Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[bi0boy]

Well, it was he who said that "(Darwin's) theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature."

He then went on to say "Adam Smith's economics doesn't work in economics", which is amusing in light of your statement that "anyone who disagrees with Adam Smith's economics must also disagree with Darwin's theory of natural selection."

 

[phildwyer]

He then went on to say "Adam Smith's economics doesn't work in economics", which is amusing in light of your statement that "anyone who disagrees with Adam Smith's economics must also disagree with Darwin's theory of natural selection."

I don't see why. The correlative, surely, is that Darwin's biology doesn't work in biology.

 

[gentlegreen]

So what's the point of your thesis Phil ?

You blame science for everything - how do you suggest we should live ?

 

[phildwyer]

"ATOMIC SUPLEX likes this"

Words which invariably sound the death-knell of any ideas to which they are appended.

I believe I am now entitled to declare victory.

 

[phildwyer]

So what's the point of your thesis Phil ?

You blame science for everything - how do you suggest we should live ?

Without fetishizing science.

You won't deny that science has had disastrous effects on both human life and the environment I take it?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Without fetishizing science.

You won't deny that science has had disastrous effects on both human life and the environment I take it?

I think I would deny it to be honest.

I don't see how e.g. Maxwell's equations or the theory of plate tectonics have done any of that.

 

[gentlegreen]

Without fetishizing science.

You won't deny that science has had disastrous effects on both human life and the environment I take it?

The application of science may have - though life was in the main more brutal and short before ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

For this Disasterpaint I want to see Richard Dawkins, in a time machine, persuading witches to give birth to Charles Darwin.

Witches impregnated by the Spirit of the Lord?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

Why ask, if you've already made up your mind?

 

[phildwyer]

I think I would deny it to be honest.

I don't see how e.g. Maxwell's equations or the theory of plate tectonics have done any of that.

It's a complex question, and I wouldn't deny that science has brought some benefits.

For me however, the fact that science seems likely to end human life altogether (whether by nuclear war or environmental destruction) far outweighs all the good it has brought.

And I don't think one can have (or could have had) the good without the bad. I think science both reflects and creates an alienated and fundamentally hostile relation between humanity and our world, which was always going to end in the destruction of both.

 

[fogbat]

It's all been downhill since the Bronze Age...

 

[phildwyer]

The application of science may have - though life was in the main more brutal and short before ...

Not true if we take a global perspective.

Let's say that science really began to have a serious impact on human life three centuries ago. Since then we have seen:

(A) the complete annihilation of the population of three entire continents
(B) the mass enslavement of a fourth
(C) the transformation of most subsistence farmers into proletarians, with the drastic reduction in quality of life which that process involves
(D) the trivialization, if not the destruction, of culture
(E) nuclear weapons and terminal damage to ecology

Need I go on? And what do we have to lay against all that. An 20-year increase in life expectancy for Westerners over the last 100 years, the internal combustion engine and Justin Bieber.

I'd call that a pretty good definition of "no contest."

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, it suggests that it is a theory rather than fact. I'm not sure why scientists tend to deny this, except as rhetorical ammunition against creationists (which I hasten to add is unnecessary here). I was under the impression that one of the most vaunted strengths of science was its openness to refutation.

And I think that Darwin has been refuted by, among other things, the discovery of the K-T event. More to the point I think that by the end of his life SJ Gould believed that Darwin had been refuted by, among other things, the discovery of the K-T event. .

In any case, I see no reason to give Darwin's theory the irrefutable status conveyed by the absence of an "ism."

I'm not aware of many scientists who do deny that the theory of natural selection is a theory. I've certainly never met a biologist who believes that the theory is actually a "law".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where do you stand on God's "mistakes" ?

What, Norwich City Football Club?

 

[phildwyer]

It's all been downhill since the Bronze Age...

You laugh, but the earliest classics of Western Literature (Homer and the Pentateuch) make precisely that point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you reckon there's such a thing as 'Jewish physics' then?

Of course there is.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you denying evolution by natural selection?

Are you talking about natural selection as per Darwin's theory, or natural selection as currently elucidated, where Darwin's theory is only a part of an over-arching theory?

 

[bi0boy]

Are you talking about natural selection as per Darwin's theory, or natural selection as currently elucidated, where Darwin's theory is only a part of an over-arching theory?

We're talking about Phil's incomprehension of basic science

 

[ViolentPanda]

We're talking about Phil's incomprehension of basic science

That aside, my point is that many people, especially those with no scientific qualifications, still tend to mean "Darwinism" when they refer to natural selection, in fact often reducing the entire shebang to centre around Spencer's "survival of the fittest". Anyone with a comprehension of basic science ( ) knows that we're well beyond that nowadays. Hell, we were well beyond that as soon as Kropotkin introduced his observations on "mutual aid".

 

[ViolentPanda]

If Phil's meta-thesis is true, then we should be able to find major influences of political ideologies in other major scientific theories.

Whereas we can show minor influences (usually tied to funding of non-basic research), but that's all.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Jesus Christ. Alright then, History of Science 101 it is.

Question 1. Which renowned evolutionary theorist said: "the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature."

Was it: (a) Phildwyer, or (b) SJ Gould?

A grade of 100% in this test is a prerequisite for continuing to post on this thread.

Perhaps you need to analyse what "essence" serves to mean in this case.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't see why. The correlative, surely, is that Darwin's biology doesn't work in biology.

It doesn't, as an over-arching explanation of evolution. It does, however, elucidate some points that do work to partially explain evolution.
Darwin's theory hasn't been the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory since...well...the day after he published.

 

[TruXta]

VP, have you learnt nothing in all your years here? Dwyerism and science does not mix. Dwyer and reason does not mix.

 

[ViolentPanda]

VP, have you learnt nothing in all your years here? Dwyerism and science does not mix. Dwyer and reason does not mix.

You forget, phil is so much more intelligent than the rest of humanity. He sees beyond our petty science and reason, all the way to the Great Architect!

 

[phildwyer]

Dwyerism and science does not mix. Dwyer and reason does not mix.

Truxta and basic grammar, however, mixes perfectly.

 

[phildwyer]

It doesn't, as an over-arching explanation of evolution. It does, however, elucidate some points that do work to partially explain evolution.
Darwin's theory hasn't been the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory since...well...the day after he published.

I know that. Unfortunately most people's understanding of biology remains at the level of Bioboy's or even Truxta's.

 

[bi0boy]

I know that. Unfortunately most people's understanding of biology remains at the level of Bioboy's or even Truxta's.

Do most people have two biology degrees and work in a biology lab then?

 

[phildwyer]

That aside, my point is that many people, especially those with no scientific qualifications, still tend to mean "Darwinism" when they refer to natural selection, in fact often reducing the entire shebang to centre around Spencer's "survival of the fittest". Anyone with a comprehension of basic science ( ) knows that we're well beyond that nowadays.

That is what I mean by a "post-Darwinist" era.

For most people however, Darwin remains a shibboleth. Hence the baffled fury that the mildest criticism of Darwin evokes from the likes of Bioboy and Truxta.

 

[phildwyer]

Do most people have two biology degrees and work in a biology lab then?

Most of those who do, in my experience, have very little understanding of Darwinism. You provide the perfect example.

 

[phildwyer]

Are you talking about natural selection as per Darwin's theory, or natural selection as currently elucidated, where Darwin's theory is only a part of an over-arching theory?

Bioboy was talking about Darwin, although he may try to deny it now. He seems to be quite unaware of post-Darwinian developments in biology.