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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Huck Turner) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Huck Turner) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > [snip]
> > > > 
> > > > Let's make this case very simply one more time. Apparently many of you
> > > > Darwinists don't come near to having the intelligence of Darwin.
> > > > 
> > > > Let me be as perspicuous as possible.
> > > > 
> > > > WHAT IS SOCIAL DARWINISM:
> > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
> > > > 
> > > > "a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage
> > > > over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority."
> > > > 
> > > > Did Darwin hold that theory? Here is one OF MANY very clear
> > > > expressions of it:
> > > > 
> > > > "we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened
> > > > period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave,
> > > > patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less
> > > > favored nations." (Darwin, Descent of Man, 1874, p. 142).
 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > Let's look at the full context of this quote. The paragraph begins:
> > > 
> > > "The remarkable success of the English as colonists, compared to other
> > > European nations, has been ascribed to their "daring and persistent
> > > energy"; a result which is well illustrated by comparing the progress
> > > of the Canadians of English and French extraction; but who can say how
> > > the English gained their energy?"
> > > 
> > > By asking this question, we can see that he is not automatically
> > > attributing the apparent success of the English to *racial*
> > > superiority. He continues:
> > > 
> > > "There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful
> > > progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people,
> > > are the results of natural selection; for the more energetic,
> > > restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated
> > > during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and
> > > have there succeeded best."
> > > 
> > > He here proposes one explanation for the source of the "energy" that
> > > could lead one group to overcome another. He prefaces this explanation
> > > with the tentative "there is *apparently* much truth...", but even
> > > someone who embraces this view wholeheartedly is still not necessarily
> > > arguing that qualities like being "more energetic, restless, and
> > > courageous" are biologically heritable traits. My understanding is
> > > that he is just saying that these traits are expected to be found in
> > > people who emigrate and so the society that they form should be
> > > expected to flourish as a result. He hasn't said whether he thinks
> > > these traits are biologically or culturally determined. He is just
> > > talking about a process that could cause an increase in the
> > > concentration of people with these traits in one area.
> > 
> > Darwin speaks very clearly that such traits are INHERITED in Chapter 5
> > of Descent of man
> > 
> > http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html
> 
> Darwin does say in this chapter that the "intellectual and moral
> faculties of man... are variable; and we have every reason to believe

NOTE TO SEARLE: Darwin thought that *moral* faculties had a
heritable component (we should not say genetic since they had
no idea of genetics back then).

Most of Darwin's evaluation of civlized vs. savage was based
on this.  And no, he did not conclude this based on his theory, 
but had been raised with the sense of superiority of his culture 
over "savage" ones.

His evaluation of the *intellectual* capacity of
people in other races is that they were EQUAL. 
Kind of misleading to pin the label Social Darwinism on that,
when the usual association is to the quite opposite conclusion.
 
> that the variations tend to be inherited", and that "the tribes, which
> included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in
> number and supplant other tribes". But, he also acknowledges the "much
> higher" significance of the cultural (i.e., non heritable) dimension
> to these competitions when he says "numbers depend primarily on the
> means of subsistence, and this depends partly on the physical nature
> of the country, BUT IN A MUCH HIGHER DEGREE ON THE ARTS WHICH ARE
> THERE PRACTISED [my emphasis]." He goes on to say that "in Europe the
> men of the Bronze period were supplanted by a race more powerful, and,
> judging from their sword-handles, with larger hands; but their success
> was PROBABLY STILL MORE DUE TO THEIR SUPERIORITY IN THE ARTS [my
> emphasis again]." So he is entertaining the idea that the different
> tribes are of different races, but is arguing that the successes of
> one over another have more to do with cultural (rather than racial)
> superiority. To this extent he is arguing against social Darwinism. If
> he was arguing that superiority in the arts either plays no part in
> competitions between groups or is genetically determined, I'd call him
> a social Darwinist. If he was arguing that heritable qualities played
> some part, I'd call him a regular Darwinist.

and neither did he recommend a course of action based on selection, but
instead education and inculcation of morality.  Advocating Social
Darwinism, indeed! Ambrose Searle could use some of that.

