The Dialectical Biologist

by Richard Levins, Richard Lewontin

Scientists act within a social context and from a philosophical perspective that is inherently political. Whether they realize it or not, scientists always choose sides. The Dialectical Biologist explores this political nature of scientific inquiry, advancing its argument within the framework of Marxist dialectic. These essays stress the concepts of continual change and codetermination between organism and environment, part and whole, structure and process, science and politics. Throughout, this book questions our accepted definitions and biases, showing the self-reflective nature of scientific activity within society.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Biology, Nonfiction, Theory, Ecology, Politics

336 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 1985

Reviews

[Philipp · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was published a year before I was born. Since then, I've jumped through most of the hoops society has laid out for budding scientists, and at some point in the next 2 years I should be allowed to call myself a "Doctor of Philosophy" or something like that ("burger flipper"?). It has come obvious to me that there's a ton of problems in scientific research, in the scientific community, and in the way research is conducted. It's also very funny to see that a lot of these problems have already been described in this book from 27 years ago.

Basically, it's a collection of essays in the style of Marxist dialectics, i.e., a way of thinking that tries to incorporate entire systems instead of first trying to split a system into its parts and then analyzing these (the Cartesian approach). I'm pretty sure Dialectics has been re-invented as Systems Thinking in recent years by writers like Donna Meadows, even the way the graphs work is mostly identical.

Some interesting points, in no particular order:
- Evolutionary research tries to see the organism as the outcome of evolution, while Levis/Lewontin try to show that organisms also shape their own evolution (for starters, all species shape their environments, starting from their droppings to more complicated things like building nests/burrrows/dams/houses, and much much more).
- Gene/phenotype studies usually model the interaction between both as a one-way, one-to-one interaction, at one point in time, while there's a world outside this small scale which easily falsifies any results. Much of this is currently repeated in criticisms of Genome-wide association studies (GWAS).
- Evolution as a theory is a product of the society it was invented in. It couldn't have been proposed in a stale, "God-given" medieval society.
- I didn't realize before how much of Darwin's thinking was shaped by Malthus.
- The Essay on Lysenkoism has some weird points, like that table showing that during the rise and acceptance of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, yield grew and was a bit higher than in the US, and that's taken as a minor defense of Lysenkoism. However, just because yield grew doesn't mean that Lysenkoism was good - there could have been millions of reasons why that happened.
- Not sure why the essay on health in the Latin American community is there; it's way too specialized to be of any interest
- I'm pretty sure that each essay is a hidden angry rant about a recent publication, but since these essays are all fairly old (end 70s to mid 80s) I don't know the publication in question.
- If you're a biologist, skip the first two essays, these are basically modified long dictionary entries showing the current state of evolution and biology. There's a lot in there you've heard before.
- "The Commodization of Science" is awesome, a critique of (Western) science as a tool of capitalist expansion, def. recommended (you don't have to agree)

Of course, one can criticize Dialectic approaches as a bit far-strung - it's complicated enough to just look at a one-to-one interaction at one point in time, and success in this can already take a long time (easily more than a normal PhD takes). Analyzing the entire system at once makes things only "worse", so to speak. The statistical tools we now (2013) have developed for these "simple" interactions are already so complicated that I shudder to think what "proper" modelling of a complex system needs.

On the writing: Levins/Lewontin seem to be big fans of the needlessly endless sentence. Definitely no "pop science" material!

Anyway, if you're a biologist and you want a very different view on your science, go for it. Similar goes for the interested layman. If, however, you're looking for a fun book you can read on your commute, stay away, for that it's too dry.

[Hantz FV · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is refreshing to read Marxist sympathizers who at no point deny the need for revolution but even regularly call for it. ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶j̶o̶i̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶h̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶o̶b̶o̶d̶y̶'̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶f̶e̶c̶t̶!̶

Don't expect to come out of this being a biologist or something. However you'll get a broad understanding of pitfalls to look out for when reading papers. Which you could already get by just being a Marxist but with the dominant reductionist viewpoint in science (and capitalist society in general) is already making that very hard. The section on "adaptation" is particularly enlightening in that regard.

They also have some really intrinsting and accurate observations and conclusions on how research fits into and interacts with capitalism. The article on the commodization of science is excellent.

The book is aimed at scientists to help them break with the dominant anti-dialectical viewpoints, but it is a certainty that someone whose first introduction to Marxism is this book will have understood very little from it. As a Marxist it's very fluid. But I don't think the general population knows very well or is even familiar with concepts like surplus value or the interpenetration of opposites. So it seems to miss the mark on that. Things could have been introduced and explained before dropping them in the middle of an article. The book itself is a series of articles, so that's definitely hard to do, but still... They could have done it in the last chapter which is on dialectics, they didn't. So I would recommend this more to people who are already Marxists. And to others I would recommend to first read some introductory texts on dialectical materialism before reading the book.

Some suggestions:
What is dialectal materialism - https://www.marxist.com/what-is-diale...
What is historical materialism - https://www.marxist.com/an-introducti...
Wage labour and capital - https://www.marxist.com/classics-wage...
And this reading guide for more - https://www.marxist.com/reading-guide...

Although the authors are respected scientists and definitely knowledgeable people, not everything they say about Marxism or the dialectical method should be taken at face value. They have a limited understanding of Marxism and its history. ̶I̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶r̶g̶a̶n̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶o̶r̶y̶.̶ They also reference Mao and maoism as if they were continuation of Marxism. No mention of anyone like Lenin though. And even though they criticize bureaucratization, they seem to have never learned of Trotsky or they didn't care to engage with him or his ideas. That could have saved them sometime and would have definitely helped them gain a better understanding of dialectics. The last text in the book is where they attempt to give a broad overview of dialectical materialism, but they get distracted very early on by trying to not go to the traditional route and avoiding talking about the laws of dialectics. Which they end up referencing anyway but without explaining them, which defeats the purpose of the whole chapter. Their own basic principles of dialectics are interesting but definitely leave a lot of the important stuff out.

All in all, good book and honest authors despite what I said above. I do hope more students and workers of science will read this and take up the challenge posed as the last sentence of the book: "Dialectical philosophers have thus far only explained science. The problem, however, is to change it". Really changing and liberating science requires changing the society it serves to remove the blind search for profit regardless of (and often in contradiction with) needs. It requires overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with socialism. For that one of the duty of a student or worker of science is to get organized to prepare the socialist revolution.

------

I'm keeping my initial review as is, but editing to rectify about the authors' organizing.

"Lewontin was intimately involved in Science for the People (SftP) since the 1970s. A founding member of the Chicago chapter, he and other radical scientists engaged in teach-ins, anti-war protests, anti-racist agitations, and even what others considered subversion, by attempting scientific and political collaboration with the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War! Lewontin carried his radicalism to Harvard; in the Boston SftP chapter, he co-founded the Sociobiology Study Group, beginning a decade of fierce critique against genetic reductionism and its reactionary offshoot, biological determinism."
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople....

"Levins joined the Communist Party in his teens. In 1948 he met Rosario Morales, a young Puerto Rican communist. They married in 1950 and when Levins was blacklisted, and faced a possible military draft to fight in the Korean War, the couple moved to Puerto Rico. [...] In 1965 he participated in a Universidad de Puerto Rico strike and teach-in against the Viet Nam War. When speakers were refused access to the campus they leaned a ladder against the outside of the campus fence and spoke to students gathered inside. The left journal La Escalera, named for the incident, was founded that year, and he served as a writer and member of the editorial board. His influential 1965 essay "De rebelde a revolucionario" continues to inspire new generations of Puerto Rican radicals. He was active in the fight to expel the U.S. Navy from the islands of Culebra and Vieques, which was used for military exercises. [...] n 1967 he was denied tenure at the Universidad de Puerto Rico because of his political activism, and left Puerto Rico, accepting a job at the University of Chicago. In 1968 he taught at the Universidad de la Habana for the summer. In 1970 he traveled to Hanoi as part of the delegation of radical scientists, and on his return, founded Science for Viet Nam, an offshoot of Science for the People, to which he also belonged."
http://www.radicalismojudio.org/carib...

