Jochen,
Baldwin and his effect are VERY important to the epigenic conversation if only because the proposed effect completely mucks with the nature nurture distinction.
I have a colleague back at Clark who has made a bit of a a study of Baldwin but unfortunately, with my dim mental resources, about all I can recall is that Baldwin is MUCH more than his Effect. Perhaps he will send us an electronic copy of his article.
While I am on, one of the consequences of my reading Coen's ARt of the Gene is that I now think I actually have a grip on the meaning of the term ... and I hate it, and think we should all stop using it. Apparently it comes out of the days of preformationism in the literal sense of that term, and the epigenetic view is the opposite of the preformationist view. So epigensis is identified with any formative power that determines the shape of the growing organism FROM THE OUTSIDE. It thus, at least in the historical sense, takes a position on the nature nurture debate, which is, of course, in herently stupid.
So I propose that we drop the term epigenetic and substitute the term dialectogenic.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
[hidden email]
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/[hidden email]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20050603/a17a18ba/attachment.htm
Locked