> > > "Looking to the distant future, I do not think that the Rev. Mr.
> > > Zincke takes an exaggerated view when he says:*(2) "All other series
> > > of events- as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece,
> > > and that which resulted in the empire of Rome- only appear to have
> > > purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as
> > > subsidiary to... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the
> > > west." Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilisation, we
> > > can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened
> > > period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave,
> > > patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less
> > > favoured nations."
> > > 
> > > This is an extremely insightful comment given the dramatic rise of the
> > > United States as a centre of power in the twentieth century. From my
> > > experience of the culture of the US, its people do appear to have a
> > > lot of jingoistic 'energy' which makes it very strong especially when
> > > the news media is unable to criticise its government for fear of being
> > > viewed as unpatriotic. The US is strong in part because internal
> > > descent is suppressed. This is why patriotism (chauvinism for the
> > > state) is such a successful meme.
> > > 
> > > Okay, back to your criticism of it. He is saying that civilizations
> > > composed of such individuals would "generally prevail" over others.
> > > This is true if all else is equal (equal military strength/experience,
> > > equal resources available to both sides, etc.). But Darwin
> > > acknowledged in the following paragraph that all else is not generally
> > > equal:
> > > 
> > > "With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a
> > > subordinate degree on Natural Selection; for such nations do not
> > > supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes... The more
> > > efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education
> > > during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard
> > > of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the
> > > laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public
> > > opinion."
> > > 
> > > He makes it clear that "continued progress depends in a subordinate
> > > degree on Natural Selection" and cites a number of "more efficient
> > > causes of progress" that are social rather than heritable. In short,
> > > he is arguing that continued progress occurs via a form of cultural
> > > selection rather than selection based on biologically heritable
> > > traits. This is a clear rejection of social Darwinism.
> > 
> > Darwin was unequivocal in stating that intelligence is a naturally
> > selected trait, and that it is also passed to offspring:

DUH!

That does not address Huck's argument.  If Social Darwinism is 
*application* of Darwinism to explain (or recommend) increased success in
*biological* terms, then doing so in terms of culture is NOT.

Do you think culture is biologically determined?  Education?

[snip]

> Intelligence is standardly regarded as having a genetic component so
> it would be subject to natural selection in any environment in which
> it provided a reproductive advantage (or disadvantage for that
> matter). Does believing this make you a social Darwinist?

Perhaps he will ignore this question also.

> How is what
> he says any different from saying that taller trees in a forrest would
> be favoured because they can soak up more of the sun's energy than the
> shorter ones. It seems Darwin is just discussing regular Darwinism
> rather than social Darwinism, but what you are trying to do is
> inherently difficult. You are trying to attribute an inconsistent
> philosophical view to someone.
> 
> 
> > What is so interesting to me about the way in which Darwinists have
> > been bending over backwards to defend him is the way that you are
> > approaching his writings the way a Fundamentalist approaches the
> > bible.
> > 
> > What you are doing is akin to a creationist hemming and hawing about
> > the first Chapter of Genesis in order to defend it as a scientifically
> > legitimate document. The gymnastics necessary to do so are hilarious.
> > 
> > And here we have Darwin's writings which are as racist as the Bible is
> > unscientific, and what do Darwin's "believers" do: they do everything
> > they can to extricate their savior from aspersions.

Are you equating racism with Social Darwinism?  That is absurd!
Racism (and sexism) was rampant in Western European culture in
the late 19th century, and there were several "studies" that
they used to support those prejudices.  

Eugenics as a movement had quite a few adherents, peaking in the 
early 20th century.

Darwin's participation was nil in these areas.  There are plenty
of ripe targets for approbation, but they couldn't be used to attempt to
discredit evolution.  Perhaps that is the point, eh?

Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man goes into this in great detail.

> I have distanced myself from Darwin's views on other occasions. In
> particular, I must distance myself from Darwin's views about the
> inheritance of acquired characteristics. I also distance myself from
> his use of terms like 'savage', which have racist and imperialistic
> connotations. And ultimately, it wouldn't matter to me if it turns out
> that Darwin advocated social Darwinism either, but I have seen no
> clear evidence that he did.
> 
> By the way, there are scientists like Newton who have reputations as
> being pretty unpleasant people, but we all still believe that force
> equals mass times acceleration. Darwin is not the enemy of
> creationism. His theory is.
> 
> 
> > In the end it just goes to show that Darwinists aren't objective,
> > scientific, academics, but rather ideologues with a religious zeal for
> > their faith in evolution.

You obviously don't know that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with
biological evolution (including Darwin's theory of natural selection). 

> I encourage you to pursue the points that I've made and highlight
> where you think I have misrepresented Darwin's views.

Tracy P. Hamilton