BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:From natural histories to man-made futures: the origins and ends o
 f R.A. Fisher's Darwinism - Alex Aylward (University of Leeds)
DTSTART:20171120T130000Z
DTEND:20171120T140000Z
UID:TALK85151@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Sebestian Kroupa
DESCRIPTION:The Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology (ca. 1930–1950)
  is supposed to have provided a unified and comprehensive approach to the 
 study of life\, its diversity\, and its evolution. However\, several natur
 alists and historians have complained that natural history has been routin
 ely side-lined – scientifically\, institutionally\, and historiographica
 lly – from the story. One means of rectifying this situation is to exami
 ne the constructive and critical roles of self-describing naturalists in t
 he making and shaping of the synthesis. Another is to examine the role(s) 
 of natural history – its practices\, insights\, and style of thought –
  in the work of the recognised synthesis 'architects'.\n\nIn focusing upon
  Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1890–1962)\, the present paper takes the latter a
 pproach. A trained mathematician and principal founder of theoretical popu
 lation genetics\, his 1930 work _The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection
 _ is cited by many as the most important evolutionary work since Darwin's 
 _Origin_. Several commentators have puzzled over Fisher's unwavering commi
 tment to Darwinism\, given his training in a context (pre-war Cambridge) i
 n which the stock of the gradualist doctrine stock was low\, and Mendelian
 -saltationist accounts of organic change held sway. Nevertheless\, in comp
 aring Fisher's evolutionary world-view with that of the American geneticis
 t Sewall Wright (1889–1988)\, historian Bill Provine influentially cites
  the 'Importance of Traditions in Natural History and Taxonomy' in underst
 anding their differing visions of organic change. We hear that the traditi
 on to which Fisher was a neo-Darwinian\, adaptationist one\, whilst Wright
 's challenged such a view. This paper will explore (and ultimately contest
 ) the historical accuracy and historiographic utility of accounting for Fi
 sher and Wright's theoretical divergences by reference to their immersion 
 in opposing natural historical and taxonomic 'traditions'. It turns out th
 at\, more than describing and accounting for life's past and present diver
 sity and adaptedness\, Fisher's particular reimagining of Darwinism allowe
 d the tantalising possibility of remaking and remodelling life – and par
 ticularly human life – for the future. From this perspective\, we can be
 gin to understand the ways in which Fisher drew upon natural historical re
 sources\, material and conceptual\, whilst at the same time extricating th
 em from their bases in both 'Nature' and 'History'.
LOCATION:Seminar Room 1\, Department of History and Philosophy of Science
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR