What do you think?
Rate this book
The nature of life
Based on lectures given in Jamaica in 1960. with dw, 1961 Book club ed
131 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1961
180 people want to read
About the author
C.H. Waddington
34 books8 followersConrad Hal Waddington was a British biologist, embryologist, palaeontologist, geneticist and philosopher.
Waddington had wide interests that included poetry and painting, as well as left-wing political leanings. In his book The Scientific Attitude (1941), he touched on political topics such as central planning, and praised Marxism as a "profound scientific philosophy".
Waddington had wide interests that included poetry and painting, as well as left-wing political leanings. In his book The Scientific Attitude (1941), he touched on political topics such as central planning, and praised Marxism as a "profound scientific philosophy".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 4, 2012
This book is based on a series of lectures given at the University College of the West Indies in Jamaica in 1960. Faculty and outside experts gave speeches about their specialty. The intent was to increase the awareness and understanding of the faculty of various fields to different areas of study; consequently, the material shared needed to be basic enough for those unfamiliar with the topic, while giving enough fresh material to include those who were familiar with it in varying degrees.
Waddington hit the nail on the head. This book is a very capable introduction to the major trends in the scientific community - specifically biology.
Waddington shares the advances provided by revolutionary theories, like Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics. He clearly demonstrates the value of those contributions, but he also clearly shows where those theories fell short. This is not to discredit the brilliant work of these men.
The accomplishments of Darwin and Mendel are amazing considering the times in which they developed. Many of the shortcomings later identified were a direct result of the ideas being so far ahead of their time. They identified key principles of heredity, development, and adaptation through intense experimentation and observation, without the benefit of tools like gene-mapping.
We wouldn't have such advancements either, if not for their ideas.
One of the points made by Waddington that impressed me most was the value of scientific models. He explains that even if the theories and models are imperfect or flat-out wrong, they are a point of reference for additional discovery. Whether the model is refuted or proven (even partially) is irrelevant in regards to the advancement of scientific knowledge. The key is that questions are being asked, ideas explored, and empirical data analyzed, sorted, and applied to other models, thereby illuminating truth.
Another valuable aspect of this book is that it walks the reader through some of those processes that connect older scientific progress to current work and by extension the future.
I struggled with the decision to give the book 3 or 4 stars out of 5. The main point that kept me from giving the book 4 stars was the final chapter called Biology and Man. Waddington points out that the human mind seems unlikely to be defined adequately by chemical and physical means alone. Sure, an electrical impulse recalls a memory, but that memory is an image, smell, or sound. It has emotional attachment. It is a part of a greater whole that may include components of personality, ethics, self-awareness, etc. It's more than a flash of electricity, or a chemical compound moving between receptors.
Ironically, while pointing out the inadequacy of a purely chemical or electrical approach to explaining free will, memory, personality, and self-awareness, Waddington seems to believe that these are the true explanation, but we are currently unable to measure, therefore explain, these phenomena. He even expresses doubt that we will ever be able to explain them.
In conclusion, Waddington's discourse is valuable to the student of science and philosophy. He attempts to address opposing sides of major debates that continue over decades, but he fails to do so objectively. He is critical of the inability of religion to give empirical evidence of its efforts to refute or qualify the theory of evolution. He basically says that religions lack of empirical contribution makes it a nearly irrelevant part of the overall scientific discussion, but after saying this, he basically offers ideas equally void of empirical proof, but chalks it up as mere limitations in scientific tools.
The more I learn about science, and the more I participate in philosophical discussions, the less convinced I am that anyone has it just right. I feel impatient with those who attempt to discredit a theory in whole, because the theory doesn't fit their agenda or world-view. This goes both ways. Ironically, belief in many scientific models requires every bit as much faith as believing in a Divine Intelligent Creator. I am disturbed that scientific models, most of which are still theories, are taught as absolute truth. I am equally frustrated by those blinded by devotion to religious ideas that fail to offer adequate answers to important, relevant questions.
I'm also a little disturbed at my own ease in hopping on a soapbox about this when I am so inexperienced and ignorant.
Waddington hit the nail on the head. This book is a very capable introduction to the major trends in the scientific community - specifically biology.
Waddington shares the advances provided by revolutionary theories, like Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics. He clearly demonstrates the value of those contributions, but he also clearly shows where those theories fell short. This is not to discredit the brilliant work of these men.
The accomplishments of Darwin and Mendel are amazing considering the times in which they developed. Many of the shortcomings later identified were a direct result of the ideas being so far ahead of their time. They identified key principles of heredity, development, and adaptation through intense experimentation and observation, without the benefit of tools like gene-mapping.
We wouldn't have such advancements either, if not for their ideas.
