In 2010 Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita and Edward O. Wilson published a paper in a major scientific journal which challenged received opinion on a theory to which Wilson had earlier given distinguished support. Their argument provoked furious controversy, with the majority of established scientists in the field defending their traditional beliefs, but the occasional voice suggesting that Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson have identified an overlooked glitch which may well lead to a paradigm shift in our thinking. The debate raged in the original journal and others; in various websites conducted by distinguished scientific thinkers; in a symposium at Harvard. It was still being reported in the popular press this year. Your task is to
Identify and describe the article and as much of the follow-up as you can find. Give some account of the achievements and standing of the various participants , and, having summarized the various arguments clearly, evaluate them and give your own opinion on the central question, bringing in any analogous supportive information you think useful.
In the Harris paper you were given the basic data on a controversy that is, to all intents and purposes, settled. In the Symposium paper you described aspects of a controversy which today leaves only a few tangential questions – if any. In class we have looked at some “scientific” controversies which appear, on examination, to be philosophical controversies about the rightness or wrongness of the scientific method itself. Now you are asked to identify an ongoing scientific controversy which has not been settled, and find the constituent arguments and data for yourself. Then, bringing to bear the skills we have used in previous work – identifying fallacious arguments, extra-scientific considerations, predetermined conclusions, ad hominem thinking which reflects judgment of another debater’s admired or despised personality or history rather than the actual arguments – you have to give a clear account of the debate, and present your own arguments for whatever position you take on the proposition in the Nowak et al article.
The Library’s subscription means that you can access the original article and subsequent ripostes and counter-ripostes without expense. Reference to books and learned journal articles will be useful in assessing the standing and commitments of various disputants. There is absolutely no right or wrong answer required of you: you may agree or disagree with Nowak et al. All the disputants have a scientific, philosophical and/or mathematical standing which leaves me absolutely unqualified to challenge their work, except insofar as you or I may detect any personal bias or fallacious reasoning.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|