12 The Blind Watchmaker thing.Given that the units each do their particular thing,I can then understand how they interact to make the whole engine move. Of course,I am then at liberty to ask how each part works.Having previously accepted the fact that the steam governor regulates the flow of steam,and having used this fact in my understanding of the behav- iour of the whole engine,I now turn my curiosity on the steam governor itself.I now want to understand how it achieves its own behaviour,in terms of its own internal parts.There is a hierarchy of subcomponents within components.We explain the behaviour of a component at any given level,in terms of interactions between sub- components whose own internal organization,for the moment,is taken for granted.We peel our way down the hierarchy,until we reach units so simple that,for everyday purposes,we no longer feel the need to ask questions about them.Rightly or wrongly for instance,most of us are happy about the properties of rigid rods of iron,and we are prepared to use them as units of explanation of more complex machines that contain them. Physicists,of course,do not take iron rods for granted.They ask why they are rigid,and they continue the hierarchical peeling for several more layers yet,down to fundamental particles and quarks.But life is too short for most of us to follow them.For any given level of complex organization,satisfying explanations may normally be attained if we peel the hierarchy down one or two layers from our starting layer,but not more.The behaviour of a motor car is explained in terms of cylinders,carburettors and sparking plugs.It is true that each one of these components rests atop a pyramid of explanations at lower levels.But if you asked me how a motor car worked you would think me somewhat pompous if I answered in terms of Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics,and downright obscurantist if I answered in terms of fundamental particles.It is doubtless true that at bottom the behaviour of a motor car is to be explained in terms of interactions between fundamental particles.But it is much more useful to explain it in terms of interactions between pistons,cylinders and sparking plugs. The behaviour of a computer can be explained in terms of inter- actions between semiconductor electronic gates,and the behaviour of these,in turn,is explained by physicists at yet lower levels.But,for most purposes,you would in practice be wasting your time if you tried to understand the behaviour of the whole computer at either of those levels.There are too many electronic gates and too many intercon- nections between them.A satisfying explanation has to be in terms of a manageably small number of interactions.This is why,if we want to
12 The Blind Watchmaker thing. Given that the units each do their particular thing, I can then understand how they interact to make the whole engine move. Of course, I am then at liberty to ask how each part works. Having previously accepted the fact that the steam governor regulates the flow of steam, and having used this fact in my understanding of the behaviour of the whole engine, I now turn my curiosity on the steam governor itself. I now want to understand how it achieves its own behaviour, in terms of its own internal parts. There is a hierarchy of subcomponents within components. We explain the behaviour of a component at any given level, in terms of interactions between subcomponents whose own internal organization, for the moment, is taken for granted. We peel our way down the hierarchy, until we reach units so simple that, for everyday purposes, we no longer feel the need to ask questions about them. Rightly or wrongly for instance, most of us are happy about the properties of rigid rods of iron, and we are prepared to use them as units of explanation of more complex machines that contain them. Physicists, of course, do not take iron rods for granted. They ask why they are rigid, and they continue the hierarchical peeling for several more layers yet, down to fundamental particles and quarks. But life is too short for most of us to follow them. For any given level of complex organization, satisfying explanations may normally be attained if we peel the hierarchy down one or two layers from our starting layer, but not more. The behaviour of a motor car is explained in terms of cylinders, carburettors and sparking plugs. It is true that each one of these components rests atop a pyramid of explanations at lower levels. But if you asked me how a motor car worked you would think me somewhat pompous if I answered in terms of Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics, and downright obscurantist if I answered in terms of fundamental particles. It is doubtless true that at bottom the behaviour of a motor car is to be explained in terms of interactions between fundamental particles. But it is much more useful to explain it in terms of interactions between pistons, cylinders and sparking plugs. The behaviour of a computer can be explained in terms of interactions between semiconductor electronic gates, and the behaviour of these, in turn, is explained by physicists at yet lower levels. But, for most purposes, you would in practice be wasting your time if you tried to understand the behaviour of the whole computer at either of those levels. There are too many electronic gates and too many interconnections between them. A satisfying explanation has to be in terms of a manageably small number of interactions. This is why, if we want to
