Why Did Darwinism Emerge?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
The search for truth
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
For this Disasterpaint I want to see Richard Dawkins, in a time machine, persuading witches to give birth to Charles Darwin.
wayward bob
i ate all your bees
i imagine it conferred some kind of evolutionary advantage 
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
reduced threat of being burned at the stake by the church for heresy would probably be the main one.
toggle
wobbly
significantly reduced influence of the church as people moved into new population centers that were poorly provided for. general failure of the church of england to be in the slightest of bit able to react to changes in society, growth of dissent and reduction in expectation of conformity. i suspect that the affects of refusal to accept non anglicans into uni education had an effect on the delcine of religios influence, the growth of educational societies that had no religious links.
Except that Darwin considered himself a religious man.
Do you not think the new dominance of capitalism, an economic system based on the survival of the fittest, must have had an influence?
But what produced that?
Nah, there had been no such threat for over two centuries. That's one factor we can safely disregard.
Like no-one had ever searched for truth before the C19th?
toggle
wobbly
there was a huge difference between protestantism and catholicism. a lot of support to the theories that industry needed protestantism to develop iirc, tawney-webber theory. and quite a bit of an idea that although the protestants were still religious, the majority were far more secular, religion was something there on the sidelines not the defining part of being that it had been in the past and still was in some countries.it was possible to seperate one's religious beliefs from one's buisness dealings or scientific endeavours. the secularisation wasn't something that could be defined as anti religious, it was simply seperation among those classes that retained loyalties to the church. working classes tended to either be completely ignored as in some of the northern mill towns or go new dissent as in cornwall.
so imo capitalism was part of it in that it funded the exploration and competition, but not a direct causal factor. society was becoming more secular
so imo capitalism was part of it in that it funded the exploration and competition, but not a direct causal factor. society was becoming more secular
toggle
wobbly
#
but now they looked for it in more places and a lot more people had the time and money to enquire. even if it was just taking a journey and publishing their diaries about that.
but thigns like, and i'm thinking locally because i really know that well, the societies that sprang up to promote education and enquirey among those barred from university, took a far more secular approach to education, there was a quest to seek the answer, not to explain beliefs or religious texts
JimW
支那暗杀团
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_06_18.htmMarx said:
Is this what you're getting at, Phil?
JimW
支那暗杀团
I've never read Origin of Species so not really qualified to comment, but I could imagine that both things were going on - i.e. Darwin was a product of his time and maybe in his interpretation larded in certain views/prejudices or whatever, but regardless, also demonstrated an actual phenomenon that years of subsequent scientific research has confirmed.
toggle
wobbly
he also had an obsession with pigeons.
in all honesty, i've not read it thgough either, it isn't particularly readable especially considering the endless labouring on about examples that his contemporary audineces would have been inter4sted in, and from what i've been told, the edition we get was repeatedly edited to answer contemporary criticisms. the first edition was better.
i think that i can understand why people with certain political POVs see the similarities, and with the attitudes we now would call social darwinism, are exceedingly critical of such theories.but it is the critics, not darwin himself that had a political axe to grind
in all honesty, i've not read it thgough either, it isn't particularly readable especially considering the endless labouring on about examples that his contemporary audineces would have been inter4sted in, and from what i've been told, the edition we get was repeatedly edited to answer contemporary criticisms. the first edition was better.
i think that i can understand why people with certain political POVs see the similarities, and with the attitudes we now would call social darwinism, are exceedingly critical of such theories.but it is the critics, not darwin himself that had a political axe to grind
JimW
支那暗杀团
The Darwin garden earlier
From what I know, he didn't set out with any overtly political aim, but I am prepared to accept that social changes and the wider context of the times he lived in may have influenced his interests and the way he expressed his findings (as I think happens to most people most of the time). As I say, don't think that would invalidate those observations that have stood the test of further repeated scientific investigation even if it's the case.
It's a fair cop, I do think Darwinism has political (or more accurately economic) implications and causes, but I genuinely want to hear what other people think for a while here.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Compared to what? James Clerk Maxwell's formulation of classical electromagnetic theory say?
I think that might be a good comparison, to illustrate what sort of 'gave rise to' explanations might be considered needed for a major 19thC scientific theory.
Or do you think Darwin's theory of natural selection differs in important ways from Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism Phil?
toggle
wobbly
before you move on to arguements that have been gone over previously.
because i've certainly gone into my thoughts on the changes in society that led to major scientific discoveries at that time. the relationship between society, religion and politics in the 19th century is an area i'm specialising in. i would be exceedingly interested in debating the ideas that i've already mentioned because i've been looking into this for some time and i'd like to see whether my theories can stand. but you don't seem to want to respond to those.
hence raising the issue that you have form for having an agenda on this issue. and i'm wondering what tactic you are planning this time.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
The Church of England. It provided men of an intellectual bent with a comfortable and undemanding living while they explored scientific issues. Darwin may not have worked as a parson, but he trained as one. and stood on the shoulders of several.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
One might start by asking what questions people like Darwin trying to answer. As far as I'm aware they were questions that had arisen out of taxonomy for the most part.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Calling it Darwinism as opposed to evolution by natural selection is a dead giveaway.
toggle
wobbly
just a little, i thought i'd give it a chance though.
seeing as i'm writing a dissertation atm on 19th century religion and politics and would rather enjoy a proper debate on anyhting related to that
toggle
wobbly
yes for some individuals, but with respect to the general period, this does not explain the strength of non conformist involvement in scientific/educational institutes, the fact the non conformists were still barred from universities pushed non university options for learning and helped secularise the search for knowlege.
I think human thought is a totality, and that it develops as a totality, so that any division of it into "areas" or "spheres" is fallacious. So I think that all scientific developments are interconnected, but also that they are connected to developments in other spheres such as the one we call "economics." My interest in identifying the commonalities that unite such spheres is based on that premise.
Similar threads