[J.D. Steens · Rating 1 out of 5]

The authors contrast their dialectical approach to science with "Cartesian reductionism." Briefly, the latter isolates parts from wholes and wholes from each other; it regards wholes as just additive parts and treats phenomena statically; and, as a result, it gives a false or misleading picture of reality (the "reductivist myth of simplicity"). The former (dialectical approach) sees parts as parts of wholes, and looks at mutual interactions between parts and wholes and wholes with each other. Every force, they say, faces a counter force, and equilibrium is dynamic and never permanent. "Interpenetration" and "contradiction," and forces acting and modifying each other, is the name of the game. Darwin and his successors see the organism as a passive being whose development results from natural selection. The authors see the organism as far more active in selecting and modifying its environment.

Unfortunately, the authors attribute their dialectical approach to Marxism (their book is dedicated to Engels). A dialectical approach can and should stand on its own without bringing in Marx and Engels. By pulling in Marxist theory, the authors taint a dialectic approach with ideology. Cartesian reductionism in science they say is not only wrong, but it is "vulgar" and "bourgeoise science." It feeds and supports capitalist exploitation (competition among parts; control and manipulation from the top). Classical biology is alienated biology. It holds the organism constant, apart from its broader and ever-changing environment. There's also some hard-hitting, and dismissive name-calling from the authors that comes off as forced and unfair. E.O. Wilson is an "avatar" of vulgar reductionism, and Dawkins is a "vulgar Darwinist." "Vulgar" is a favorite appellation; it also graceless and reflects an absolutist and dangerous mentality.

The authors deny a fixed human nature. We are the products of our environment and will always be; systems in place now will annihilate and be different in the future. There is "no basement" or intrinsic properties in our existence. We are the result of an "interpenetration of individual and social properties" and we will always be changing. Given this view, it's strange that we develop in fairly common and predictable ways (in the womb, infancy, childhood, adulthood), that medicine has identified common diseases, that psychology has noted common afflictions, that breeders breed animals for different traits, that siblings should be so different from birth on, and that twins can be so the same.

The social environment obviously influences, modifies, and determines a good part of who we are. That's the role of the antithesis in the dialectic. We are products of our culture. That's the role of the synthesis in the dialectic. This is what Darwin said when he wrote that we are tribal - we take on a social identity that differs with those on the outside. We act, the environment acts back, and we are transformed (as a species, and as individuals with life hisories) as a result. What the authors are missing is on the thesis side of things. Are we just products of our experience and environment - individual and social properties reacting to each other - or is there something behind our actions in the thesis stage that is permanent while we change? When the authors say that we are active, not passive beings, they are making a statement about the nature of the thesis in the dialectic: What is the "X" in us that makes us active? What governs our change through time? Might there be a property of life that remains invariant throughout all of our change?

[Tyara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard and Richard will never know how much their work has influenced my own thinking and approach to science. Richard Levins was called "the people's scientist" in an obituary in Jacobin, whilst Richard Lewontin was referred to as "a scientist for the people" by Science for the People magazine. I suspect they would see it as the only epitaph that matters.

[Yuna · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Pfairbanks · Rating 5 out of 5]

I want to be a dialectical biologist now

[Simon B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dialectical materialism enters the natural sciences as the simultaneous negation of both mechanistic materialism and dialectical idealism, as a rejection of the terms of the debate. Its central theses are that nature is contradictory, that there is unity and interpenetration of the seemingly mutually exclusive, and that therefore the main issue for science is the study of unity and contradiction, rather than the separation of elements, either to reject one or to assign it a relative importance.

I found this a difficult read at times, but ultimately a very rewarding and clarifying one. Some of the chapters that delved deeply into evolutionary theory, biology and genetics were hard for me. I most enjoyed the chapters that discussed the social role and social history of science, and contrasted dialectical approaches to reductionist/Cartesian approaches. Especially engrossing were the chapters on the 'Commoditisation of Science', 'The Political Economy of Agricultural Research', 'What is Human Nature' and the 'Conclusion' summarising the authors' views on dialectics.

Levins' and Lewontin's arguments about evolutionary theory, and especially their criticism of the notion of adaptation, are very convincing. Repeatedly they stress that organisms are both the object and the subjects of evolution. Organisms do not merely adapt to their environments, or fill a pre-existing ecological niche. Organisms also select their environments, change their environments, and ultimately contribute to making their own environments. Organisms are thus "actors in their own environmental history".

