Thursday, August 29, 2013

I'm New Yorkin' Here

A number of my Facebook friends have now shared this blog post by John Skylar. It’s appeared on my news feed with sufficient frequency that even I, who do my best to remain oblivious to most news that’s less than sixty-six million years old, finally had to click through and read.

Let’s be clear. New York is a part of my essence. I’ve lived in central Virginia and in Boston and I’ve spent as much time in Los Angeles as many Angelinos, but no one has ever been surprised to learn that I was born and raised in Queens. I’m a Mets fan, for pity’s sake. (And I refer to everything north of the Bronx as “Canada,” because really, isn’t it?)

Nevertheless, I only had one response to the ninety-five theses that Mr. Skylar nailed to the door of the World Outside New York. That response was: no.

Here’s the argument: many New Yorkers “have high-pressure jobs and their time is very precious”; as a result of these demanding, time-sensitive jobs, New Yorkers have developed a “flow” to their daily lives; unthinking tourists disrupt that flow; therefore, New Yorkers are not being rude when they do things like shove or curse at or otherwise mistreat tourists. In fact, it is the tourists who are in the wrong, and so New York is not a “rude city.”

No.

I love New York, but it is not a fantasy kingdom where the enchantments of Wall Street brokers keep normal standards of human decorum at bay.

There are a few examples of rank hypocrisy in Mr. Skylar’s essay. To wit: he writes that “you will get farther with other people if you do not always blame them for the things that go wrong in your life,” apparently unaware of the irony in writing this immediately after blaming tens of millions of tourists for disrupting his daily commute. He also decries the “sense of entitlement” implied by tourists’ behavior, but has no problem with the sense of entitlement implied by his “our way or the highway” argument.

I won’t focus on these points, although I do think it’s worth noting that tourism is a fundamental part of New York’s economy, that tax dollars from tourism help to pay for the public services that maintain New York’s “flow,” and that many (if not most) of New York’s “high-pressure” jobs would disappear if tourists stopped visiting. All of that is beside the real point here.

The real point is that even if tourists are unwittingly disruptive, it would not follow that New Yorkers have justification to “curse at” or “barrel right into” those tourists. Mr. Skylar’s argument is predicated on the idea that tourists ought to adopt a city’s rules of etiquette when visiting the city. I’m willing to grant that, if only for the sake of argument. What I’m not willing to grant is that the citizens of a city are justified in being rude if tourists don’t adopt the city’s rules of etiquette. A guest’s impoliteness is not a host’s license to be an asshole.

You might think, as I would imagine many of my friends who so enthusiastically agree with Mr. Skylar’s essay do, that I’ve missed the essay’s crucial point. I haven’t. The crucial point is supposed to be that tourists are being rude since rudeness is defined as violating rules of etiquette. But that’s not Mr. Skylar’s conclusion: he’s arguing that because tourists are rude, it follows that New Yorkers are not. And, well: no.

I’ll admit that the conclusion could follow from slightly different premises. If it were somehow polite to be rude in New York, then it would be the case that a visitor would be rude by not being rude, and so the polite response to the visitor’s rudeness would be rude behavior. (Take however much time you need to parse that out.) But that would undermine the whole “New Yorkers aren’t rude” idea from the very start, and by definition.

Still, no one is proposing that cursing and shoving are polite in New York. It’s rude to curse at a Starbucks barista who gives you Earl Gray instead of green tea. It’s rude to push aside a co-worker so that you can get into the elevator first. As the cliche goes: two wrongs don’t make a right. Even in the light of perceived breaches of etiquette, it’s rude to be rude.

Look: I’m no saint. I get huffy when a pedestrian ahead of me walks a fraction of a mile per hour slower than I do or when I miss a train because the throng of people milling about right in front of the doors can’t decide whether or not they need the express. That’s the way New Yorkers act. But that doesn’t make it right, even in New York.

We in this city are supposed to be citizens of the world in which we fancy ourselves the center. Fine. But let’s not forget the fact that it’s a world in which cursing at strangers or forcing other people aside is impolite at best, regardless of the other rules of conduct we add on top of those two. In short: acting rudely makes you rude, even in New York.

