rigorous and frequently heated discussions. prominent scholars to leave the comfort of their offices and undertake the pilgrimage to D¨ usseldorf is no small feat–despite its globally-acclaimed in-

Facts & Figures With seven keynote lectures and a total of thirty-

frastructure [1] and its inalienable allure as birth- five talks delivered from the fields of Anthropology, place of proto-industrial electronic band Kraftwerk

Biology, Economics, History, Philosophy, Politics,

[2]–pilgrimage they did, and from around the globe. Psychology, Sociology, and Technology Studies, the The conference, which took place from January conference provided an expanded context for lively 31st to February 3rd, 2018, at the Center for Logic and high-level exchange across disciplinary boundand Philosophy of Science, Heinrich-Heine Univer-

aries. Ninety-one participants, hailing from Bel-

sity, D¨ usseldorf, attracted academics from a wide

gium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France,

array of disciplines and nationalities to critically

Germany, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Por-

engage these questions. But was the tacit claim tugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, underlying the conference title borne out by the Turkey, the UK and the United States shared a academic reality of its proceedings? Could a uni-

wide array of perspectives and approaches. Al-

fied conceptual framework for the life and social sci- though most of the scholars in attendance seemed ences be extracted from trends within the various

broadly united by a common commitment to a

fields and disciplines which the conference aimed

Darwinian analysis of cultural phenomena, there

boldly to galvanize? The diversity and nuance of also appeared a strong and vocal body of intelthe many contributions and conversations which

lectuals for whom a generalization of evolution-

took place over these four days make a definitive

ary theory entailed not an extension of its proto-

and unequivocal answer to this question impossi-

typical processual characteristics to new explana-

ble, yet it is precisely these characteristics which

tory frontiers, but rather an elaboration and for-

marked the significance of the event for a nascent

malization of the diverse mechanisms underlying adaptive transformations in biological systems. The

Andrews & Feiten


defining attribute displayed by the make-up of the tion into the spontaneous emergence of meaningful conference was unquestionably its profound het-

communication using game theory as well as com-

erogeneity. The various contributions differed not

putational and mathematical modeling was offered

merely along the axes of experimental and theo-

by Brian Skyrms, Distinguished Professor of Logic

retical work, as well as qualitative and quantita- and Philosophy of Science and Economics at the tive methodologies, but exhibited more fundamen- University of California, Irvine and a Professor of tal disparities and disagreements between the dif-

Philosophy at Stanford University, on the morn-

ferent outlooks.

ing of the third day. Ruth Mace’s analysis of kin-

Keynotes

ship and residence patterns in Africa and China

The conference was initiated on January 31st with a keynote by world-renowned analytic philosopher Daniel Dennett, presenting on a memetic approach to cultural evolution and the gradual deDarwinization of human culture. Alex Mesoudi, a prominent voice in the contemporary study of cultural evolution, began the following day with a presentation of experimental data in support of a Darwinian interpretation of cultural transformation. He outlined the possibility of synthesizing the social sciences through a process modelled on the Modern Synthesis, yet also added the caveat that not all cultural phenomena can be described equally well under a general selectionist paradigm. Using insights from game theory, computational modeling, and the mathematics of memetic evolution, Gerhard Schurz, who holds the chair of Theoretical Philosophy at the Heinrich Heine University of D¨ usseldorf, provided a systematic juxtaposition of the descriptions of nature and culture within a generalized theory of evolution. An investiga-

demonstrated the power of Niko Tinbergen’s four foundational questions in ethology [3] for explaining cultural phenomena, drawing on her work as Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at the University College London. The final day of the conference started with the keynote lecture of Thomas Reydon, Professor for the Philosophy of Biology at Leibniz Universität Hannover, who addressed the requirements for applying a generalized evolutionary theory to a specific domain, focusing on the concept of population within the philosophy of biology. Eva Jablonka, co-author with Marion Lamb of the seminal Evolution in Four Dimensions [5] and a key proponent of the extended evolutionary synthesis, presented an evolutionary-developmental approach to the study of culture—applying Conrad Waddington’s concept of an epigenetic landscape to explain the within and across-generational inheritance of cultural characteristics ranging from religious practices to economic disparity.

