While I heartily recommend reading "The Price of Altruism" by Oren Harmon, there is a shorter biography on George Price you may be interested in (only 5 pages). Here is the PDF.
What a sad story. I am very confused at how George Price made the conversion from being a “militant atheist to a fundamentalist Christian”. It was explained that it was in the midst of an extraordinary burst of scientific creativity in the summer of 1970, citing too many coincidences in his life. This alone bothers me. How can someone with such a profound scientific background and understanding of population genetics/evolution, stray away from such provocative evidence? A very rough life aside, I feel like this conversion was means to feel better rather than reason. Some kind of guilt inside raised question and allowed such an abrupt transition. From what I understand, Darwin himself struggled with religion as well. Although he neither disowned his scientific theories or rejected the Christian religion and considered himself Agnostic, it is in my opinion that he remained “neutral” for amicable reasons. It is said that he shrank from “wounding sensibilities of others in religious matters” as he placed caution in a letter to Dr. F.E. Abbot, of Cambridge(1871). In my opinion he felt terrible of the implications in his work. From reading this short 5 story summary of George Prices life, I believe a similar sensation was felt. I believe that because his life had been so incredibly rough and that he was blinded towards “enlightenment”. I don’t think this is necessarily bad because if it truly made him happier, who could argue that? Ignorance is bliss.
I'm not sure it did make him happier, though. From my understanding with Price and others who have made this dramatic conversion in their lifetime, they're lost, unhappy, and can't find any true meaning in their lives. His quest to lead an altruistic life may have affected him poorly; not to mention how his life ended. He had so much control as an evolutionary biologist who would soon come to be quite profound in his work. Did he think that taking his own life would benefit the people around him? I guess I just do not understand the switch from one extreme to the other and then to end his life so abruptly. Price's work in conjunction with surrounding scientists suggests conflicting ideas relative to Creationism. Price seemed to be so confident in his work. This may have prompted him to find meaning in the rest of his life; to become confident in all aspects of his life. I guess I can't blame him for his effort to turn his personal life around; no one can. It's a very sad ending but Price introduced a whole spectrum of evolutionary biology that may have gone undiscovered today.
I don't think we should think that Price had any problems with accepting evolution, even after his conversion. His work was primarily in Biblical exegesis working out seeming conflicting accounts of Jesus life from the different gospels. He was more than willing to reject traditional Christian notions, and his approach to Christianity was still very scientific. I'm sure he had no problem rejecting traditional creationism. He also continued to work on evolutionary problems after his conversion. I have no doubt that he would have rejected most forms of Creationism that are commonly believed, and would have wholeheartedly endorsed evolution. We should be very careful in assuming that just because someone is religious, that they don't accept evolution.
He lived a very interesting life. He seems like a brilliant man with some serious issues in his personal life. It is strange for a chemist to be so involved with biology. I find it strange that his theory says spiteful behavior can be advantageous in some situation since the definition is that it affects the actor & recipient negatively. Also spite is almost never seen in any species other than humans. Overall, his theory is interesting but biological organisms do not always follow simple formulas. His conversion to Christianity is intriguing because he said he didnt want to believe. Lots of time when I think of the # of mutations and advantageous intermediates that would have had to have existed to get species like humans from simple molecules. Just trying to think logically, I question that evolution is the only answer. It is good to see that not all biologists are athiests. My favorite part of the article was how some viruses ought to be evolving to be less virulent. This is a clear example of group selection being more powerful than individual selection. Prior to this class I had been taught that all group selection theories were wrong.
Austin, more than a chemist, I'd say that Price was a theoretician. The language of mathematics is more than capable of being across all fields of science. Your question about spite is a great one, I'll try to explain.
Imagine a population in which you are a part. There is an average coefficient of relatedness for you and everyone else in the population. However, some individuals are more related to you than average (e.g. your family), and some individuals are less related to you than average. Consequently, the coefficient of relatedness can be LESS THAN ZERO. Using Hamilton's rule, it is easy to see that spite can then be beneficial.
