Þpersonal web page Þ http://www.geocities.com/kaurispandrel/
ß rough overview of research interests ß
for quick refs on the web (hopefully ok to supply so far without permission) just to give a glimpse of my research field :
Swenson, R. (1997). Evolutionary theory developing: The problem(s) with 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', Ecological Psychology, 9 (1), 47-96. [ http://evolution.philosophyofscience.net/denn.pdf - a 315kb download in Adobe format ]
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/sab.htm
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/postdarw.htm
http://www.bion.si/research/Gene.htm
also read http://eonix.8m.com/etc/lovtrup.htm, but please note that i cannot pass comment or judgment of the rest of the site. this review by far is the best i've seen on one of my favourite books without going off on airey-fairy ideological tangents. such is certainly not an underlying personal motivation of mine. i just want good science and have personal motivations seated in an intense secular love of the world around me.
some of these these refs may seem old and obscure, but still address some of the most poignant issues that need revisiting in biology today.
the most accessible absolute foundations of my work:
Hughes, A. J., Lambert, D. M. 1984: Functionalism, structuralism, and "ways of seeing". J. Theor. Biol. Vol 111 pp787-800
Lambert D., Hughes A.J. 1988. Keywords and Concepts in Structuralist and Functionalist Biology.J. Theor. Biol. 133:133-145
Lambert, D.M.; B. Michaux & C.S. White 1987. Are Species self-defining? Syst. Zool. 36 (2): 196-205
Lambert, D.M. 1995. Biological Function: Tacit Changes in a Concept Gone Wrong. In: D.M. Lambert and H.G. Spencer (eds.). Speciation and the Recognition Concept: Theory and Application. pp 238-259 Johns Hopkins University Press. (and the other chapter : "two forms of explanation").
with this context, now read Maturana + Varela and it will make more sense. [google nz.general archives using the keywords neich + epistemology] see also http://web.ccr.jussieu.fr/varela/human_consciousness/article01.html, http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/paper.html, http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/papers/maturana/88-reality.html
but for a critique some of the above also see J. Collier "What is Autonomy?" Anticipatory Systems: CASY 2001 - Fourth International Conference, Liege, Belgium.
the most inaccessible absolute foundation of my work:
G. Webster and B.C. Goodwin, (1982). "The origin of species: a structuralist approach" Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5 (1): 15-47
old refs still working within a bit of functionalism - but still bloody good (just to show i'm no mystic kook)
Gray, R.D. & Craig, J.L
(1991). Theory really matters: Hidden assumptions in the concept
of "habitat requirements". Acta XX Congressus
Internationalis Ornithologici, 2553-2560.
Gray, R. (1992) 'Death of the Gene: Developmental Systems Strike
Back'
in Griffiths, P (ed) Trees of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of
Biology.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Griffiths, P and R. Gray (1994) `Developmental Systems and
Evolutionary
Explanation' Journal of Philosophy 91: 277-304. (Reprinted in
Hull and Ruse,
eds, [1998])
Ho, M.W. & P.T. Saunders (eds.), 1984. Beyond Neo-Darwinism;
an introduction to the new evolutionary paradigm. London,
Academic Press, x + 376 p.
Oyama, S. (2000) The Ontogeny of Information, 2nd Edition. Duke
University Press.
Oyama, S. (2000) Evolution's Eye. Duke University Press.
Sober, E. ed (1994) Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology
(2nd Edition). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Sober, E. (1984) The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in
Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Kauffman S.A. 1993. Origins of Order. New York: Oxford University
Press.
I can't explain much more of what i'm doing right now. I wrote a few paragraphs below hurriedly just to link it all into my conservation interests :
This other aspect of my research resides in ecological management and mammalian pest control. More and more, these have become fields which have taken on a distinct shape from the disciplines of biology, botany and zoology. As with all changes, some of this has been very beneficial, some not. I have chosen to look at how much of the old biological paradigms have been carried through to the more applied work, and how much has been done so unwittingly and unquestionably. Concepts such as adaptation, biological community, ecosystems, habitat and mate selection, coexistence and competition can easily be left as dogma - but by how much so? How much does this still affect our conservation management practices? Our classificatory criteria to use in management guidelines? Conservation or preservation? Restoration to an end point or open ended to natural processes? What then of biodiversity? How much can we make sure the data and the interpretations are there to use in other ways as much as possible should theoretical concepts change?
There is at least three ways that forms of pragmatism come into the equation. Darwinism is all about resource utility, and understanding the hidden implications of this has led me to question empiricism and sparked in me a wider interest in the philosophy of science which goes far beyond what I can confidently write about in my formal research. There is also the pragmatism which is called for with the sometimes urgent requirements of conservation matters. Related to this, is also the pragmatism involved to maintain and secure public interest, support and funding for conservation initiatives; all the while remembering the worth of the values and knowledge of others from differing perspectives and backgrounds.
I basically believe in "learn-as-you-go" conservation management whereby management makes as much use of experimental design and a trialling of techniques as much as possible with an emphasis on solid data recording and documentation of as much "potentially meaningful" measurement as there can be. Rigours that stand up to the hypothetical deductive method with adequate controls are strongly encouraged. However, amidst all of this "doing science", I advocate that we cannot afford to get lost from our assumptions, analyses and interpretations and into thinking the process from "doing" to "data" is so "direct". Coz it ain't. Sure, all scientists go through the benefits of having a good healthy perpetual doubt again and again, and how good science should be self-corrective over time. I realise that any damn fool could point this out. However, I feel that there are some aspects and lessons concerning evolutionary epistemology upon which there is a need to be more specific about. Then whatever ramifications that come about can be more properly addressed and accounted for as we press on with urgent matters.