Subject
Fw: BB's response to VNA's response to BB's response
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Boyd (FOA ENG)
To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:54 AM
Subject: RE: BB's response to VNA's response to BB's response
Dear All,
I have had many exhilarating, frank and fertile discussions with Nabokovians and evolutionists, but this is not one of them. In fact it seems rather pointless. A good argument needs evidence and positions that don't slide to new ground when challenged. Let me just reply to the last round, and then I'll shut up.
Ms Alexander's long response on evolution adduces a good deal of material familiar within evolutionary biology but doesn't actually address my initial criticism of her phrase "natural selection as a theory, the strength of which lies in its tautological nature."
It is a plain matter of logic that a tautology is compatible with any statement whatsoever, and therefore can neither be tested (there can be no evidential statement that will count against it) nor have any explanatory force. On the other hand to claim as Darwin did that the differences between existing species can be explained through the cumulative effects, over millions of years, of rates of reproduction that differ over generations because organisms have inherited different variations is far from tautologous. This claim cannot be reduced to "survival of the ones who survive."
It's quite a different matter from saying the theory of natural selection is tautologous to say that it is untestable or unfalsifiable. Of course many did once wrongly suppose that the theory was unfalsifiable, although a little more thought should have shown that this position was invalid (homo sapiens fossils scores of millions of years old, for instance, would falsify the theory).
And it's quite a different matter again to say that the theory of natural selection is unverifiable. I think in fact it is both the best we have, at present, although incomplete, and unverifiable, as any universal theory is. (At an earlier point in the philosophy of science it was assumed that scientific theories need to be verifiable; now it tends to be accepted that this is a confused and excessive demand. A theory could be verified only with every possible instance at hand, which clearly cannot be achieved for theories containing universal statements or general cases).
It certainly had been impossible to witness evolution in action under controlled circumstances until the well-known bacterial experiments Ms Alexander mentions. Nevertheless, these experiments hardly prove (let alone "finally prove") the theory, since a particular confirming instance cannot be a proof of a universal claim, although a single refutatory instance might disprove it (like the imagined homo sapiens fossils millions of years old). Yet this is not in any way a criticism of the theory of natural selection, just a consequence of the fact that it makes universal claims.
My responses to Ms Alexander's responses to my comments on Nabokov:
VNA: The short answer is, Who wouldn't want one's work to be perceived as inspired?
BB: But this is very different indeed from "supernaturally inspired" ("Kinbote wants readers to think his commentary is supernaturally inspired"), the phrase of Ms Alexander's I was questioning. I wouldn't mind people perceiving my work as inspired, but I would wonder at anyone who supposed it supernaturally inspired.
VNA: Boyd's ghosts are just too ordinary.
BB: But they are very much the same as the explicit ghosts in Nabokov, Cynthia and Sybil Vane and Mr. R (and for that matter in a couple of Nabokov's letters to his mother after his father died). And "my" ghosts-if the reference is to Hazel and Lucette-are actually much less ordinary (certainly in Hazel's case) than the Vane girls. Doesn't the evidence of Nabokov's work need to be taken into account?
VNA: patterns that Kinbote could have cooked up himself
BB: But Nabokov repeatedly inserts patterns he makes clear to us are beyond Kinbote, because Kinbote is not responsible for them (names and facts like Dulwich Road), because he doesn't know certain things (like taxonomy), because he is too vain to introduce anything he would recognize as counting against him, and so on.
VNA: I think Nabokov would argue that the supernatural, if it exists, would be unlike anything any person could imagine, certainly nothing anyone could "prove" with "evidence."
BB: Yet Nabokov does allow us to prove, within the realms of works like "The Vane Sisters" and Transparent Things, and using the carefully planned evidence he provides (an acrostic in the one case, unique linguistic habits in the other), that the ghosts of the Vane sisters have affected the life of the narrator and determined every word he writes in his last paragraph, and that the narrator of Transparent Things is the ghost of Mr. R. Readers have arrived at these conclusions independently, and Nabokov has confirmed them (and indicated the evidence) outside the fictions. This of course does not mean that Nabokov thinks that the supernatural actually corresponds to the kinds of ghostly worlds he sets up in these two fictions (or that he or anyone else in the mortal state could provide evidence that the supernatural does exist or takes a particular form); simply that if as a storyteller he is to allow the supernatural to play a part in the story, then he has no choice but to introduce it in the form of agents whose interests and actions can be inferred, although not seen-THAT indeed would be too ordinary.
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:45 AM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Fw: VNA's response to BB's response
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria N. Alexander
To: D. Barton Johnson
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 2:19 PM
Subject: VNA's response to BB's response
(in case you've missed them, earlier exchanges appear at the end of this note)
Dear All:
Happily for me, Professor Boyd has taken my bait this time. I wanted to address his earlier criticisms of my research on mimicry because, although I know he would never repeat them publicly, he may have inadvertently let a comment or two (or disapproving grunt) slip in private, and considering the great respect with which he is generally held among Nabokovians (myself included) I feared this might create unnecessary obstacles to an appreciation of my modest contributions. I only wish he had quoted more of his letter to me, and I hope he will do so in the future
About my words (in the research paper done at SFI), "natural selection as a theory, the strength of which lies in its tautological nature," BB had this to say,
>???: I wonder how much you understand of evolutionary theory, or the history of the theory, or of philosophy, or of the philosophy of science, if you can say this. If a theory is tautological, then it cannot be refuted, and it is therefore unscientific (it fails to meet the criteria of potential falsifiability) and can have no explanatory power whatever. But the supposedly tautological nature of natural selection has always been used in criticism of the theory, and the clear demonstration that it is far from tautological has been made again and again, by Dawkins for instance, but by many more before him, back to Darwin.
My response: Preferential fitness, according to Darwin, is defined by reproductive fitness. Whatever survives to reproduce is more fit; what defines fitness is survival and subsequent reproduction. Fitness might be stupidity, or slowness, or aggressiveness, or patience. No characteristic is inherently fit. "Survival of the ones who survive" is a tautology, as Darwin himself was well aware. This does not, however, make it wrong or meaningless. Contrary to what Professor Boyd seems to think, I most certainly believe that natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution. Regarding whether or not Darwin's assertions could be tested, this was an issue for many years. Darwinists could not use the usual experimental methods. The laboratory was nature, which worked too slowly for a human scientist to observe changes. An advantageous variation does not occur more frequently because it has a higher probability of being selected. Advantageous variations occur by chance. However, Darwinism was actually proved, finally, late in the 20th century. Now new techniques for the study of bacterial evolution allow for sufficiently short replication times. Consequently, evolution can be observed in detail over thousands of generations. See R. E. Lenski, "Evolution in Experimental Populations of Bacteria" in Population Genetics of Bacteria (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 193-215.
Even so, what Darwin described (natural selection) was a mechanism, not a "theory" in the technical sense. Everybody uses the term "theory" with Darwin in a loose sort of way. However, we still are not able to analyze the process of natural selection in a way that would allow us to quantify and categorize the transition from one level of structural complexity to another. There is no general law of adaptation. Darwin had to invent a different story for each particular case. This is not to say that a theory cannot be found. In fact, I am convinced that my advisor Jim Crutchfield will be able to provide a testable theory of adaptation, using the techniques of computational mechanics, in the very near future.
Richard Dawkins, whom Professor Boyd recommends, writes "popular" books on evolutionary theory. Most biologists these days think he overstates his case at best. Many think he is flatly wrong.
And, now, regarding the new criticisms that Professor Boyd has made of my review of his work on Pale Fire. I wrote,
All the same, Boyd is right: there do seem to be ghosts afoot. But Boyd has swallowed Kinbote's bait. Kinbote wants readers to think his commentary is supernaturally inspired. Boyd discounts Nabokov's warning that Shade has learned not to believe in "domestic ghosts."
BB: Where is the evidence that Kinbote wants readers to think that his commentary is supernaturally inspired?
