<div dir="ltr"><div>Tracking what EricS says re the "natural selection" metaphor... here is an excerpt from the incipient book....<br><br><h3 style="margin:0in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;font-style:italic"><a name="_Toc223516710">Natural Selection \u2013 The Thing That Explains
Evolution</a></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Darwin explains evolution as a result of Natural Selection,
which invokes the model of Artificial Selection, or as it was more simply
called in Darwin\u2019s day <i>Selection</i>. It
is important to note the language of Darwin\u2019s day, because it reminds us that
Selection\u2015the intentional breeding of organisms to produce descendants with
desired traits\u2015was a process that most people in Darwin\u2019s time were quite
familiar with. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">You will recall that that a model is a situation we think we
understand well, which is invoked to explain unseen aspects of a situation we
think we understand less well. In Darwin\u2019s day, there was much confusion over
why organisms should be adapted to their natural environments, but there was
little confusion about the process of selection and its effectiveness. This
creates awkwardness when we try to teach about evolution today, because, when
most of our students enter class, they know very little about how breeding
programs work. We start with students who understand neither how breeders
intentionally control the variation in generations of their stock, nor how
organisms become adapted to their environments, and we try to make them
familiar enough with the former to use it as a model in explaining the latter.
This leads to two possible problems: First, we may fail to get our students
familiar enough with the model itself. Second, even if we could be certain that
the students understood artificial selection sufficiently, that would not
guarantee that they understood Darwin\u2019s application of the model. <b></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">...... [dairy cow example] .....</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">We use the example of dairy cattle to illustrate the
selection model, but what model did Darwin have in mind? Darwin was an avid
pigeon breeder, and pigeon-breeding was probably the model he had in mind when
he came up with the idea of natural selection. Alas, the cows make a better
model for the modern reader, who will find it quite intuitive why one might
want a dairy cow that produces more milk, but will likely find it mysterious
why one would favor, for example, a skinny pigeon whose throat inflates into a
globe large enough for the pigeon's beak to rest upon. (We authors find it
mysterious as well, though the aesthetic is oddly pleasing.) </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><img src="cid:ii_mn98gn790" alt="undefined" width="200" height="312"><a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoEndnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="gmail-MsoEndnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:200%;color:black">[i]</span></span></span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;text-indent:0.5in;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">
</p><div><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p class="gmail-MsoEndnoteText" style="text-indent:0in;margin:0in;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoEndnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="gmail-MsoEndnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:200%;color:black">[i]</span></span></span></a> By Karl
Wagner (1864\u20131939) Public Domain, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30811756">https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30811756</a></p>
</div>
</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Best,<br>Eric<br><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 7:34\u202fAM Santafe <<a href="mailto:desmith@santafe.edu">desmith@santafe.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>This is a great note, in the sense of being helpful from endless going around in circles, and written to get somewhere. I am always grateful when EricC visits from the Oort cloud and enables a conversation to go into some direction again.<div><br></div><div>I want, though (of course) to object to something. And a paragraph below enables me to see the way I want to do it. EC already understands the source of the objection, and I will include the final paragraph where it is flagged, though I want to beware oversimplifying to the point of having strawmen (which I don\u2019t think is being done here). But first; the objection:</div><div><br id="m_-1227522573918857642lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mar 26, 2026, at 16:25, Eric Charles <<a href="mailto:eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div>There are at least three interesting things going on in the metaphor discussion. The least interesting aspect of it is squabbling over what does or does not count as a metaphor (vice simile, model, analogy, etc.). Not that that isn't a perfectly good discussion, it just that it's *just* a vocabulary discussion, not an ideas discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>1) What is an explicit metaphor, and to what extent do the constant implicit metaphors that permeate our language resemble them? Nick has a particular way of thinking about metaphors, based on the intent of the person invoking the metaphor. Metaphors always assert that two things are alike, not that they are identical, so that implies that all metaphors are imperfect, and that that is intentional, and does not invalidate a metaphor. Metaphors can thus be divided into intended