So stop. Please.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Dissertation acknowledgements

My dissertation has been deposited with the Graduate Center library. It is over.

The odds are good that the only people who will ever read the dissertation have already read it. I'm fine with that. Still, it means that the acknowledgements that I've written are likely to go entirely unnoticed unless I call attention to them. So here they are in full:

What follows is a dissertation about the philosophy of biology. My thesis is, simply, that one view of species in biology implies another. Some readers may look for a broader meaning to this enterprise. While I do not endorse any conclusion other than those explicitly presented here, I might suggest that the reader in search of an optimistic “moral” focus on the importance that cooperation plays in my account. Certainly, my dissertation itself would not have been possible without the cooperative efforts of a good number of people. It is my sincere pleasure and deep honor to acknowledge them.

For his advice, encouragement, respect, and unflagging support, my advisor Massimo Pigliucci deserves all the thanks of which I am capable. I offer him those thanks now. Our first meeting in February 2010 marked the single most important turning point in my career, and I now look forward to a future in which I can proudly call him a colleague as well as a friend. I fear that no words of praise could ever be sufficient, and so I will let these stand: he has provided a model towards which I happily aspire.

I am further indebted to the members of my committee. Michael Bell, of Stony Brook University, has been generous with his time, insightful with his comments, and gracious in his willingness to engage colleagues across disciplinary boundaries. The academy as a whole benefits from his approach to interdisciplinary cooperation. The help that I have received from Jesse Prinz has been no less valuable, and his enthusiasm for this project—and for philosophy generally—remains an inspiration. His selflessness in dealing with students does credit to our profession, and I hope that Graduate Center students may benefit from that selflessness for many years to come.

My readers also deserve thanks. This project has been bookended by insightful and challenging commentary from Alberto Cordero, who served as a reader for both the prospectus and the dissertation, and I am grateful for his contributions. It was my good fortune that Marc Ereshefsky, of the University of Calgary, visited the Graduate Center as I finished my dissertation: his knowledge of and influence in the philosophy of biology are matched only by his kindness towards colleagues. His questions and positive feedback have given me an excellent starting point for the next phase of my career.

There are several other members of the faculty without whom I could not have produced this work. Peter Simpson provided encouragement through the early development of ideas that would form the basis of this dissertation. He also gave me my first teaching job, at the College of Staten Island, which remains among the most instructive of my experiences. Michael Devitt also helped in those early stages, and his calls for conceptual clarity served as a guide throughout. Peter Godfrey-Smith contributed a great deal of his time and a number of useful comments. His insight into the content of my work and advice on writing style are directly responsible for the overall shape of the final product. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History also offered important assistance. I offer each of these individuals my thanks and my sincere hope to continue working together in the future.

The many conversations that I’ve had with my classmates have informed my professional development and enriched my personal life with friendship. I’d therefore like to extend my thanks to Ben Ableson, Yuval Abrams, Amber Alliger, Paul Cummins, Damien Dupont, Amanda Favia, Keota Fields, Helen French, Tommy Kivatinos, Manolo Martinez, Katherine Mendis, David Pereplyotchik, Kamili Posey, Cosim Sayid, Henry Shevlin, Derek Skillings, and Rosemary Twomey. I owe special thanks to Jason Altilio, who is the kindest man I know despite suffering the endless pain of rooting with me for the New York Mets; to Steven Birnbaum, who I am becoming more and more convinced must be a long-lost member of my family; to Amanda Bryant, whose only fault is having lived so much of her life so very far away from my places of residence; and to Jonah Goldwater, who may be my better in wit and wisdom but will have to settle for being my equal in vocal depth.

I am similarly indebted to my friends outside of the Graduate Center. For their helping me to keep a proper perspective on the balance of work and play, I thank George Averkiou, Jaryd and Justin Honovich, and Marco Trauzzi. Since starting graduate school, I have done my best to maintain weekly lunch and/or coffee appointments with Geoff Bauer and Nicholas Liu (individually), and I thank them for those fond memories and valuable calories. Through the same period, Katherine Bowman-Scott and I have shared a number of the same frustrations and triumphs—often at the same times—in our respective graduate programs; I thank her for reminding me of the fundamentally important fact that none of us is ever truly alone.

