449. Lorenz, K. "Analogy as a Source of Knowledge." Science 185, 1974: 229-34.
A profound argument that, while there are no false analogies, they must carefully be distinguished from homologies. In biology, analogies are the result of parallel adaptation, while homologies emerge from a common ancestor of two distinct species having, in common with each other and the ancestor, the characteristic in question. These methods of comparison also apply to behavior. Cultural homologies can be seen in different cultures' adaptations of protective headgear to largely communicative purposes. Such persistence of traditional forms (consider the necktie, the skirt, the high-heeled shoe) through widely changing circumstances is the cultural equivalent of biological homology. Regularly repeated patterns of adaptive behavior are the function of some "sensory and nervous mechanism" (p. 232) evolved for that purpose; the more complex the behavior, the more complex the mechanism and the less the likelihood of homology when similarly patterned behavior appears in widely divergent species. Thus it is not anthropomorphism to speak of jealousy in geese, and this phenomenon has equivalent survival value in geese and people. The behavior observed (the prevention of communication with certain other conspecifics) is functionally the same.
The storage of all information, of whatever kind, necessarily implies the formation of structures, that is, the loss of some degrees of freedom in the organism (or other unit of observation). "Structure means static adaptedness" and dynamic adaptation (learning) "unconditionally presupposes a dismantling of some structures" (p. 233) again at whatever level you choose to investigate [the prophet's individual "mazeway" (A.F.C. Wallace, 1956b, 1957: item 711 ff.) or the whole village awaiting the arrival of cargo]. What is essential for the survival of (living) systems is a balance between structure [tradition, at the level of the community] and innovation to keep pace with an always-changing environment. [It seems significant that tradition appears most likely to be transmitted unconsciously or at least in a pre-verbal, unformulated fashion (cf. Mead, 1958: item 483) while innovation must, by definition, be formulated.]
Return to Indexes