VNA: That is a great question and the subject of my next book. But I will be careful how I use the term "evidence." The short answer is, Who wouldn't want one's work to be perceived as inspired? Although the application Popper's notion of "falsifiability" may be inappropriate in the literary domain, that other great rule of science, Occam's razor, seems very useful here. If a simple explanation and/or assumption will suffice, don't offer additional, more complicated ones.
In his response to my review, Professor Boyd further writes,
Ms Alexander's . sentence again betrays the text. What Shade actually writes is quite different:
So why join in the vulgar laughter? Why
Scorn a hereafter none can verify: . . . .
It isn't that we dream too wild a dream:
The trouble is we do not make it seem
Sufficiently unlikely; for the most
We can think up is a domestic ghost.
Then Boyd goes on in his response to further prove his argument by explaining the meaning or function of a particular rhyme. My response, to BB's response: Boyd's ghosts are just too ordinary: he proves them by pointing to funny patterns that Kinbote could have cooked up himself, if he wanted to. I think Nabokov would argue that the supernatural, if it exists, would be unlike anything any person could imagine, certainly nothing anyone could "prove" with "evidence." The only "evidence" we will ever have for the supernatural--or for interpretations of the "meanings" of rhymes--are patterns, funny patterns, which might seem intentional, but which might be accidental (or at least not correlated in the way BB imagines).
Let me know if you've heard enough, fellow subscribers. For my part, I'm enjoying this quite a lot. And thanks everyone for your emails. I'm so grateful for your sympathy (and humor). Of course, I am flattered by Professor Boyd's attention, who is, we all agree, Nabokov's greatest biographer.
Cordially,
Tori Alexander
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Barton Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: Fw: Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE: Boyd response
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Boyd (FOA ENG)
To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE: Boyd response
Dear All:
Since Victoria Alexander quotes without permission from what I wrote, may I set those phrases in context?
She writes that "Brian Boyd wrote me saying he though[t] I had little understanding of 'Nabokov's art' or 'of evolutionary theory, or the history of the theory, or of philosophy, or of the philosophy of science.' "
I had read her essay on "Neutral Evolution" and thought it flawed in many ways, but saw no point in saying so anywhere. Since she wrote me asking for a reaction, however, I gave her a detailed commentary:
-----------------------------------
>Dear Victoria,
>Thank you for the offprint of your Neutral Evolution, which I had already received from somewhere (Kurt?). It's a delight to see someone else in literature taking the science seriously.
>However, since you ask, I have to say that although I find the attempt valuable I find the execution deeply flawed. You do not seem to understand the science or Nabokov's art sufficiently clearly and will have to work at clarifying your thoughts and expression.
>Here are some specific comments:
[some pages later]:
>>natural selection as a theory, the strength of which lies in its tautological nature:
>???: I wonder how much you understand of evolutionary theory, or the history of the theory, or of philosophy, or of the philosophy of science, if you can say this. If a theory is tautological, then it cannot be refuted, and it is therefore unscientific (it fails to meet the criteria of potential falsifiability) and can have no explanatory power whatever. But the supposedly tautological nature of natural selection has always been used in criticism of the theory, and the clear demonstration that it is far from tautological has been made again and again, by Dawkins for instance, but by many more before him, back to Darwin.
[I end a little later]:
>Sorry, but I had to say it as I see it.
>Best wishes for your future work,
>Brian Boyd
In her review, which is perfectly fair and even generous in the circumstances, Victoria Alexander comments:
> Boyd has swallowed Kinbote's bait. Kinbote wants readers to think his
> commentary is supernaturally inspired. Boyd discounts Nabokov's warning
> that Shade has learned not to believe in "domestic ghosts."
Where is the evidence that Kinbote wants readers to think that his commentary is supernaturally inspired? I and other readers I know see only evidence that he wants readers to think Shade's poem would have been much better had it been inspired by Kinbote.
Ms Alexander's next sentence againbetrays the text. What Shade actually writes is quite different:
So why join in the vulgar laughter? Why
Scorn a hereafter none can verify: . . . .
It isn't that we dream too wild a dream:
The trouble is we do not make it seem
Sufficiently unlikely; for the most
We can think up is a domestic ghost.
Suddenly, this makes me notice something I should have seen earlier. Nabokov does not repeat a couplet's rhymes casually. Within sixty lines, Shade introduces Hazel, to lead up to the account of her suicide. He begins, though, by addressing his wife, Hazel's mother, and then introduces Hazel herself this way:
And I love you most
When with a pensive nod you greet her ghost. . . .
This verse paragraph is saturated with anticipations of the final verse paragraph of the poem, which introduces the particular "Vanessa with a crimson band" that seems to be a sign of Hazel's transformation and presence.
To return to Ms Alexander's sentence: an experienced reader of Nabokov would see that "Nabokov's warning that Shade has learned not to believe in 'domestic ghosts'" would be just the kind of disclaimer that in Nabokov alerts us that there is indeed something of that very kind to look out for. But in the Catno that depicts Hazel's suicideShade in fact says he expects something more in the hereafter; and the repetition of "most"/"ghost" as Hazel is introduced into the poem hints just where we should look. Not Hazel appearing as a stage spook, not Hazel as text; but Hazel in the texture of the poem.
Brian Boyd
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 4:37 AM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Review of Boyd's PALE FIRE
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria N. Alexander
To: chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu
Cc: alexander@dactyl.org
Dear All:
Coincidentally last fall, a few days after Brian Boyd wrote me saying he though I had little understanding of "Nabokov's art" or "of evolutionary theory, or the history of the theory, or of philosophy, or of the philosophy of science," the editor of the _Antioch Review_ sent me the paperback edition of Boyd's book on _Pale Fire_ to review. I took it as a sign from the ghost of Nabokov that I should review it. It has just come out. Now that I've had time to cool down a bit, I think my tone sounds rather cheeky. Nevertheless, I stand by my point. Here it is:
> _Antioch Review_ (Summer 2002 Vol. 60, No. 3): 530-531.
>
> Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic Art of Discovery by Brian Boyd. Princeton
> University Press, 303pp., $16.95 paper
>
> Nabokov's _Pale Fire_ is a fictitious edition of a poem by John Shade with commentary by an egocentric critic, Charles Kinbote. Boyd offers detailed analyses of patterns in the poem, performing the work that should have been done by Kinbote. He also provides excellent commentary on Kinbote's work. Boyd then looks at the patterns occurring _between_ Shade's and Kinbote's contributions, which have led several critics to argue that the whole of _Pale Fire_ was written by one deceptive meta-author. Boyd once argued it was Shade. Now he claims it was Kinbote possessed by the ghosts of Shade and Shade's daughter. Boyd overstates his case somewhat by not making clear distinctions between patterns that could be attributed to one of the living authors and
patterns that _require_ a meta-author: e.g., the fact that Kinbote's commentary echoes themes in Shade's poem is not an uncanny coincidence; the fact that Shade's poem seems to prophesy his own murder is.
> Boyd dedicates considerable space to Popper's _Logic of Scientific Discovery_, claiming his "theory" about _Pale Fire_ is falsifiable.
> However, poetic interpretations, like any postulation about supernatural beings, are precisely the kinds of assertions that _cannot_ be falsified. As Pale Fire itself demonstrates, art and belief are the effects of ambiguity and coincidence.
All the same, Boyd is right: there do _seem_ to be ghosts afoot. But Boyd has swallowed Kinbote's bait. Kinbote wants readers to think his commentary is supernaturally inspired. Boyd discounts Nabokov's warning that Shade has learned not to believe in "domestic ghosts." Shade's subtler discovery is that certain kinds of poetic patterns tend to suggest a meta-author, and similar patterns in real life tend to suggest supernatural meta-authors. Nevertheless, Boyd's discovery of Kinbote's planted clues advances Nabokovian scholarship considerably. My criticism should ultimately only strengthen the better part of his thesis.
>
> --Victoria N. Alexander
>