A review of the 1966 Wistar Symposium about which I have written in Probability Zero:
Evolution: What Is Required of a Theory?
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.
A symposium, Philadelphia, April 1966.
The idea of this symposium is supposed to have originated from a discussion at two picnics in Switzerland, when four mathematicians, Schutzenberger, Ulam, Weisskopf, and Eden, had a discussion with the biologists Kaplan and Koprowski on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution. After heated debates it was proposed “that a symposium be arranged to consider the points of dispute more systematically, and with a more powerful array of biologists who could function adequately in the universe of discourse inhabited by the mathematicians.“ During the course of the symposium further heat was generated........
It must have been tremendous fun to attend this symposium, but the full record of argument and interruption is very irritating to at least one reader. An interchange between speakers which runs X “No,” Y “No, no,” X “O.K. let’s waste time,” Y “We understand the question,” Z “The answer is no” surely needs no record in the literature of science. The short pre- and post-conference papers included in the volume arc excellent succinct expressions of points of view, but much of the main text reads like a word-for-word record of a heckled political meeting. This may be a useful way to discuss problems in science; it is not the way to publish them.
John L. Harper
School of Plant Biology, University College of North Wales, Bangor
Uncle John’s Band added a few footnotes as commentary. I added a fourth one.
- As predicted by Probability Zero, the biologist reviewer struggles with mathematical arguments. They are well-summarized by Day.
- It isn’t an exaggeration to say the biological counterargument consisted of what was for all intents and purposes, magic. When they weren’t replying at all.
- Still no compulsion to, you know, do an experiment It’s all thoughts and fancies.
- Peripheral indeed. Peripheral was the polite way to say: they didn’t respond in any way, shape, or form to the mathematical criticism.
