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

> >> >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.

The definitions provided by the encyclopedic sources are standard
definitions. Of course if you engage in some wildly esoteric parsing
of definitions, saying "by 'Social Darwinism' scientists mean a
philosophy that was in vogue in the community of Ames, Iowa, between
July of 1884 and January of 1885, and only had obese female adults
ages 56-58 in view, and only applied when the climatic conditions in
the Sahara reached below 0 degrees Centigrade... etc.," then you will
certainly be able to save your Messiah Darwin from the label.

But in the realm of common sensical discourse among decently
well-educated jurors, the definitions provided below for Social
Darwinism are the common coin, and Darwin's shoe fits.

> >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

That site proves my point. There were SCIENTISTS before Darwin who
proposed theories of natural selection, yet it is still commonly
referred to as Darwin's theory.

If you say, "yabut, Darwin's version was different than the
precursors," I say, precisely, which is why it is fair to say that
Darwin held to a theory of Social Darwinism. Just because there were
others before him who gave a different version than he, doesn't mean
that it's wrong to refer to his theory of Social Darwinism as his, any
more than it is wrong to refer to his theory of natural selection as
his.

> >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.

Who is the most noted proponent of Natural Selection in your weird
alternative universe, Bob?

> >Darwin also had his own theory of social Darwinism,
> 
> Proof by unsupported assertion.

Here's a slice from his theory of Social Darwinism:

"Readings in Social Darwinism":
http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/gstimson/socialdarwin.htm

> >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".

Sure I do. Its an attempt to explain observable phenomenon
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientific+theory

And I repeat, if the first one to articulate a theory makes the theory
"his" alone, then almost all theories would have to be called
Aristotle's or Platos, or as Whitehead said, all is but footnotes to
Plato.

> >> 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".

Then Natural Selection should be called Blyth's theory, for he
proposed natural selection in 1837 according to your source, with the
only difference from Darwin being a denial of transmutation of
species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html 

> >> >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.

It is the theory proposed by a number of 19th century scientists,
including Darwin, that natural selection can be applied to human
societies in order to explain why some have an advantage over the
others.

This is the definition one finds in a scientific encyclopedia, as well
as the encyclopedias I have cited above.

> >> >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/

You made the claim that a theory couldn't be "his" unless he was the
first to articulate it, and that science doesn't credit folks who do
nothing more than give a version with a "unique articulation."

You contradict yourself. Routinely and often.

> >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

Apparently you know better than the professors who make a living
teaching this stuff:

http://people.uncw.edu/schmidt/201Stuff/201%20Course%20mats/F03mats/assignments/Evolution.html

http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/psy214/Readings/Popper/popper.htm

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/russell.html

etc.

All who say Empedocles "formulated a theory of evolution."