Andrews & Feiten


Contributed talks Many overarching themes threaded through the conference proceedings, forming, if not a concrete and unified whole, at least a set of family resemblance conditions which brought the many keynote and contributed talks together. One such topic of primary importance was a discussion of the benefits, limitations, and applications of a memetic approach to cultural evolution, with both critiques and developments of work by Richard Dawkins [6],

Figure 1: Originally crated by Eliza Jewett, with modifications by Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009); Used with permission of the author.

Susan Blackmore [8], and Daniel Dennett [9] [14] featured in presentations by Michael Schlaile, Martin Boudry, and Steije Hofhuis, and Dennett himself, among others. Another motif, which appeared both visually and conceptually prominent throughout the many keynote and contributed talks, was that of the Darwinian Spaces model—a graphical representation of the multidimensional gradients of evolvability and De-Darwinization, including fidelity of inheritance, smoothness of fitness land- Figure 2: Originally crated by Eliza Jewett, with modifications by Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009), and Daniel

scape, and covariance of fitness differences with Dennett, (2017). Used with permission of the author. disparities in intrinsic properties—originally introduced by Peter Godfrey-Smith [15] (Figure 1), and

It was readily apparent from the rhetoric of the

later adapted by Dennett [14] towards modeling

conference that the notion of multiple simultaneous

cultural evolutionary processes (Figure 2).

modes or dimensions of evolution, as proposed by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb [5] [4], had not only made waves, but indeed shifted the tides within the biological sciences from a reductionist, gene-centric dogma to a more inclusive and pluralistic approach. Lying just below the surface of many of these dis-

Andrews & Feiten


cussions, though explicitly addressed in few, such

land [21], were keenly felt. The extended evolution-

as the talk of C ¸ a˘ glar Karaca, were questions relat-

ary synthesis was a prominent focus amongst the

ing to the fundamental metaphysical basis of evolu- contributed talks, featuring in the presentations of tionary theory. Thinkers of the likes of John Dupré Ferm´ın C. Fulda, Mathias Gutmann, Hazelwood & and Nancy Cartwright [16] have provided notewor-

DesAutels, Í˜ nigo Ongay de Felipe, and Francesco

thy historical contributions to these issues, probing

Suman. Tensions between various conceptions of

the nature of the core ontology undergirding the organismality and individuality arose during the biological sciences, and the status of process, prob-

proceedings, including the distinction between bi-

ability, and causality therein.

ological individuals, evolutionary individuals, and

The role of self-organization in evolution, a no-

symbiotic holobionts, a topic broached by Hazel-

tion which came to prominence in the late 20th wood & DesAutels, as well as discussions relating century thanks to work of Stuart Kauffman [7], to the categorization of replicators and organisms was made the subject of analyses by Karaca, Yoav

and their respective roles in the evolutionary pro-

Soen, and Nicola Bertoldi. Many also questioned

cess, which featured in the talks of Daniel Den-

the role of contingency in evolution, a subject which nett, Mel Andrews, and Yoav Soen. From the comhas been hotly disputed among biologists since it

monality of references to the work of Mary Jane

was brought to light by the late Stephen J. Gould

West-Eberhard [19] and Eva Jablonka, and the re-

[10]. A second topic of much contention in the current motif of Conrad Waddington’s epigenetic evolutionary sciences is the levels of selection de- landscape [18], it was plain that the role of develbate, introduced by Richard Lewontin [12], and re- opmental plasticity in the biological sciences had newed by David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober become elevated to a new primacy within the field. [13], which was also seen to play out in the talks Overarchingly, the successes of the modern synof Alex Aylward, Lorenzo Baravalle, Caleb Hazel- thesis and Neo-Darwinism, and their extension to wood and Lane DesAutels, and Philippe Huneman. super-biological domains, were both exalted and On the centennial of the birth of the modern syn- interrogated with commendable scholarly rigour. thesis, the reverberating impacts of nearly a cen- The richness and diversity of the research presented tury’s worth of critiques and substantial revisions,

at the conference far exceeded that which may be

lobbied first by Conrad Waddington [17], later by subsumed under these broader topics, and can be Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge [11], and most painted only in broad brushstrokes. The contriburecently by Massimo Pigliucci [20] and Kevin La-

tions varied widely both in theoretical approach, as

Andrews & Feiten


evidenced by the signalling games introduced in a tremendous potential and academic value of events talk by Rafael Ventura and the use of graph the- like the Generalized Theory of Evolution conference ory for the formalization of a causal interactionist

or the inaugural conference of the Cultural Evolu-

population concept by Karim Baraghith, as well as

tion Society which took place in 2017. Whether

in the phenomena investigated, from the evolution the future of these interdisciplinary endeavors will of dance analyzed by Pedro At˜ a & Jo˜ ao Queiroz,

bring yet more plurality or unification, we may rea-

to the witch hunts explained as memetic phenom- sonably look forward to an ever deepening underena by Maarten Boudry and Steije Hofhuis, up to standing of both nature and ourselves in the years ¨ Ozlem Yılmaz’ presentation on plant stress physi- to come. ology.

In Conclusion In its very title, the Generalized Theory of Evolution conference alluded to the potential for a unifying theoretical framework of both life and social sciences.

Yet the proceedings proved, above all

else, a remarkable forum in which to observe the plurality of scientific enquiry. Within the space of four days one saw the scientific process in operation on many simultaneous levels, conducting its explorations with an arsenal of heterogeneity conceptual and empirical tools, and serving manifold purposes, all united under the pursuit of establishing the explanatory scope of evolutionary theory. It was apparent that the intellectual motivations of the many participants were as diverse as their backgrounds, their aims, methods, commitments, and the problems they tackled displaying a tremendous breadth. Equally clear were the many benefits of this perspectival multiplicity, testifying to the

Bibliography [8] Blackmore, S. (2000). The meme machine. Ox-

[1] Woolsey, M. (2009, April 28). World’s 20 Best

ford: Oxford University Press.

Places To Live. Forbes. [2] Romanowski, P. & George-Warren, H. (eds.)

[9] Dennett, Daniel C., (1995) Darwin’s Danger-

(2001), Kraftwerk: A Biography. The Rolling

ous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.

Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll. London:

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Simon & Schuster. [10] Gould, S. J. (1990). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New

[3] Tinbergen, N. (1963) On aims and methods of

York: W. W. Norton and Company

ethology. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Tierpsychologie, 20, 410-433.

[11] Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctu[4] Jablonka, E.,& Lamb, M. J. (1995). Epigenetic

ated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolu-

inheritance and evolution: the Lamarckian di-

tion reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3 (2), 115-151.

mension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [12] Lewontin, R. C. (1970). The units of selection. [5] Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution

Annual review of ecology and systematics, 1 (1), 1-18.

in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the His-

[13] Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintro-

tory of Life. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

ducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and brain sciences,

[6] Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford:

17 (4), 585-608.

Oxford University Press.

[7] Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of or- [14] Dennett, D. C. (2017), From Bacteria to Bach der: Self-organization and selection in evolu-

and Back: The Evolution of Minds. New York:

tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

W. W. Norton & Company. 6

Andrews & Feiten

[15] Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [16] Duprée J, Cartwright N (1988). Probability and Causality: Why Hume and Indeterminism Don’t Mix. Noˆ us, 22 (4), 521-536. [17] Waddington, C. H. (1942). Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature, 150 (3811), 563-565. [18] Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes: a discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. London: George Unwin Unwin. [19] West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [20] Pigliucci, M. (2007). Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution, 61 (12), 2743-2749. [21] Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., M¨ uller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E. & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282 (1813).
