Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>Arne Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> (Darwin was also wrong on numerous 
>> accounts),
>
>That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
>themselves to admit. This was the beginning problem that led to this
>present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
>Social Darwinism.

He didn't; he had some opinions we would now consider racist.
"Theory" is a reserved word in science; Darwin had no "theory" of
Social Darwinism.  Nor do I think he believed in Spenser's version of
Social Darwinism (which sounds more like an ideology than a theory).

>> But I already see it's no use debating you. You're an ideologist like 
>> any other, you have your conclusions, and now you work your way back 
>> from them to selected evidence. No one claims Darwin was infallible. 
>
>Why then do posters of your ilk bend over backwards to say that Darwin
>had nothing to do with the theory that races are superior or inferior
>as a result of natural selection?

There is no such scientific theory, which is the only kind that
scientists dignify with that word.

Non-scientists may call social Darwinism a theory, but I won't.

Meanwhile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

may enlighten you on why it should not be said that Darwin supported
Social Darwinism, which is a more complex idea than you make it out to
be.

>These ideas have been discredited on many grounds: first, they bear
> little or no relation to the real science of evolution, other than by
> borrowing and misinterpreting a few of its ideas. "Survival of the
> fittest", for example, was used by Darwin and other biologists in a
> very narrow sense to explain why certain traits of animals evolved,
> while the popular misconception was that "fitness" was associated
> with "progress" or "advancement" or "superiority", and that the
> inferior were simply abandoned. In fact, those who are best adapted
> to pass on their genes often do so through some sort of cooperative
> arrangement or even an equivalent of self-sacrifice for the next
> generation. See, for example, Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of
> Cooperation. 

>Darwin's work never committed the naturalistic fallacy of assuming
> that the existence of such natural processes implied that it was
> morally right to encourage them, nor did he ever attempt to extend
> his theories from biological systems to social systems, which is a
> leap far beyond what is supported by the science. 

That last line makes it clear that social Darwinism is about social
systems, that Darwin did not apply his theories to such systems (his
use of "race" referred to biological groupings), and that social
Darwinism has no support in science.

>> No 
>> one claims he saw "savages" as equally intelligent as people of European 
>> heritage.
>
>The issue is what made them unequal. Darwin believed that NATURAL
>SELECTION made one race superior to the other. That is CLASSIC Social
>Darwinism.

No it isn't, because Darwin's "races" aren't social entities.

>> c) was in favor of "Social Darwinism" a la "Let them eat cake!".
>
>Apparently you don't know the definition of Social Darwinism. 
>
>Here's some education for you:
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism

Darwin's writings don't fit this definition, since he did not apply
his theories to the sociological study of human society.

>He was in favor of seeing the process of Evolution create a superior
>race of caucasians.

He may have believe that evolution WOULD do so, but whether he was "in
favor of" this is something that is meaningless.  Are you in favor of
the "law of gravity"?  What would it matter if you weren't?

>"I could show fight on Natural Selection having done and doing more
>for for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to
>admit... The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the
>Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at
>no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will
>have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the
>world."

Is that a statement of approval?  

It appears to be a simple observation and interpretation of what has
happened.  This doesn't mean that it always happens, that it will
happen in general, that it is a good or a bad thing.  And it is not a
"theory".

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org