One of the points made by Waddington that impressed me most was the value of scientific models. He explains that even if the theories and models are imperfect or flat-out wrong, they are a point of reference for additional discovery. Whether the model is refuted or proven (even partially) is irrelevant in regards to the advancement of scientific knowledge. The key is that questions are being asked, ideas explored, and empirical data analyzed, sorted, and applied to other models, thereby illuminating truth.
Another valuable aspect of this book is that it walks the reader through some of those processes that connect older scientific progress to current work and by extension the future.
I struggled with the decision to give the book 3 or 4 stars out of 5. The main point that kept me from giving the book 4 stars was the final chapter called Biology and Man. Waddington points out that the human mind seems unlikely to be defined adequately by chemical and physical means alone. Sure, an electrical impulse recalls a memory, but that memory is an image, smell, or sound. It has emotional attachment. It is a part of a greater whole that may include components of personality, ethics, self-awareness, etc. It's more than a flash of electricity, or a chemical compound moving between receptors.
Ironically, while pointing out the inadequacy of a purely chemical or electrical approach to explaining free will, memory, personality, and self-awareness, Waddington seems to believe that these are the true explanation, but we are currently unable to measure, therefore explain, these phenomena. He even expresses doubt that we will ever be able to explain them.
In conclusion, Waddington's discourse is valuable to the student of science and philosophy. He attempts to address opposing sides of major debates that continue over decades, but he fails to do so objectively. He is critical of the inability of religion to give empirical evidence of its efforts to refute or qualify the theory of evolution. He basically says that religions lack of empirical contribution makes it a nearly irrelevant part of the overall scientific discussion, but after saying this, he basically offers ideas equally void of empirical proof, but chalks it up as mere limitations in scientific tools.
The more I learn about science, and the more I participate in philosophical discussions, the less convinced I am that anyone has it just right. I feel impatient with those who attempt to discredit a theory in whole, because the theory doesn't fit their agenda or world-view. This goes both ways. Ironically, belief in many scientific models requires every bit as much faith as believing in a Divine Intelligent Creator. I am disturbed that scientific models, most of which are still theories, are taught as absolute truth. I am equally frustrated by those blinded by devotion to religious ideas that fail to offer adequate answers to important, relevant questions.
I'm also a little disturbed at my own ease in hopping on a soapbox about this when I am so inexperienced and ignorant.
January 28, 2024
Waddington finds life impressive but, not beyond science:
I think. I'm clearly not a biologist.
Waddington is probably most accessible in his discussion of evolution. The interesting biological questions of his time were how genetics played into natural selection and hereditary variation. Understanding feedback loops in how natural selection manifests was not just an academic question. Waddington recognized the importance of how such understanding may affect the future of our species. Though this book is based on some lectures Waddington gave in 1960, his words are prophetic for a world now facing climate crisis:
it is completely out of the picture to suggest that we have to add something of a non-mechanistic kind to an already fully comprehended material atom. What we have done is simply to discover something about atoms that we did not know before; namely, that when they are arranged in certain special ways the total complex can exhibit behaviour that we might not have expected at first sight. There is nothing philosophically mysterious about this.Pg. 21.For Waddington, the question is in breaking down the mechanics of how traits perpetuate. Building off Watson and Crick's double spiral of nucleotides, Waddington sees that as the key to determining the “character of the hereditary material at that region.” Pg. 40.But that is only half of the mystery. The other half consists of proteins that exist in the body of the cell. Waddington thought the answer lay in the interaction between nucleic acids and protein amino acids.
I think. I'm clearly not a biologist.
Waddington is probably most accessible in his discussion of evolution. The interesting biological questions of his time were how genetics played into natural selection and hereditary variation. Understanding feedback loops in how natural selection manifests was not just an academic question. Waddington recognized the importance of how such understanding may affect the future of our species. Though this book is based on some lectures Waddington gave in 1960, his words are prophetic for a world now facing climate crisis:
We must find some self-sufficient which produces some as much energy as it uses. In time the production of energy from atomic processes will possibly solve this problem, but that date is likely to be some distance in the future. We need at least to approach the problem as an intelligent species., which, recognizing that it forms part of the ecological community, is considering how best that community can be organized. In the past we have only too often, taken the attitude of a simple band of robbers concerned only to get as much out of our surroundings as quickly as possible, with no thought of setting up a system capable of long-term operation. Perhaps the most important practical effect that the natural philosophy of biology could have at the present time would be to show mankind a more truly way of looking at his situation as an inhabitant of the world's surface. Pg. 105.
June 18, 2014
Waddington's emphasis is on the role of cybernetics (organisms functioning as self-regulatory systems using feedback loops) in evolutionary theory. Thus, he sees the power of genes coming not from their atomistic manifestation but as part of a broader array of genes interacting with each other, and that the "full properties of genes" are to be understood in their dynamic relationships within a wider, whole system. Organisms and humans (as organisms) are neither genotypes (genetic inherited) nor phenotypes (genotypes as expressed in the environment), but both, reflecting genetic inheritance (nature) and the influence of the environment (nurture).
