I have received two reviews of my natural reward manuscript (Gilbert 2019). The main objection is that the theory is not sufficiently developed. This is fine because the purpose of the paper is to state the framework, not develop the whole theory. The main consideration for my “natural reward” paper should be whether the framework is clearly enough expressed that it is obvious how it stands in relation to past frameworks.
It is not unusual in the history of biology to write a paper outlining a theory before a book that develops it (e.g., Darwin and Wallace 1858, Darwin 1859, 1909; Wynne-Edwards 1959, 1962; Zahavi 1975, Zahavi and Zahavi 1999; Maynard Smith and Price 1973, Maynard Smith 1982; Buss 1983, 1987; West-Eberhard 1989, 2003; Maynard Smith 1988, Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1995; Odling-Smee et al. 1995, 2003; Lehman and Stanley 2011; Stanley and Lehman 2015). Compared to past instances in which authors proposed frameworks before books, I think I did a great job. Darwin never forced himself to succinctly summarize his theory (Darwin did not intend his contribution to Darwin and Wallace 1858 nor Darwin 1909 for publication, nor were any of them very good short summaries), or explain its relation to Aristotle’s theory, which may be why so many misunderstand Darwin.
I am not sure if my reviewers realized that my paper is intended to be a summary. I also think that it was very difficult for them because they did not know the literature. This is not their fault though; I pulled together a massive body of literature from different fields.
I will also admit that one of my reasons for writing the paper was to lay claim to the ideas. For somebody in the future looking back after I have published my book, they will be able to tell at the date of the posting of the paper that I already grasped their full implications for biology and even alluded to my understanding of their application to philosophy and economics (which I will elaborate in the book). So this paper allows me to erect a flag that shows that I was here at this date. The purpose is NOT to explain to my contemporaries all of the supporting evidence. Also, publishing this outline in a peer reviewed journal will be important for my book proposal.
Most criticisms resulted either from reviewers not understanding the purpose of the paper, from not knowing the literature, or because referees did not take the time to check references. A few criticisms were valid and will be useful for a revision. For example, one reviewer interpreted me as arguing that a mere statement of a hypothesis for macroevolutionary effect is “evidence” for the theory. In reality, I take as “evidence” for the theory that it helps distinguish and TEST hypotheses of cause and effect separately. I have to be crystal clear on this.
Another reviewer said that I appeared unaware of the so-called “extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)” which is largely based on the work of Odling-Smee et al. (1996, 2003). A better way to put it is that I did not want to waste time talking about irrelevant subjects (and just to be clear, the “EES” did not discover the struggle for supremacy, natural reward, or other elements of my theory).
I had one individual argue that the main source of “incumbent resistance” to my theory is that it is underdeveloped. This criticism was possible because I was forced to economize and leave out an entire section on the philosophy of science. As applied to philosophy of science, the theory of natural reward suggests that the relative lack of development of a new theory is always expected and is not a source of incumbent resistance but actually defines incumbency itself—the definition of the incumbent advantage being the Power of Monopoly (resulting from the prior detailed development of the incumbent). I will have more room in my book to discuss this.
I notice that reviewers of my work hold my arguments to a much higher level of scrutiny than they hold their own ideas on macroevolution. This is useful for me, because it allows me to develop my theory and think about how to expose the flaws in theirs. For example, one reviewer did not think about the problems with the theory he adopted, “passive diffusion.” One problem with the theory of “passive diffusion” is that it assumes resource abundance. But if forms better able to exploit novel resources diffuse faster, then there should be trends toward increased innovativeness and build up of innovation-enhancing strategies. Thus, the theory of passive diffusion might form the conceptual basis for a null model of macroevolution. It is something to be disproved, not accepted without attempts at refutation (as many do).
In conclusion, I wrote my paper because it is a necessary prerequisite to the book. The book will be written to new students and laypeople, impartial third parties, but with the expert in mind also. Proposing a summary of a theory before the development is much like proposing a hypothesis before an empirical test. The “test” here is how the theory develops to resolve anomalies, yield new predictions, and unify disparate areas of research (i.e., criteria by which big theories are usually evaluated). With a few minor revisions my paper will be ready, and I will be on to the book.
References
Buss, Leo W. 1983. Evolution, development, and the units of selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80:1387-1391.
Buss, Leo W. 1987. The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
Darwin, C., and A. Wallace. 1858. On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. 3:45-62.
Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the Origin of Species. John Murray. London.
Darwin CR. 1909. The foundations of the origin of species: two essays written in 1842 and 1844. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, O. M. 2019. Natural reward as the fundamental macroevolutionary force. arXiv:1903.09567, 2019
Lehman J., K. O. Stanley. 2011. Abandoning objectives: evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evol. Comput. 119:189–223.
Stanley K. O., Lehman J. 2015. Why Greatness Cannot be Planned. Springer.
Maynard Smith, J., and G. R. Price. 1973. The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15-18.
Maynard Smith, J. 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Maynard Smith, J. 1988. Evolutionary progress and levels of selection. In Evolutionary Progress, M. Nitecki, ed. 219-230. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
Maynard Smith, J., and Szathmáry, E. 1995. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Freeman. Oxford, UK.
Odling-Smee, F. John, K. N. Laland, and M. W. Feldman. 1996. Niche construction. The American Naturalist 147:641-648.
–––––. 2003. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process of Evolution. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
West-Eberhard, M. J. 1989 Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Ann. R. Ecol. Syst. 20:249-278.
–––––. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford University Press.
Wynne‐Edwards, V. C. 1959. The control of population‐density through social behaviour: a hypothesis. Ibis 101: 436-441.
–––––. Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour. 1962.
Oliver and Boyd. London.
Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53: 205-214.
Zahavi, A., and A. Zahavi. 1999. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.