In their concluding chapter Levins and Lewontin outline several principles of dialectics, even as they worry that such formalisation "has a way of seeming rigid and dogmatic in a way that contradicts the fluidity and historicity of the Marxist world view".

Their first principle is that the "whole is a relation of heterogeneous parts that have no prior independent existence as parts". Secondly, "the properties of parts have no prior alienated existence but are acquired by being parts of a particular whole". Third, "the interpenetration of parts and wholes is a consequence of the interchangeability of subject and object, of cause and effect". Their fourth principle is, "because elements recreate each other by interacting and are recreated by the wholes of which they are parts, change is a characteristic of all systems and all aspects of all systems."

[laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

i read this book alongside richard dawkins' 'the blind watchmaker' last year in a class i was taking on the philosophy of biology, and i really think that anyone who's interested in the issues surrounding evolutionary theory, even (and especially) at the level of popular science, should go out and pick up a copy of this book immediately. as a non-biologist it always seems like the primary battles are between the scientists who accept evolutionary theory and the religious fundementalists who don't. it's really illuminating to get a better look at the substantive differences (and their are some big ones) that exist within the field-- between the leading scientific minds. and, of course, how those differences effect the way different scientists view the facts as we understand them, how they spin them, what sort of world views these choices commit them to.

it's beautifully written, relatively accessible, and with a definite marxist spin (it's dedicated to friedrich engles!). check it.

[miguel · Rating 5 out of 5]

creo que muchas de las propuestas son tan verdad han acabado aplicándose e incorporando en la maquinaria de la ciencia con un nombre marketeable, y otras muchas se nos han olvidado con la llegada de las ómicas y convendría acordarse.

un must, realmente

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

every ecologist and biologist should read this-mandatory!

[Isaac · Rating 5 out of 5]

A manifesto for genuinely critical science. Like Marx’s work itself, this book remains shockingly relevant and misunderstood still in 2025

[Kosta]

I'm in no position to give a star rating about a textbook of scientific theory so I won't, but this is a very interesting and well argued compilation of essays analysing and critiquing various aspects of biology. It's main thrust, as the title implies, is to reveal flaws in methodology and interpretation based on unconscious philosophical biases that negatively influence the study of biology. A bit dated but as the arguments focus more on philosophy and theory underpinning research and analysis than specific scientific findings it doesn't really affect the validity of the arguments presented imo

[Scott Schneider · Rating 5 out of 5]

I heard Dick Levins speak in Amherst last month and he was incredibly articulate. So I read this book. Some of the essays are denser than others, but overall it provides a clear vision of how science is practiced and how it should be practiced. The essay on Latino community health is still relevant today 30 years later!

[boocia]

i really liked this book! i thought it was a good time and really made my brain wrinkle.

i like have the phrase 'cartesian reductionism' in my back pocket for this sense i've had of an overall
approach to the world. that the networked intuitions of (1) subject and object are discrete (2) there is a fundamental homogeny and the goals is to find the smallest unit of a thing or most universal descriptor (3) wholes are made of parts and the parts' characteristics are what make up the whole, and maybe on top of that there can be more complex interactions that give rise to new charas ; can be wrapped up in a big packaged phrase is just useful. i will be enriched recognizing 'cartesian thinking' going forward.

i think Levins and Lewontin do an impressive job making sure that rebuffing 'atomistic' thinking and suggesting that practically everything interacts with everything doesn't collapse into an equally meaningless holism. so science is still possible. so picking out more pertinent relations are still possible and looking for cause and effect is still possible, it's just that cause and effect aren't as pat as they are in cartesian-inflected science. however, while i really appreciated the breakdown of how an isolated 'predator-prey' relationship for example obfuscates the reality that idk, maybe if a predator wipes out its prey there are other types of prey it can eat so it'd be okay, it is not fully elucidated what it looks like to try to research an ecological community and how to 'represent it' when you add the complexity of other relationships. they do state eventually relationships are small enough to be negligible so the theory is sound (it won't devolve into pure chaos), but there isn't a 'Strong' application of dialectical science that has 'results'. i will say they do mention in 'Dialectics and Reductionism' how a dialectics-informed representation system of a community graph with neg and pos arrows have been used to effectively predict the behavior of a community, so maybe i'm just too much of a laymen to follow. i wish they showed the mentioned complex graphs just so i could get an idea of this more dialectical science visually.

in general this book suffers from a thing a lot of leftist/socialist writing suffers from, which is that it can't Exactly talk about what a dialectical science will fully look like, and what problems it has solved, because we don't live in a society that supports that kind of science. so instead as above it is a gesture and a practice applied over all these essays (like specifically how to do analysis of the public health of the latin community, or thoughts on statistical analysis in ecology) that apply a dialectical framework poke holes in non-dialectical thinking (like missing how stress at home and stress at work are interrelated and not discrete factors in health), but are unable to show Extremely concrete i guess, discoveries? results? using a more dialectical way of thinking. Since nobody has conducted (or critically funded) studies with the presupposition that home and work stress are related to one another, there is no concrete methodology or concrete statistics to show an example of how this would work better.

as an aside i really enjoyed the essay 'The Political Economy of Agricultural Research'. There was something so compelling to me about the description of how farming itself is not monopolized, but instead capital has warped around it by creating an economic environment that forces farmers to buy seeds/pesticides etc. from big companies, and in turn to sell their crop to other big companies, instead of these big companies owning the farms. one of the reasons for this they cite is that farming is not speed uppable or supervisable. workers have to spread out across large spaces and that cannot be condensed like it can for idk making a car. and crops only grow at a certain rate and that Also cannot be sped up by newer technologies or longer hours or more workers after a certain point. so endless-growth capital would sputter out. better to exploit the farmers and have them carry the burden of those barriers. i am just really taken by idk, abstract capitalistic efficiency hitting the wet earth, i guess.

i also really enjoyed that this essay, and other essays in the latter half of this book, point out that research into crop breeding and genetic engineering are making crops 'better' in relation to a specific environment, which is itself generated by other products of science/capital. so crops are bred for pesticide resistance, and for up-taking fertilizer better. they point out in 'Biology in the Third World' how this approach is failing in other ecosystems that are clearly v different from those the original research and design of these crops was geared for. it feels v ... something. cartesian? colonial? post-enlightenment? to effectively be blank-slate terraforming the earth and then forcing plants to fit those specs instead of a path that is easier but less uniform, one that accounts for what already exists in these ecosystems.

a good time!

[Seymour Millen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb collection of rare, unpublished, or hard-to-access essays from Levins and Lewontin, mostly from the 1980s. Various topics- healthcare, evolution, ecology, statistical analysis, agriculture, and the practise of science itself is analysed from a Marxist-inspired dialectical account. The hodge-podge nature of the book means the structure is quite loose, though this affords dipping in and out, or skipping difficult parts (such as the rare application of calculus or technical terminology unique to biology).

The dialectical approach is a way of analysing the relationship between parts and wholes. The struggle between parts (e.g. classes in Marx's political economy/history, or animals in Levins and Lewontin's biology) influences the whole that they constitute (e.g. a society, or environment, respectively); the whole simultaneously shapes the struggle of the parts. Change is made when the struggle reaches a breaking point, and the struggle continues albeit in a new form. In this way, both change and stability, individual and context, can be understood in a way that undermines their false dichotomy. Therefore, dialectics can be used to understand the movement of any dynamical system- atoms, ecosystems, or human society.

Levins and Lewontin do not hide their political affiliation, they merely make explicit that which other scientists and writers conceal. They are Marxists, and this perspective informs their biology as it does their life in other regards, just as the ideology of other scientists informs their work and life too. However, this perspective is not merely a flavour among others- as the authors show, Marxism enables them to ask questions biology is notably ill-equipped to answer, and avoids for the most part. It also resolves interminable debates over "nature and nurture" and complicates simple reductionist perspectives on evolution, that often congeal into reactionary arguments about human nature. Here we can see how politics and biology are never so far apart as scientists might like to claim.

Their historical and materialist perspective, as well as their biological expertise, allows them to achieve a blend of knowledge highly uncommon and discouraged. Authors from more specialised fields would not be able to write an essay on Lysenkoism, or on the commodity nature of scientific research, as well-argued, sympathetic, and critical as Levins and Lewontin. Similarly, the best piece in the book, on the political economy of American agriculture, would not be possible without a dialectical perspective in biology and history. In many ways, despite being written in the 1980s, the trends the authors describe are still relevant today (see https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/03/... and https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/05/fa...). I could fully reccomend the book for these essays alone, as they are both highly compelling reads and the agriculture piece ends with an actually funny joke.

Earlier chapters, such as "Adaptation" and "Dialectics and Reductionism in Ecology" are more meandering and repetitive, and the chapter on Analysis of Variance would be highly challenging for those less statistically literate. I would say to skip them if they are a struggle- the breadth of application of dialectics means those interested in philosophy, economics, psychology, history, healthcare, or science generally would find a chapter suited for them, as well as others to branch into. Lewontin's other books, "Not in Our Genes", "Triple Helix", and "Biology as Ideology" are more accessible in this regard, and helped prepare me for this work as I am not a biologist.

[Sarah Ensor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays first published in 1985 was an intervention into the long-established argument in science that the pursuit of knowledge is apolitical because it is about discovering facts. Of course some aspects are dated but the essential thread that scientists need to approach their work dialectically–and what that means, is still deeply relevant.

“Dialectical materialism enters the natural sciences as the simultaneous negation of both mechanistic materialism and dialectical idealism, as a rejection of the terms of the debate. Its central theses are that nature is contradictory. That there is unity and interpenetration of the seemingly mutually exclusive, and that therefore the main issue for science is the studies of unity and contradiction, rather than the separation of elements, either to reject one or to assign it relative importance."

There is a long discussion of evolutionism and Darwin and the ideological nature of organising information about the world, with questions about complexity and what is valued. The chapter on industrial farming discusses problems that have only intensified in the last thirty seven years while the seed and chemical companies cited have merged into today’s agri-business giants. The piece on Latino-Americans’ health could be written for public sector organisations now.

Some of it is difficult (and some of it is very funny) but it is also exciting and worth the trouble because a dialectical approach to the world should change how we act and what we expect our work and society to be. Science in universities, for instance, has only become more narrow than when this was first published. It was a common complaint of academics during the university strikes in Britain recently that they were becoming experts in ever-narrowing subjects ─ one biologist mentioned insect geneticists who couldn’t name any beetle that crossed their path and wouldn’t know why they should want to. They don’t have a relationship with the beetle, only its cells. A good place to go from here is John Bellamy Foster’s Marx’s Ecology another groundbreaking, exciting dialectical read.

[Jasmine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although it is possible to receive a Doctor of Philosophy in a field like biology without taking a single post-secondary philosophy course, I don’t think it should be. Through practice, biology can teach you how to think, but I don’t think it teaches you how to think about how you think. Philosophy helps you step outside your thought patterns and examine assumptions or limitations you didn’t realize you were making.

The essays in this book take as their target scientists who are correct in applying their craft — at least by conventional standards of logic and statistics — but nonetheless draw incorrect conclusions. These vary from incorrect models of evolution (e.g., one-way adaptation of creatures to their environment instead of a dynamic relationship between creature and environment), to deductions of processes that fail to consider the contingency of an observed relationship, to the chauvinism of expecting a western model of science to be universally optimal.

This anthology is now several decades old and biology has necessarily abandoned some of its insistence on what the authors term Cartesian science — a reductionist approach that fails to account for mutual interdependence, interconnectivity, and change. My own PhD research examined some of this: how do certain relationships change while other environmental variables are also in flux? In trying to navigate such a problem, I found myself becoming more fluent in dialectical materialism, although I didn’t know the term for it.

Although biology has progressed, Cartesian reductionism remains prevalent. I find myself butting up against it often when I try to communicate the work I do. The essays felt cathartic to read: here, too, were other scientists fighting the same fights I fight (particularly chapter 4).

Because this book is a collection of essays not intended to be read together, the essays sometimes repeat metaphors or examples or concepts. An abridged reading of my favourite chapters that retains the sweeping scope and remains feeling fresh and pertinent would be the Introduction, followed by chapters 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and the Conclusion.

[Formed · Rating 4 out of 5]

A spirited defense of the organisms as provisional systems caught up among contradictory forces and reciprocal relations- Just as a commodity determines the economic phenomena and is determined by it, so do organisms relate to their environment. With bangers like “What’s so bad about contradictions—they’re just oscillations in the state of the network!”

[Dialectical materialism] tells us, “Remember that history may leave an important trace. Remember that being and becoming are dual aspects of nature. Remember that conditions change and that the conditions necessary to the initiation of some process may be destroyed by the process itself. Remember to pay attention to real objects in space and time and not lose them utterly in idealized abstractions. Remember that qualitative effects of context and interaction may be lost when phenomena are isolated.” And above all else, “Remember that all the other caveats are only reminders and warning signs whose application to different circumstances of the real world is contingent.”

Also a great critique of scientific ideology and its economically guided pattern of knowledge and ignorance- "This elitism is profoundly antidemocratic, encouraging a cult of expertise, an aesthetic appreciation of manipulation, and a disdain for those who do not make it by the rules of academia, which often reinforces racism and sexism[...] The irrationalities of a scientifically sophisticated world come not from failures of intelligence but from the persistence of capitalism, which as a by-product also aborts human intelligence."

"A future which is not determined is a call to the exercise of freedom."

[Jamie Tommins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Althusser tried, unsuccessfully, to establish the ultimately “scientific” nature of Marx’s work; maybe, this book suggests, the problem was the other way around. But it is hard to believe two of the most successful evolutionary scientists in history, who sparked a revolution in our understanding of genetics and helped bury pseudoscientific racial theories for good, when they say that the scientific method which they employed widely in their work is fundamentally broken due to capitalist ideology. For all the force of their critique—certainly compelling, though directed at some easy targets, like sociobiology—anyone familiar with ecology will wonder what the difference is between good science and good dialectical science. Is “reducing” ecosystems to their components—crucially, to study their interactions—rather than viewing them “dialectically,” truly a different, inferior system, or simply a different method? Might there be methodological, rather than simply ideological, uses for each? If the history of science teaches us anything, it is the danger of overstating one’s case.

[Jenny Chen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Half reading. Susah banget dipahami bagi yg nggak familiar sama sains terutama fisika dan biologi.

Tapi pas bagian2 awal yg ngebahas evolusi sebagai ideologi dan teori, itu lumayan ngacak-acak keyakinan gw selama ini tentang progresivitas masyarakat manusia.

Juga tentang diamat alias materialisme dialektika yg diformulasikan sama Friedrich Engels.

Tapi meskipun susah banget dipahami, worth reading banget coz ini menyangkut pertanyaan2 fundamental kaya apakah evolusi itu bersifat progresif atau acak/chaos.

Dibaca sama Man Makes Himself dan Not in Our Genes bagus nih.

Dan karena kerumitannya, gw kasih rating 5 dah.

[Nasser Mohammed · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book brings attention to a lot of the nuances in evolutionary and ecological thought, which are influenced by the cultural environment that formed them. For instance, Lewontin talks a bit about how evolution is assumed very capitalistic in nature, with species trying to accrue as many benefits as possible at the expense of others.

Another cool feature of this book is you can learn about Levins' "loop analysis" and the background behind the idea. It's a really underrated idea in ecology and this book provides a very clear and accessible introduction.

[Chanuwas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye-opening and inspiring

I recommend this book to all scientists, but more especially to social scientists. This book will evoke and challenge your implicit Cartesian worldview embedded in how you approach research and problems in your discipline. Tangentially, it also makes me realize the tremendous importance of interdisciplinarity.

[Noah · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing challenge to the dominant mode of thought surrounding scientific thinking. With clear examples on how to apply dialectical thinking to scientific problems. For non-biologists I would highly recommend reading the book backwards, from the concluding chapter on dialectics, to the science as a social product portion, and finally with the evolutionary examples.

[Karim Kadry · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intellectual thunderbolt

[Maya]

Fascinating ideas made inaccessible by pretentious language.

[Asif Ghazanfar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing. 100% still relevant today (36 years after it was first published).

[Nora Heaphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

so good and so hard to wrap my mind around, will have to read again

[Phillip Zhou · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for anyone interested in biology.

[Chase · Rating 4 out of 5]

Skipped the middle section & the Latin community health chapter

[Jorge]

muy bueno, odio a descartes y el idealismo.