To think of it another way, you can help those you are related to you, but "taking out" those who are significantly unrelated to you. You can help your relatives increase in frequency by the population by helping them, or you could help them increase in frequency by hurting your "unrelatives"... Here is a paper that you may enjoy reading:
What a sad story. I am very confused at how George Price made the conversion from being a “militant atheist to a fundamentalist Christian”. It was explained that it was in the midst of an extraordinary burst of scientific creativity in the summer of 1970, citing too many coincidences in his life. This alone bothers me. How can someone with such a profound scientific background and understanding of population genetics/evolution, stray away from such provocative evidence? A very rough life aside, I feel like this conversion was means to feel better rather than reason. Some kind of guilt inside raised question and allowed such an abrupt transition. From what I understand, Darwin himself struggled with religion as well. Although he neither disowned his scientific theories or rejected the Christian religion and considered himself Agnostic, it is in my opinion that he remained “neutral” for amicable reasons. It is said that he shrank from “wounding sensibilities of others in religious matters” as he placed caution in a letter to Dr. F.E. Abbot, of Cambridge(1871). In my opinion he felt terrible of the implications in his work. From reading this short 5 story summary of George Prices life, I believe a similar sensation was felt. I believe that because his life had been so incredibly rough and that he was blinded towards “enlightenment”. I don’t think this is necessarily bad because if it truly made him happier, who could argue that? Ignorance is bliss.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it did make him happier, though. From my understanding with Price and others who have made this dramatic conversion in their lifetime, they're lost, unhappy, and can't find any true meaning in their lives. His quest to lead an altruistic life may have affected him poorly; not to mention how his life ended. He had so much control as an evolutionary biologist who would soon come to be quite profound in his work. Did he think that taking his own life would benefit the people around him? I guess I just do not understand the switch from one extreme to the other and then to end his life so abruptly. Price's work in conjunction with surrounding scientists suggests conflicting ideas relative to Creationism. Price seemed to be so confident in his work. This may have prompted him to find meaning in the rest of his life; to become confident in all aspects of his life. I guess I can't blame him for his effort to turn his personal life around; no one can. It's a very sad ending but Price introduced a whole spectrum of evolutionary biology that may have gone undiscovered today.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should think that Price had any problems with accepting evolution, even after his conversion. His work was primarily in Biblical exegesis working out seeming conflicting accounts of Jesus life from the different gospels. He was more than willing to reject traditional Christian notions, and his approach to Christianity was still very scientific. I'm sure he had no problem rejecting traditional creationism. He also continued to work on evolutionary problems after his conversion. I have no doubt that he would have rejected most forms of Creationism that are commonly believed, and would have wholeheartedly endorsed evolution. We should be very careful in assuming that just because someone is religious, that they don't accept evolution.
ReplyDeleteHe lived a very interesting life. He seems like a brilliant man with some serious issues in his personal life. It is strange for a chemist to be so involved with biology. I find it strange that his theory says spiteful behavior can be advantageous in some situation since the definition is that it affects the actor & recipient negatively. Also spite is almost never seen in any species other than humans. Overall, his theory is interesting but biological organisms do not always follow simple formulas. His conversion to Christianity is intriguing because he said he didnt want to believe. Lots of time when I think of the # of mutations and advantageous intermediates that would have had to have existed to get species like humans from simple molecules. Just trying to think logically, I question that evolution is the only answer. It is good to see that not all biologists are athiests. My favorite part of the article was how some viruses ought to be evolving to be less virulent. This is a clear example of group selection being more powerful than individual selection. Prior to this class I had been taught that all group selection theories were wrong.
ReplyDeleteAustin, more than a chemist, I'd say that Price was a theoretician. The language of mathematics is more than capable of being across all fields of science. Your question about spite is a great one, I'll try to explain.
ReplyDeleteImagine a population in which you are a part. There is an average coefficient of relatedness for you and everyone else in the population. However, some individuals are more related to you than average (e.g. your family), and some individuals are less related to you than average. Consequently, the coefficient of relatedness can be LESS THAN ZERO. Using Hamilton's rule, it is easy to see that spite can then be beneficial.
To think of it another way, you can help those you are related to you, but "taking out" those who are significantly unrelated to you. You can help your relatives increase in frequency by the population by helping them, or you could help them increase in frequency by hurting your "unrelatives"... Here is a paper that you may enjoy reading:
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/91821/1/foster_wenseleers_ratnieks_annzoolfenn_2001_spite.pdf