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

> >Yes, Bob, the collective consensus of organizations who define terms
> >as a profession have gotten it wrong, and only YOU have gotten it
> >right--
> >
> >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
> 
> Gee, Ambrose, the expert *you* cited to me before, Robert M. Young, said
> this:
> 
>    "Turning now to Social Darwinism per se, my first point is that
>    there is no such clearly separable thing."

Young's whole point is that SOCIAL DARWINISM is not *separable* from
DARWINISM, that the latter entails the former.

> Can a "theory" *not* be a clearly separable thing? 

According to Young, Darwin's theory of biological evolution cannot be
separable from Darwin's theory of social evolution.
 
> Young also said: 
> 
>    "My own conception of Social Darwinism is that it was an attitude
>    toward nature with common elements, usually including Malthusianism,
>    a belief in the science of social laws, and a belief that nature 
>    decreed extreme inequalities that most thought would lead to 
>    progress."
> 
>    <http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html>
> 
> Can an "attitude" be a "theory"?

Since Young certainly believes that there is not difference between
Darwin's theory of natural selection and the theory of social
Darwinism, then indeed he would hold that natural selection is an
attitude toward nature just as social darwinism is.

> That is because Empedocles didn't really use it to *explain* a wide range
> of phenomenon 

Empedocles proposed a theory of evolution.

Reputable philosophers of science, like Karl Popper, have acknowledged
it.
 
>    Empedocles' . . . view was that random parts of animals would 
>    associate in the beginning and those assemblages that were 
>    successful would live on, while the others would perish and not
>    reproduce. Once so generated, though, Empedocles did not expect
>    further evolution. Dennett observes that Hume had a similar 
>    flirtation with something similar to natural selection. However,
>    none of these throwaway comments were developed, and in Aristotle's
>    case they were eventually ignored in favour of his more general 
>    views on final causation.
>    <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html>
> 
> What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Bob keeps clearly saying
> *scientific* theory and you keep ignoring him.  A habit of yours, I
> believe.

Empedocles' theory was a scientific theory.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientific+theory

Popper calls Empedocles' theory of evolution a scientific theory on
the grounds of its falsifiability:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

> Dictionaries and encyclopedias for common usage are *not* the proper place
> to look for definitions of scientific terms (or historical or philosophical
> terms).  But

... you did it anyway

<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=68011&tocid=0&query=scientific%20theory&ct=#cite>

> "Social Darwinism", as a term, was never anything more than a form of abuse
> used to brand an opponent as a heartless troglodyte. 

Unfortunately Darwin was very serious about his articulation of Social
evolution.

Searle