Explaining the very improbable 13 understand the workings of computers,we prefer a preliminary ex- planation in terms of about half a dozen major subcomponents memory,processing mill,backing store,control unit,input-output handler,etc.Having grasped the interactions between the half-dozen major components,we then may wish to ask questions about the internal organization-of these major components.Only specialist en- gineers are likely to go down to the level of AND gates and NOR gates, and only physicists will go down further,to the level of how electrons behave in a semiconducting medium. For those that like '-ism'sorts of names,the aptest name for my approach to understanding how things work is probably hierarchical reductionism'.If you read trendy intellectual magazines,you may have noticed that 'reductionism'is one of those things,like sin,that is only mentioned by people who are against it.To call oneself a reductionist will sound,in some circles,a bit like admitting to eating babies.But, just as nobody actually eats babies,so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against.The nonexistent reductionist-the sort that everybody is against,but who exists only in their imaginations- tries to explain complicated things directly in terms of the smallest parts,even,in some extreme versions of the myth,as the sum of the parts!The hierarchical reductionist,on the other hand,explains a complex entity at any particular level in the hierarchy of organization, in terms of entities only one level down the hierarchy;entities which, themselves,are likely to be complex enough to need further reducing to their own component parts;and so on.It goes without saying- though the mythical,baby-eating reductionist is reputed to deny this- that the kinds of explanations which are suitable at high levels in the hierarchy are quite different from the kinds of explanations which are suitable at lower levels.This was the point of explaining cars in terms of carburettors rather than quarks.But the hierarchical reductionist believes that carburettors are explained in terms of smaller units.., which are explained in terms of smaller units...,which are ultimately explained in terms of the smallest of fundamental particles. Reductionism,in this sense,is just another name for an honest desire to understand how things work. We began this section by asking what kind of explanation for com- plicated things would satisfy us.We have just considered the question from the point of view of mechanism:how does it work?We concluded that the behaviour of a complicated thing should be explained in terms of interactions between its component parts,considered as successive layers of an orderly hierarchy.But another kind of question is how the complicated thing came into existence in the first place.This is the
Explaining the very improbable 13 understand the workings of computers, we prefer a preliminary explanation in terms of about half a dozen major subcomponents - memory, processing mill, backing store, control unit, input-output handler, etc. Having grasped the interactions between the half-dozen major components, we then may wish to ask questions about the internal organization- of these major components. Only specialist engineers are likely to go down to the level of AND gates and NOR gates, and only physicists will go down further, to the level of how electrons behave in a semiconducting medium. For those that like '-ism' sorts of names, the aptest name for my approach to understanding how things work is probably 'hierarchical reductionism'. If you read trendy intellectual magazines, you may have noticed that 'reductionism' is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it. To call oneself a reductionist will sound, in some circles, a bit like admitting to eating babies. But, just as nobody actually eats babies, so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against. The nonexistent reductionist - the sort that everybody is against, but who exists only in their imaginations - tries to explain complicated things directly in terms of the smallest parts, even, in some extreme versions of the myth, as the sum of the parts! The hierarchical reductionist, on the other hand, explains a complex entity at any particular level in the hierarchy of organization, in terms of entities only one level down the hierarchy; entities which, themselves, are likely to be complex enough to need further reducing to their own component parts; and so on. It goes without saying - though the mythical, baby-eating reductionist is reputed to deny this - that the kinds of explanations which are suitable at high levels in the hierarchy are quite different from the kinds of explanations which are suitable at lower levels. This was the point of explaining cars in terms of carburettors rather than quarks. But the hierarchical reductionist believes that carburettors are explained in terms of smaller units . . ., which are explained in terms of smaller units . . . , which are ultimately explained in terms of the smallest of fundamental particles. Reductionism, in this sense, is just another name for an honest desire to understand how things work. We began this section by asking what kind of explanation for complicated things would satisfy us. We have just considered the question from the point of view of mechanism: how does it work? We concluded that the behaviour of a complicated thing should be explained in terms of interactions between its component parts, considered as successive layers of an orderly hierarchy. But another kind of question is how the complicated thing came into existence in the first place. This is the