implications and not-intended implication, etc., etc. .... and Nick is fairly obsessed with these, especially in scientific contexts where people seem to be using the metaphors in different ways and that leads to a deep underlying confusion in a seemingly functional field, e.g., Darwinian evolution by means of "natural" selection.... </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is the poster child for a thing that to me is the ultimate non-issue, and has been shown to be the non-issue it is for many decades now. </div><div><br></div><div>Look up George Price:</div><div><div style="display:block"><div style="display:inline-block" role="link"><a style="border-radius:10px;font-family:-apple-system,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;display:block;width:300px;overflow:hidden;text-decoration:none" rel="nofollow" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002251938570149X" dir="ltr" role="button" width="300" target="_blank"><table style="table-layout:fixed;border-collapse:collapse;width:300px;background-color:rgb(229,230,233);font-family:-apple-system,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="300"><tbody><tr><td><table bgcolor="#E5E6E9" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="table-layout:fixed;font-family:-apple-system,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;background-color:rgb(229,230,233)"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:8px 0px"><div style="max-width:100%;margin:0px 16px;overflow:hidden"><div style="font-weight:400;font-size:11px;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;text-align:left"><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002251938570149X" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><font color="#808080" style="color:rgba(0,0,0,0.498)">sciencedirect.com</font></a></div></div></td><td style="padding:0px 12px 0px 0px" width="32"><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002251938570149X" target="_blank"><img style="display: inline-block; width: 32px; height: 32px;" width="32" height="32"></a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></a></div></div><a href="https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/1995-price.pdf" target="_blank">https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/1995-price.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>Price lays out, to a perfectly acceptable degree, an operational description. Of sets of things, of partitioning, of some\u2019s being retained and others\u2019 being eliminated, from the ongoing history of sets that are the targets of description. It\u2019s a phenomenon that takes place in nature, in all sorts of forms. We need some lexeme to refer to it. What is a good one? Selection seems about as apt as anything in English. Quite beside the fact that Darwin wrote about animal breeding, this will still be perhaps the most apt word I have available. Not merely \u201csorting\u201d, because I need also the consequence of the sort that a retention/elimination step ensues. Human intentionality is not imputed to the phenomenon itself at all, though there can be a subset of cases where it enters as part of the chain of causation.</div><div><br></div><div>When anybody resurrects this zombie of claiming that some terrible metaphor of human breeding-selection is indelible in the cognition of people thinking about evolution that leads them into confusion, my experience of the conversation is much like the experiences I have had with the Implicit Bias crowd. It doesn\u2019t take much time around many of them, before I am pretty firmly convinced that what they want is to condemn basically everybody (but, one by one, whomever they are talking to). (The nicest image that comes to mind is Aunt Ada\u2019s \u201cI saw something nasty in the woodshed\u201d from Cold Comfort Farm, with about as much content.) The motivation is the whole, and any conversation will take whatever sophistic form gives the performance of fulfilling the motivation. To be clear about what really is going on, and to think well about it and improve the way we handle such problems in living, is incidental to why they do what they do. A kind of trojan horse of a kind we so often see: the existence of a legitimate justice aim becomes a vehicle for people who want to play domination games and to bully. They don\u2019t erase the legitimate justice aim, but by having little serious interest in it (or a secondary and self-serving one, at best), they move it out of scope for any interaction you can have with them. At which point I don\u2019t feel like feeding the trolls. Talk to me about really understanding and really helping, and stop the performing and pretending, or leave me alone. </div><div><br></div><div>I do think one has to have some interest in knowing what people are doing, in context of the commitment to get thoughts clear and to solve some problems for which the solution has criteria, to keep such intuitions from turning into strawmen. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The paragraph I promised to acknowledge, which I think also sees all this, was this one:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>I suspect that much of the frustration of Nick v others on this list is the instance of those others that any implications of the flavor text can be ignored once the mechanism has been mathematized, vs Nick's instance that if the flavor text is still being used it is almost certainly doing some metaphor-like work in the background of whoever is using, or hearing, the term (because otherwise, why not ditch it entirely).</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Eric(S)</div><div><br></div></div><br></div></div>.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>