My Stuff

https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0

Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."





Total Pageviews

Monday, December 27, 2021

ANOTHER NOTABLE DEATH

This seems to be a time when famous people whose lives have briefly intersected with mine are dying. First Desmond Tutu, now the famous biologist E. O. Wilson. Since today is my 88th birthday, I am more than usually aware of my mortality and consequently more affected that I might otherwise be by the announcement of these deaths. Let me take cognizance of Wilson’s passing by quoting from my Autobiography the account of my meeting with him.

 

“A Canadian philosopher, Michael Ruse, asked whether I would like to meet E. O. Wilson.  I said sure, and Ruse set it up.  It was agreed that I would spend an afternoon in his office, which doubled as his laboratory.  In advance of the rendezvous, we exchanged gifts.  I sent him, through Michael, a copy of The Poverty of Liberalism, and he sent back a copy of his latest book, Promethean Fire, co-authored by Wilson and Charles Lumsden.  The volume, which sits on my shelves today, is inscribed "For Robert Paul Wolff, with warm regards, Edward O. Wilson, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard U., January 25, 1984."

            We met in Wilson's office in the Museum.  After the usual greetings, he showed me the centerpiece of the office, a large table on which, under a Plexiglas dome, was a bustling, complex ant colony.  Wilson banged the side of the table, which set the ants scurrying, and as they poured out of the anthill he pointed out the soldier ants, worker ants, and so forth.  I didn't have much in the way of conversation.  What can you say about an anthill, after all?  So, casting about for something to say, I mused aloud, "I wonder how many ants there are in the entire colony."  "Fifteen thousand," Wilson replied.  "How can you be sure?" I asked.  "I counted them," he said.

 

            There are moments in life when the scales fall from your eyes and you suddenly see clearly something that has hitherto been obscured from view.  This was one of those moments.  I had from time to time reflected on how different the workaday lives are of people in different corners of the Academy, even though we all call ourselves "Professor."   Here was E. O. Wilson, the creator of Sociobiology, who thought nothing at all about counting fifteen thousand ants.  Had anyone asked me to figure out the number of ants in an anthill, the farthest I would have gone was watching eight or ten walk by and then guesstimating the rest.

            To be sure, philosophers sometimes descend to the level of the particular.  But our tendency is to go in somewhat the opposite direction.  Confronted with the real world, the reflex reaction of philosophers is to ask about possible worlds.  It was clear to me that although we were both professors and authors, Wilson and I led lives so utterly different that no real mutual understanding was likely.  It was also clear that however much the world might think of Wilson as the tendentious, controversial author of Sociobiology, his real interest was in those ants.

 

            When our conversation about the anthill began to drag, Wilson took me into a nearby room in which there were rows of file cabinets.  He pulled out a drawer at random to show me a card on which was impaled an ant.  The card identified the ant as belonging to one of the more than twenty thousand species of ants that are estimated to exist somewhere or other on the face of the earth.  A second éclaircissement illuminated my mind.  I had a vision of thousands of English curates and amateur entomologists, each of whom had devoted much of his or her life to searching for, identifying, catching, impaling, and thus nailing down for all time one of those ant species.  Here again, I saw clearly how different my field was from Wilson's.  Philosophy does not advance by the taking of thousands of tiny steps, assuming for the sake of argument that it advances at all.  Instead, ages pass during which little or nothing happens, although thousands of philosophers are doing their best.  Then, there is a moment of transformation -- fourth century B. C,. in Greece, or the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Western Europe.  Suddenly, the subject leaps forward, changing forever the way we think.  But Entomology is not like that at all.  Every one of those file cards was the evidence of a worthwhile piece of work, undertaken, completed, and added to our knowledge of the ant.  I was properly humbled.  After we parted, I reflected that Wilson probably had learned nothing at all from meeting me, but I felt that I had learned a good deal from meeting him."

12 comments:

s. wallerstein said...

Happy birthday!!

Jerry Fresia said...

