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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>> >> >Human racial superiority as a result of natural selection has been
>> >> >rejected by scholars like S.J. Gould.
>> >> 
>> >> That was not Darwin's theory.
>> >
>> >Social Darwinism is a THEORY
>> >http://www.webref.org/sociology/s/social_darwinism.htm
>> 
>> That nonscientists misuse the word does not mean that scientists need
>> to accept that misuse.
>
>Yes, Bob, the collective consensus of organizations who define terms
>as a profession have gotten it wrong, and only YOU have gotten it
>right--

Science does not accept the lay definitions of many terms.  And it is
not about "me".

>http://www.webref.org/sociology/s/social_darwinism.htm
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
>http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/socialdarwin.html
>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=404290
>
>> >Whether Darwin was the first to articulate it is not contested,
>> 
>> If he was not, then it would not be "his" theory.
>
>Nonsense. Even "Natural Selection" has been around since Empedocles,
>yet it is not often called "Empedocles' theory of Natural Selection."

Probably because Empedocles wasn't a scientist, and most people
(including me) have never heard of him.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html

The last cite has a key point:
>Once again, we do not know whether Empedocles had actually found
> supporting evidence for his theories. He may have been influenced by
> existing accounts of mythological creatures that seemed to be "put
> together" out of the parts of different animals, such as centaurs,
> sphinxes, and chimeras. But perhaps he had also seen deformed
> animals, or examined "monstrous-looking" fossil bones. 

Thus, without KNOWING that he had supporting evidence, scientists
would not call whatever Empedocles did a "scientific theory".

>http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_talk/precursors/precurs7.html
>
>It is reasonable to talk of Darwin's theory of natural selection,
>because Darwin's promoted it, gave his own expression of it, and has
>become its most noted proponent.

No.  He DID become it.  He isn't any more.  But

>Darwin also had his own theory of social Darwinism,

Proof by unsupported assertion.

>even though he may not have been the first to articulate it.
>
>Being the first to articulate a concept doesn't necessarily make the
>theory "yours" alone. If so, almost all theories would have to be
>called Aristotle's or Plato's.

No.  You STILL don't understand the difference between a "concept" and
a "theory".

>> Nobody will ever go around talking about LeChevalier's Theory of
>> Evolution merely because I write things supportive of that theory.
>
>If you publish broadly on the topic of evolution, giving your own
>unique articulation of the theory, indeed it rightly would be referred
>to as Lechevaliers theory.

Nope.  Perhaps if I came up with a NEW theory of evolution, one that
is different from Darwins and more explanatory, and provided
convincing evidence to distinguish my theory from his, and managed to
get this published and accepted by the scientific community, I might
be so honored.

Science doesn't honor people for "unique articulation".

>> >whether he, in fact, was a proponent of it is factual.
>> 
>> Since you don't seem, to know what the "theory" is, your judgement is
>> questionable (indeed your judgement is usually questionable).
>
>It is YOU who refuse to acknowledge the standard definition of the
>theory.
>
>http://www.webref.org/sociology/s/social_darwinism.htm
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
>http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/socialdarwin.html
>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=404290

I gave you several cites with definitions of social darwinism.  None
of them matches what you seem to think it is.

>Instead, you choose to define concepts with your own Lechevalierian
>definitions, and then condemn anyone who holds a standard definition
>of the term.
>
>Newsflash: The world doesn't revolve around you.

I am not using MY definitions of terms.  We are discussing science,
and I am using SCIENCE'S definitions of terms.


>> >Natural selection is certainly a THEORY.
>> >http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm
>> 
>> Yes.
>
>And rightly called Darwin's theory,

Darwin's version of natural selection is called Darwin's theory
because it was in fact a theory/

>in spite of the fact that
>Empedocles was one of the "first" to conceive of it.

Empedocles apparently left no evidence that he had formulated a
theory, which requires more than just "conception".

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