14 The Blind Watchmaker question that this whole book is particularly concerned with,so I won't say much more about it here.I shall just mention that the same general principle applies as for understanding mechanism.A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted,because it is too 'improbable'.It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance.We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual,cumulative,step-by-step trans- formations from simpler things,from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance.Just as 'big-step re- ductionism'cannot work as an explanation of mechanism,and must be replaced by a series of small step-by-step peelings down through the hierarchy,so we can't explain a complex thing as originating in a single step.We must again resort to a series of small steps,this time arranged sequentially in time. In his beautifully written book,The Creation,the Oxford physical chemist Peter Atkins begins: I shall take your mind on a journey.It is a journey of comprehension,taking us to the edge of space,time,and understanding.On it I shall argue that there is nothing that cannot be understood,that there is nothing that cannot be explained,and that everything is extraordinarily simple...A great deal of the universe does not need any explanation.Elephants,for instance.Once molecules have learnt to compete and to create other molecules in their own image,elephants,and things resembling elephants, will in due course be found roaming through the countryside. Atkins assumes the evolution of complex things the subject matter of this book-to be inevitable once the appropriate physical conditions have been set up.He asks what the minimum necessary physical conditions are,what is the minimum amount of design work that a very lazy Creator would have to do,in order to see to it that the universe and,later,elephants and other complex things,would one day come into existence.The answer,from his point of view as a physical scientist,is that the Creator could be infinitely lazy.The fundamental original units that we need to postulate,in order to understand the coming into existence of everything,either consist of literally nothing (according to some physicists),or (according to other physicists)they are units of the utmost simplicity,far too simple to need anything so grand as deliberate Creation. Atkins says that elephants and complex things do not need any explanation.But that is because he is a physical scientist,who takes for granted the biologists'theory of evolution.He doesn't really mean that elephants don't need an explanation;rather that he is satisfied that biologists can explain elephants,provided they are allowed to take
14 The Blind Watchmaker question that this whole book is particularly concerned with, so I won't say much more about it here. I shall just mention that the same general principle applies as for understanding mechanism. A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too 'improbable'. It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance. We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance. Just as 'big-step reductionism' cannot work as an explanation of mechanism, and must be replaced by a series of small step-by-step peelings down through the hierarchy, so we can't explain a complex thing as originating in a single step. We must again resort to a series of small steps, this time arranged sequentially in time. In his beautifully written book, The Creation, the Oxford physical chemist Peter Atkins begins: I shall take your mind on a journey. It is a journey of comprehension, taking us to the edge of space, time, and understanding. On it I shall argue that there is nothing that cannot be understood, that there is nothing that cannot be explained, and that everything is extraordinarily simple ... A great deal of the universe does not need any explanation. Elephants, for instance. Once molecules have learnt to compete and to create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and things resembling elephants, will in due course be found roaming through the countryside. Atkins assumes the evolution of complex things - the subject matter of this book - to be inevitable once the appropriate physical conditions have been set up. He asks what the minimum necessary physical conditions are, what is the minimum amount of design work that a very lazy Creator would have to do, in order to see to it that the universe and, later, elephants and other complex things, would one day come into existence. The answer, from his point of view as a physical scientist, is that the Creator could be infinitely lazy. The fundamental original units that we need to postulate, in order to understand the coming into existence of everything, either consist of literally nothing (according to some physicists), or (according to other physicists) they are units of the utmost simplicity, far too simple to need anything so grand as deliberate Creation. Atkins says that elephants and complex things do not need any explanation. But that is because he is a physical scientist, who takes for granted the biologists' theory of evolution. He doesn't really mean that elephants don't need an explanation; rather that he is satisfied that biologists can explain elephants, provided they are allowed to take