As a former beekeeper, I doubt that Professor Wilson's actually counted the ants one by one, although it is likely that he wanted to leave that impression. It makes for an amusing story. Here's what I found online:


There are many different methods. Each has benefits and drawbacks so the specific method used depends on the type of ant. Of course just counting every single any is unfeasible, so here are a few methods. (I'll give a synopsis, not the actual math)
Quadrant/Zone: You divide the area that your target population inhabits into a grid of squares. You then count the population of a single square and use that data and the total amount of squares in your grid to extrapolate a rough population size. This method is used for many other organisms besides ants as it is very easy to perform.
Single Plant Survey: This is useful if an ant spends a lot of time on a specific species of plant. You simply count the population on a given plant, then count the plants in the nearby area, and use that data to extrapolate population
Leaf Position Survey: Like the last one only you count the population on a specific part of the plant like a leaf or a stem, as the insect may not be covering the plant.
Damage Assessment: You look at the total foliage in a given area that the ant consumes. Then measure the amount of defoliation and damage to the plants that is assumed to be caused by the ants, and then use those ratios and an amount you determine through experimentation that a single or group of ants eats over a given time to extrapolate population.
Traps (Of all shapes and varieties): You use a trap (there are a whole lot of different kinds) to trap ants in a specific area and use the amount of trapped ants to extrapolate density and population.
Mark and Release: You capture a specific number of ants, mark them (Yes, you can tag insects. Usually with a little dab of paint or something) release the marked ants, come back after a while, capture some more ants, and then count how many you recaptured are marked and not marked. You can then use math to estimate population. This method is also widely used for other organisms. If you ever see a pigeon with a tag on its leg, this is what it's for.
These, of course, are just a few methods. There are more obscure ways, and scientists very often improvise new methods.

Anonymous said...

Happy birthday Professor Wolff.

Another Anonymous said...

Happy Birthday Prof. Wolff!

You may be pleased to know that you share a birthday with the following illustrious (and less illustrious) individuals:

Louis Pasteur (#11 on the Hart list of 100)
Johannes Kepler (#75)

And the following actors:

Marlene Dietrich
Gerard Depardieu
Sydney Greenstreet
Cliff Arquette

As well as the following:

Cokie Roberts
Mizra Ghalib
Ernesto Zedillo
Oscar Levant
Manuelo Saenz
Jacob Bernoulli
William Masters
Archduke Ferdinand Karl of Austria

And last, but not least:

Judith Wallerstein (s. wallerstein’s cousin, three times removed)
William Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son)
John Edward Robinson (serial killer)


Unknown said...

Happy birthday, Bob! Following your blog is a daily pleasure.

Another Anonymous said...

For those who may not know who Sydney Greenstreet is, he was a superb oversized character actor who is famous for his roles in two superb movies: The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca.
In The Maltese Falcon, he uttered these memorable lines:

Greenstreet to Bogart:

Are you a close-mouthed man?

Bogart:

Uh, uh, I like to talk.

Greenstreet:

Better and better. I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking is something you can’t do judiciously, unless you keep in practice.

And we mustn’t forget Marlene Dietrich’s closing memorable lines in Touch of Evil, as she watches Orson Welles drown:

“Hank was a great detective alright.”
“And a lousy cop.”
“Is that all you have to say for him?”
“He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people.” As she turns, and walks away.

Michael Llenos said...

Happy Birthday, definitely!!!!

Another Anonymous said...

Perhaps not as illustrious as Desmond Tutu or E.O. Wilson, Sarah Weddington, the attorney who argued on behalf of Jane Roe in the Supreme Court, has passed away, at the age of 74. She fortunately did not live long enough to witness the reversal of her momentous victory.

Rob Hughes said...

Happy birthday!

F Lengyel said...

There's still time (@ 11:16 PM EST) to wish you a Happy Birthday and many happy carriage returns.

Matt said...

"Sarah Weddington, the attorney who argued on behalf of Jane Roe in the Supreme Court, has passed away, at the age of 74."

I briefly met her once, for the value of "met" the often applies in academic life - she gave a talk at Penn Law when I was a student there, and I went to that, and then chatted casually with her for a few minutes after the talk. In both the talk and the chat she was friendly, informal, encouraging, and fun. She had been part of a generation of law students at UT Austin where even the top female law students struggled to find regular well-paying work after graduation. That was her situation, but it contributed to her eventually arguing Roe. She had a great attitude about the whole thing. It reminded me a bit of Don Larson, who was a good, but not great, pitcher, who happened to pitch the only perfect game in the history of the world series. He was once asked if he got tired of talking about it, and responded, "No, not at all. Why should I?" I don't want to dismiss Weddington's career post arguing Roe. She was a good lawyer, a good activist, and an inspiration. Most of us never do anything that important. But I was glad that she didn't let the fact that what was, historically at least, the high-point of her career came very early in her working life make her bitter or jaded as it would have for lots of people.

Darcy James said...

Very Awesome tip & points and Help full blog. It really helps me.