My greatest debt is undoubtedly owed to my family, for support in every conceivable way that a person may be supported. All that is good in my life is ultimately owed to my grandparents, Santa and Salvatore D’Arrigo; to my sister, Tina Finkelman-Berkett, her husband, Bryan Berkett, and their son (also my godson), Jack Berkett; especially to my parents, Phyllis and Neal Finkelman. My efforts always have been, and always will be, performed on their behalf, so that the good fortune they have given me may eventually be repaid.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

It's pretty simple, really

Please consider the following exchange and ask yourself if it seems reasonable.

"Would you like some of this chicken Marsala?"
"No, thank you. I don't eat mushrooms."
"Really? No mushrooms at all? What about shiitakes?"
"No. They're mushrooms."
"Would you eat morels?"
"No, because they're mushrooms."
"How about porcinis?"
"No."
"If someone served you portabellos, would you eat them?"
"No."
"I only ask because I know people who don't eat mushrooms, but they'll eat portabellos."

Chances are that you would think the questioner in this exchange to be rather unreasonable, if not maladaptively stupid, because (s)he has essentially asked the same question four times in a row and seems to have expected the answer to change. No one who knows what a mushroom is would ever feel the need to pursue this line of questioning beyond the initial exchange.

Why, then, am I so often forced to endure the same line of questioning for animals? If I'm a vegetarian, why should I have to individually justify my preferences against chicken, flounder, lobster, escargot, and frog?

A surprising number of relatively intelligent people seem confused by my food choices. I will make this as simple as any human being can make it: I am a vegetarian. I do not choose to eat any animal flesh. I will eat almost anything else. I do not maintain some secret, semi-fluid list of exceptions to these rules.

If I were to eat any sort of animal flesh, I would not be a vegetarian. This includes fish. Fish are animals.

If I were to choose not to eat other animal products--e.g., milk, eggs, etc.--in addition to animal flesh, I would be a vegetarian, but I would not identify myself as a vegetarian. I would identify myself as a vegan. "Vegan" is a word different from "vegetarian" because it denotes a different sort of thing.

If other people use the words "vegetarian" and "vegan" differently, then they are wrong. Ignore them.

Thank you.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

True Sentiments

There is an argument advanced by some astronomers that, given the shape and size of space, any point can be considered the center of the universe. I once read that off an educational poster while on a date with a lovely young woman. As new couples are wont to do, we decided to make a cutesy game of the (supposed) fact: each of us would assume the title of "center of the universe" on alternating days. (This ultimately amounted to little more than getting to choose the evening's dinner venue.) The relationship was brief and it's now been a decade since I was last the center of the universe.

This is not about my dating life. This is about centrality and gratitude and a speech that I was supposed to give yesterday, but didn't. All things considered, a dating life history would probably be shorter.

Yesterday was my annual "FinkelFest" barbeque. This particular iteration of the immodestly-named event was supposed to be a celebration of my completing a PhD. A very large group of very wonderful people came together to treat me like the center of the universe.

I say "supposed to be," because my plan was to treat the day like any other barbeque that I've thrown in the past. My parents, who graciously gave their time and their space for the event, were confused. To have a barbeque and to take responsibility for making and serving food would mean having less time to mingle. They wanted to honor me, but I insisted on making work for myself.

About the actual center of the universe: it's only where it is because of the things that surround it. If other parts of the universe move around, then the place that's considered the center changes. In philosophical language, centrality is considered a relation rather than a property: something that is central is only central because other things make it so, but not because of anything special about the thing itself.

You can probably see where I'm going with this.

In college, a couple of years before that date I mentioned, I had a thought that I've kept ever since. It is that there is nothing I can do that other people can't do, and the fact that I have done things that other people haven't done shows only that I have been given opportunities not given to those other people. I am, without exaggeration, among the most fortunate of the fourteen billion people who make up human history. This good fortune was given to me by my parents, by my family, by my teachers, and by my friends.

For my family and friends to treat me like the center of the universe, as far as I'm concerned, just means celebrating the opportunities and good fortune that they have given me. By rights, the event should have been about them--about you--because I am whatever I am only because the people in my life have made me so. (I call my barbeques "FinkelFests" for this very reason, since these events are really just my excuses to try to gather as many family and friends together in one place at one time.)

At one point yesterday some people called on me to give a speech. I can be shy; I declined. This is what I would have said: "You are incredible people with extraordinary lives, and I really believe that my greatest accomplishment is to stand in the privileged place where all your lives intersect."

Trust me: it looks better written down than it would have sounded spoken aloud. There would have been tears and choking for air. Also, I was being shot with a bunch of water pistols at the time. (To quote Frank Herbert: "Philosophy should be treated with irreverence.")

I can be a sap, yes, but I don't think that makes anything I've said above any less true. I don't express these thoughts or act upon them nearly as much as you all deserve. So I'll serve some food once a year and hope that goes some of the way towards making up the difference.

Whether you were there yesterday or not: thank you.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Hell's Interglacial Period Finally Ends

Presuming that you're reading this post within a reasonable timeframe after I've posted it: check the Official Dissertation Updater to the right.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

DayQuil is a hell of a drug

I want to blame these rantings on the indicated over-the-counter medication. The truth is that this is the sort of thing that I think and write even in a sound state of mind.

Surely you're now intrigued enough to go read it, right?

Monday, January 7, 2013

It's a secret to everybody

I believe some weird stuff. You can read about it here.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Say it ain't so

My boss and I occasionally disagree. The great thing about our working in a public forum is that our grievances get aired out in front of the entire world (or at least the dozen people who read our blog entries).

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Book learnin' and such

Here's the truth: I love what I do. I'm proud of what I do. I can accept that there are people who don't see the value in philosophy specifically, or a liberal arts education generally. What I can't accept is that the people in charge of our students' liberal arts educations don't understand what a liberal arts education is.

This is a personal subject, so I wrote a personal essay about it.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Upper, upper, and awayer

I warned you. Didn't I warn you? Now it's too late.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Up, up, and away

I am really sick of debating whether Superman or Batman is the better superhero.

So here's me debating whether Superman or Batman is the better superhero.

Coming up next time: I debate whether or not Superman is really a better superhero than Batman. (Seriously.)

Friday, June 29, 2012

If it isn't pouring, then it's not raining

Three blog posts in one week? What is this, Mardi Gras?

Anyway, if you're looking for a relatively non-technical summary of the issues surrounding my dissertation, now you know where to go for it.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Neverending battle

If you're a philosopher, then you have to talk about free will at some point.

You also have to avoid actually advancing the discussion, or else future philosophers won't have anything to do.

Here's a post wherein I contribute to this long, proud tradition.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Peas and Quiet

I'm a bit late posting it here, but the following links to my last post on Rationally Speaking: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/05/peas-and-quiet.html

Monday, February 13, 2012

Shameless self-promotion

Until I can figure out something else to do with this space, I'm going to link to my posts on Rationally Speaking.

And so: Love and Reptiles.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Secret History of Biology, Part 3

This third part concludes my "Secret History of Biology" lecture. Looking it over now, most of the heavy-duty philosophy got packed into the end, so things get a little dense in this part. Still, if you want to know what I've been working on--and that was the point of my posting this lecture--this is the crux of it all. I'm happy to discuss things further either by e-mail or in the comments section.
Thanks very much for your interest (assuming the existence of some "you")!

Let's see what Darwin had to say about Linnaeus, shall we?

"It is a truly wonderful fact...that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other in group subordinate to group." (From On the Origin of Species, p.128)

Darwin didn't think that the Linnaean system was junk; he thought it was "a truly wonderful fact." This is Darwin saying, "I love Linnaeus!" The reason that we still use Linnaeus's system today is because Darwin himself endorsed it.

Clearly, something else has gone awry with the received view. As we've already seen, Linnaeus didn't follow from Aristotle; now we see that Darwin didn't make this clean break from Linnaeus. The true story is that Linnaeus made a clean break with Aristotle and then Darwin followed from Linnaeus.

In fact, one way to read "On the Origin of Species" is as giving an explanation for why it should be true that all the world's organisms are organized within these nesting groups, as biologists call them. Evolution gives rise to the Linnaean system through what Darwin called the "principle of divergence."



This is, quite famously, the only figure to appear in the "Origin"--it's in chapter four, in case you're interested--and it's intended to illustrate Darwin's principle. To briefly explain what we're looking at: each branch here represents a population, the dotted lines represent lines of descent, and the horizontal lines represent some number of generations. As species evolve, some populations will develop traits and branch off--diverge--from other populations, eventually creating new species that will then have diverging populations, and so on.



Eventually, the pattern of divergence will give us groups within groups, just as the Linnaean system says. So we may consider each blue circle a species, each red circle a genus, and the green circle an order, for instance.

But how do we know when one of these groups represents a species and when it represents a genus, or an order, and so on? According to Darwin, the thing that separates the divisions in Linnaeus's system from one another is the degree of divergence: that is, the further up on this tree you go, the more divisions will arise.



So we start out at the bottom with species; as we move up, genera appear; further on up, orders come out. Incidentally, if this looks tedious, it's because it was. I wish that I got paid by the circle.

But there's a problem. Darwin says that "all plants and all animals throughout all time and space" should belong to each of Linnaeus's categories. Looking at the tree above, organisms in the groups at the bottom belong to species, but not to genera or orders and so on, because there aren't any genera or orders at that point. Our chart should look like this:



In this version, every group belongs to each and every one of the categories, but this also can't be the way things are according to Darwin's principle. Organisms in the groups at the bottom can't belong to species
and to genera, for example, because the difference between those categories is in their degrees of divergence and there hasn't been any divergence yet. But Darwin also says that each organism has to belong to both groups. Very simply put, Darwin has contradicted himself.

So, what does this mean for the two problems in philosophy of biology that I mentioned at the outset? Well, as it turns out, those problems are entirely bound up with the way you resolve this contradiction. There are really only two ways out: you can either reject the Linnaean system or you can say that the scale of Darwin's tree is relative.

Modern biologists tend to reject Darwin's principle of divergence and consequently reject Linnaeus's system as truly representing the way the world should be carved up. But this presents a serious problem: after all, it should be pretty obvious that there
are natural divisions. There is far more in common between you, me, and Natalie Portman than there is between any of us and a chimp, for example. At least, I would hope that if Ms. Portman had a choice between a chimp and me she wouldn't have to think too hard about it. To be clear, I would hope that her obvious choice would be me and not the chimp. But if Linnaeus's system isn't giving us the real divisions within nature, then how do we draw that boundary between humans and chimps? That's the species problem.

On the other hand, maybe you want to preserve Darwin's principle of divergence. If that's the case, though, then the only way to explain how organisms in the groups on his tree both must and can't be in all of the Linnaean categories is to say that the groups don't necessarily represent groups of
organisms. In fact, this is precisely what Darwin says: he says that the branches on the tree might represent species or genera; he says that the horizontal lines might represent thousands of generations or hundreds of thousands or, hell, let's even make it millions of generations. But if each group can be a species or a genus or an order or whatnot, it's also worth noting that these groups are definitely unified and bounded off from one another--they're individuals. That means that natural selection can work on them. That's the levels-of-selection problem.

What I intend to have shown here is that these problems have come out of the historical development of biological theory; consequently, we need to know the truth of that history in order to develop adequate solutions to the problems. The true story certainly isn't the one that's been commonly received: we didn't go from Aristotle to Linnaeus, then have all of that scrapped because Darwin. Instead, Darwin's work is a consequence of the Linnaean tradition, which itself was a clean break from Aristotle's work.

The best way to resolve Darwinian problems is to understand from where Darwin was coming. With an improved understanding of that history, my hope is that we can formulate better solutions. I also hope that this discussion might inspire some of you to look into the matter a little more closely and perhaps find some of those solutions.

Thank you.