Explaining the very improbable 15 certain facts of physics for granted.His task as a physical scientist, therefore,is to justify our taking those facts for granted.This he succeeds in doing.My position is complementary.I am a biologist.I take the facts of physics,the facts of the world of simplicity,for granted.If physicists still don't agree over whether those simple facts are yet understood,that is not my problem.My task is to explain elephants,and the world of complex things,in terms of the simple things that physicists either understand,or are working on.The physi- cist's problem is the problem of ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws.The biologist's problem is the problem of complexity.The biologist tries to explain the workings,and the coming into existence, of complex things,in terms of simpler things.He can regard his task as done when he has arrived at entities so simple that they can safely be handed over to physicists. I am aware that my characterization of a complex object-statisti- cally improbable in a direction that is specified not with hindsight may seem idiosyncratic.So,too,may seem my characterization of physics as the study of simplicity.If you prefer some other way of defining complexity,I don't care and I would be happy to go along with your definition for the sake of discussion.But what I do care about is that,whatever we choose to call the quality of being statistically- improbable-in-a-direction-specified-without-hindsight,itisanimport- ant quality that needs a special effort of explanation.It is the quality that characterizes biological objects as opposed to the objects of phys- ics.The kind of explanation we come up with must not contradict the laws of physics.Indeed it will make use of the laws of physics,and nothing more than the laws of physics.But it will deploy the laws of physics in a special way that is not ordinarily discussed in physics textbooks.That special way is Darwin's way.I shall introduce its fundamental essence in Chapter 3 under the title of cumulative selec- tion. Meanwhile I want to follow Paley in emphasizing the magnitude of the problem that our explanation faces,the sheer hugeness of biologi- cal complexity and the beauty and elegance of biological design.Chap- ter 2 is an extended discussion of a particular example,'radar'in bats, discovered long after Paley's time.And here,in this chapter,I have placed an illustration (Figure 1)-how Paley would have loved the electron microscope!-of an eye together with two successive 'zoom- ings in'on detailed portions.At the top of the figure is a section through an eye itself.This level of magnification shows the eye as an optical instrument.The resemblance to a camera is obvious.The iris diaphragm is responsible for constantly varying the aperture,the/stop
Explaining the very improbable 15 certain facts of physics for granted. His task as a physical scientist, therefore, is to justify our taking those facts for granted. This he succeeds in doing. My position is complementary. I am a biologist. I take the facts of physics, the facts of the world of simplicity, for granted. If physicists still don't agree over whether those simple facts are yet understood, that is not my problem. My task is to explain elephants, and the world of complex things, in terms of the simple things that physicists either understand, or are working on. The physicist's problem is the problem of ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws. The biologist's problem is the problem of complexity. The biologist tries to explain the workings, and the coming into existence, of complex things, in terms of simpler things. He can regard his task as done when he has arrived at entities so simple that they can safely be handed over to physicists. I am aware that my characterization of a complex object - statistically improbable in a direction that is specified not with hindsight - may seem idiosyncratic. So, too, may seem my characterization of physics as the study of simplicity. If you prefer some other way of defining complexity, I don't care and I would be happy to go along with your definition for the sake of discussion. But what I do care about is that, whatever we choose to call the quality of being statisticallyimprobable-in-a-direction-specified-without-hindsight, it is an important quality that needs a special effort of explanation. It is the quality that characterizes biological objects as opposed to the objects of physics. The kind of explanation we come up with must not contradict the laws of physics. Indeed it will make use of the laws of physics, and nothing more than the laws of physics. But it will deploy the laws of physics in a special way that is not ordinarily discussed in physics textbooks. That special way is Darwin's way. I shall introduce its fundamental essence in Chapter 3 under the title of cumulative selection. Meanwhile I want to follow Paley in emphasizing the magnitude of the problem that our explanation faces, the sheer hugeness of biological complexity and the beauty and elegance of biological design. Chapter 2 is an extended discussion of a particular example, 'radar' in bats, discovered long after Paley's time. And here, in this chapter, I have placed an illustration (Figure 1) — how Paley would have loved the electron microscope! - of an eye together with two successive 'zoomings in' on detailed portions. At the top of the figure is a section through an eye itself. This level of magnification shows the eye as an optical instrument. The resemblance to a camera is obvious. The iris diaphragm is responsible for constantly varying the aperture, the / stop
The Blind Watchmaker Transparent jelly Transparent liquid Lens Retina Enlarged portion Iris diaphragm Blind spot Muscles Optic nerve Tough Electronic 'interface'to brain backing layers Rod('photocell') Layers for Nucleus catching photons Mitochondria Connecting 'wire' Bridget Peace
The Blind Watchmaker Transparent jelly