Reacting to some of the criticisms directed at Lamarck, Waddington writes that “all characters of all organisms are to some extent acquired, in that the environment has played some part – possibly only permissive, but often also to some extent directive – in their formation, and that equally all characters are to some extent inherited, since an organism cannot form any structure for which it does not have the hereditary potentialities.” As opposed to Lamarck who had new behavior (“habits”) incorporated into the body hereditarily, I believe Waddington is saying that organisms take information from the environment and adjust behavior within the limits of their genetic program. If selective advantage results, this in time leads to ‘genetic assimilation’ of new behavioral norms vis-à-vis environmental stressors so that, Waddington concludes, “We have indeed brought about exactly the same end-result as would be produced by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters.” To return to the common example used in reference to Lamarck, it’s not that a giraffe stretches its neck that gets passed on, but rather, it’s that some giraffes had a greater potential (capacity) to stretch their neck that leads to selective advantage.
The product of such interactive relationships also reveals itself in the teleological development of the organism. While we may think that the organism is "drawn" by some pre-determined end, Waddington instead explains development toward end points in terms of combinations of subsystems working together, which then constitutes an organism. Thus, this part and that part, when combined, end up one way and not another. As I understood this, using a number anology, a "2" plus a "3" end up as "5" and can be nothing other than "5." What seems to be the mystery of finalism can be explained in this alternative way. While Waddington tries to avoid the baggage of teleology, he nevertheless writes that “self-regulating processes of change which are so organized that they tend to arrive at a determined goal….organized on the basis of feedback and cybernetic relations, have what we called a quasi-finalistic character.” Rather than teleology, he uses “canalization,” which is “A path of development...that exhibits a balance between inflexibility (tendency to reach to normal end-result in spite of abnormal conditions) and flexibility (tendency to be modified in response to circumstances). I have used the word ‘canalization’ to refer to this limited responsiveness of a developing system.”
Waddington's stress on interactive relationships is a refreshing and likely richer way to look at evolutionary processses.
Reread and updated review, June, 2014.
Reacting to some of the criticisms directed at Lamarck, Waddington writes that “all characters of all organisms are to some extent acquired, in that the environment has played some part – possibly only permissive, but often also to some extent directive – in their formation, and that equally all characters are to some extent inherited, since an organism cannot form any structure for which it does not have the hereditary potentialities.” As opposed to Lamarck who had new behavior (“habits”) incorporated into the body hereditarily, I believe Waddington is saying that organisms take information from the environment and adjust behavior within the limits of their genetic program. If selective advantage results, this in time leads to ‘genetic assimilation’ of new behavioral norms vis-à-vis environmental stressors so that, Waddington concludes, “We have indeed brought about exactly the same end-result as would be produced by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters.” To return to the common example used in reference to Lamarck, it’s not that a giraffe stretches its neck that gets passed on, but rather, it’s that some giraffes had a greater potential (capacity) to stretch their neck that leads to selective advantage.
The product of such interactive relationships also reveals itself in the teleological development of the organism. While we may think that the organism is "drawn" by some pre-determined end, Waddington instead explains development toward end points in terms of combinations of subsystems working together, which then constitutes an organism. Thus, this part and that part, when combined, end up one way and not another. As I understood this, using a number anology, a "2" plus a "3" end up as "5" and can be nothing other than "5." What seems to be the mystery of finalism can be explained in this alternative way. While Waddington tries to avoid the baggage of teleology, he nevertheless writes that “self-regulating processes of change which are so organized that they tend to arrive at a determined goal….organized on the basis of feedback and cybernetic relations, have what we called a quasi-finalistic character.” Rather than teleology, he uses “canalization,” which is “A path of development...that exhibits a balance between inflexibility (tendency to reach to normal end-result in spite of abnormal conditions) and flexibility (tendency to be modified in response to circumstances). I have used the word ‘canalization’ to refer to this limited responsiveness of a developing system.”
Waddington's stress on interactive relationships is a refreshing and likely richer way to look at evolutionary processses.
Reread and updated review, June, 2014.
September 6, 2015
I have a meager background in Life Science, but found this book easy to understand and well written. It is a lecture to non-geneticists by geneticist C. H. Waddington. While not riveting, it was certainly interesting, and I recommend it.
April 30, 2021
Interesting and readable enough. The philosophy parts at the beginning and end are a bit unfocused. The science parts in the middle are a bit outdated (he's pretty sure RNA has some kind of mysterious relationship to DNA and protein synthesis, for example). But still petty good.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews