| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2003 12:25:46 PM |
| Object: |
Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
:|This is for all of you that have been posting about how Moore will
:|eventually be vindicated because the Constitution says he has the right to
:|do what he did. Next step is his dismissal.
Where or where is Jeffy Strickland and all the rest of them?
:|
:|
:|Justices Reject Judge's Ten Commandments Appeal
:|
:|By James Vicini
:|
:|WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected on
:|Monday appeals by Alabama's embattled top judge, Roy Moore, who has waged an
:|unsuccessful legal battle to display the Ten Commandments at the state
:|judicial building.
:|
:|Without comment, the high court refused to hear two appeals by Moore, who
:|was suspended after refusing to comply with a federal judge's order in
:|August to remove the granite monument inscribed with the commandments
:|because it violated constitutional church-state separation.
:|
:|Moore, who was elected as Alabama's chief justice in 2000, has been accused
:|of violating judicial ethics. He is fighting his suspension, and a hearing
:|has been set for Nov. 12.
:|
:|With two tablets inscribed with the commandments that Jews and Christians
:|believe were passed from God to Moses, the stone marker weighing 5,000
:|pounds (2.3 tonnes) was placed in the rotunda of the judicial building in
:|Montgomery, Alabama by Moore and his followers in 2001.
:|
:|The monument was removed on Aug. 27 after eight associate justices of the
:|Alabama Supreme Court decided to comply with the federal judge's order. It
:|has been locked in a closet since then.
:|
:|Moore has strong support from fundamentalist Christian groups for his
:|championing of public displays of the Ten Commandments. As a lower court
:|judge, he had a hand-carved plaque with the Ten Commandments in his
:|courtroom.
:|
:|Civil liberties groups have criticized him for imposing his personal
:|religious views on others and using his office to promote the Christian
:|faith.
:|
:|FEDERAL COURTS ORDERED REMOVAL
:|
:|A number of civil liberties groups sued in 2001 on behalf of three Alabama
:|lawyers who said they had been offended by the monument's display.
:|A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court ruled the monument must be
:|removed.
:|
:|In one appeal, Moore's lawyers told the Supreme Court the federal judge
:|lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction to Alabama's chief justice
:|requiring the monument's removal.
:|
:|They argued the injunction violated state sovereign immunity and amounted to
:|"a blatant misuse of federal judicial power."
:|
:|In the second appeal, his lawyers urged the high court to overrule its
:|long-standing test dating back to 1971 on what represents an
:|unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
:|
:|According to the original constitutional definitions, they said this
:|monument would not represent a government "establishment of religion"
:|forbidden by the First Amendment.
:|
:|Attorneys for those who opposed the monument waived their right to even file
:|a response to Moore's appeals.
:|
:|The Supreme Court in August rejected a request by Moore for a last-minute
:|stay to prevent the monument's removal.
:|
:|The high court in recent years has let stand other U.S. appeals court
:|rulings that have barred the display of large granite monuments engraved
:|with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of state capitals.
:|
:|
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
29 Nov 2003 10:38:35 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
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?
That is not social darwinism.
Yep, sure is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
social Darwinism
NOUN: The application of Darwinism to the study of human society,
specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve
advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.
Why don't you use a better dictionary. This (the one from the AH 4th
edition) seems to be one of the worst (vaguest) definitions on-line,
especially as contrasted with several better definitions:
Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: social Darwinism
Function: noun
Date: 1887
: an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a
theory in sociology: sociocultural advance is the product of
intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes
(as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority
in the struggle for existence
- social Darwinist noun or adjective
http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/socialdarwin.html
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
social Darwinism
A theory arising in the late nineteenth century that the laws of
evolution, which Charles Darwin had observed in nature, also apply to
society. Social Darwinists argued that social progress resulted from
conflicts in which the fittest or best adapted individuals, or entire
societies, would prevail. It gave rise to the slogan “survival of the
fittest.”
http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?social+Darwinism
social Darwinism
<ethics, political philosophy> movement of thought that started in the
late nineteenth century as an application of Charles Darwin's
insights to human affairs; its most (in)famous exponent was Herbert
Spencer. Social Darwinism holds that the principle of "the survival
of the fittest" applies to human ethics and politics just as it does
to biological evolution. Left-leaning critics often allege that
social Darwinism provides an accurate description of - or an
inexcusable attempt at justification for - life under capitalism.
[The Ism Book]
Edited by Giovanni Benzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Social Darwinism refers to a set of theories which proponents argue
govern the natural sociological relations of humanity; these theories
are derived from Darwin's theory of evolution. Critics argue that
these theories are used to legitimize social inequality. The term is
credited to Herbert Spencer; in Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) he
argued:
"this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it
be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon
its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this
same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of
continuous differentiation, holds throughout."
Spencer's work talked openly about race and class, and even went so
far as to rank various societies on a linear scale of progress.
English culture, of course, was placed at the top; Irish were classed
as "barbarians", and all the other races and cultures of the world
similarly ranked. While such notions of unidirectional "progress" are
not really supported by ideas of evolution, the 1859 publication of
Darwin's Origin of Species gave his work more popular acclaim, as did
the fact that his work served to justify many of the political causes
of the day, especially British imperialism. At the time, it was
popular to speak of the "white man's burden" to take over more
"primitive" cultures and help them progress to a more "evolved" (that
is, British) state.
Spencer's work also served to revive the ideas of Hobbes and Malthus.
Malthus's 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population, for example,
argued that as increasing population must outgrow its food supply, it
was "natural", and inevitable, to allow the weakest to starve. Some
historians have suggested that the Malthusian theory and similar
concepts were used by the British to justify the continued export of
agricultural produce from Ireland, even as the Irish were suffering
from famine, in particular the Great Famine of 1845-1849.
Jonathan Swift savagely satirized this sort of "scientific" reasoning
in his essay A Modest Proposal, pointing out that advocating
cannibalism would have similar "beneficial" effects in controlling
overpopulation.
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.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html
[entire page]
Better yet, since it is a term of sociology (even according to the
definition you cited), use a dictionary of the social sciences or
sociology
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rmazur/dictionary/s.html
Social darwinism: A theory of social change (Herbert Spencer) which
holds that progress is inevitable if only people will cease their
interference with nature. By this is meant that if others stop
interfering with the plans of private business, there will be
progress. The implicit assumption is, of course, that whatever
capitalism does is natural and whatever the liberals or radicals do
is interference. Charles Darwin is said to have repudiated social
darwinism which itself is a more formal version of laissez faire (let
it be) cloaked in the language of science.
http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=S
SOCIAL DARWINISM
A late nineteenth century social philosophy which unites an interest
in social problems (eg: inequality) with an interpretation of
Darwin's work on the origin of species. Advocates argue that the
central Darwinian principle of evolution, development and progress,
is the survival of the fittest and extinction of the weakest. Applied
to social affairs this implies that those who get ahead in society
are the most fit and deserve their position. More importantly,
perhaps, this perspective suggests that supporting those who fall
behind ( by providing welfare, for example) interferes with the
principles of evolution and obstructs social progress. Sociologists
of course believe that social problems like inequality must be
understood within a social and cultural context, rather than a
context of biological competition.
http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/frank.elwell/prob3/glossary/socgloss.htm#S
SOCIAL DARWINISM. An early and now largely discredited view of social
evolution emphasizing the importance of "survival of the fittest" or
struggle between individuals, groups, or societies as the motor of
development. Social Darwinism became widely popular and was often
used to justify existing inequalities.
http://www.fast-times.com/dictionarys.html
social Darwinism - the evolutionary theories of the natural historian
Charles Darwin (1809-18820), especially the idea of the "survival of
the fittest" and "natural selection," applied to the sphere of human
society. Social Darwinists, who in America were associated with the
British philosopher Herbert Spencer, advocated an extreme form of
laissez faire economics, and supported individualism to the extent of
opposing compulsory free education.
http://www.soci.canterbury.ac.nz/glossary/socialda.htm
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism drew on the ideas on evolution and natural selection
that Darwin applied to plants and animals, even though Darwin himself
disavowed the idea that human 'races' could be classified. 'Natural
selection' was crudely understood by European imperialists as lending
support to the idea that they were inherently superior to the people
they colonized. Social Darwinism was also a quasi-rational theory
used to support population control, immigration restrictions and
racial prejudice.
[Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. 2000, Global Sociology, MacMillan, London, p. 380.]
http://www.ioa.com/~shermis/socjus/socdar.html
[text too long to reasonably quote]
Here is Spencer on social darwinism, quite different from the sort of
thing that you cite from Darwin:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html
lojbab
--
lojbab
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
29 Nov 2003 12:05:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
(Darwin was also wrong on numerous
accounts),
That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
themselves to admit.
Wrong, almost everyone who has any understanding of evolution and Darwin
knows and says this.
Which was my point at the outset of the thread, but one of YOUR ilk, a
"Carol Lee Smith" contested it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.96.1031122092344.19981U-100000%40alpha1.csd.uwm.edu&output
That post is below in its entirety.
What exactly does it contest?
It asks for you to substantiate your claim and provide names and details.
I never did see that you provided what was requested. Perhaps because of
the holiday I have just missed it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Carol Lee Smith (human@csd.uwm.edu)
Subject: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You
View: Complete Thread (215 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian, alt.society.liberalism, misc.education,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-11-22 07:31:42 PST
On 21 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
Darwin's theories are not considered scientific because HE said so,
but because biologists have confirmed them.
Actually a good number of scientists have refuted much of what Darwin
thought.
Oh?
If there are "a good number of scientists," you shouldn't have any problem
naming them and just what aspects of Darwinian thought they have refuted.
Put that proof
here --------->
By the way, which scientist confirmed Darwin's theory of Social
Darwinism?
Please put Darwin's theory of Social Darwinism
here ---------->
Not inherently, but religious philosophy usually crosses into
"theology" and is called by that label.
Philosophy does not specialize in atheism. Period.
Did anyone say it did?
<snip>
"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the
rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in
glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction
of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one
corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some
other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to
kill one another, how fervent their hatreds."
--Carl Sagan, _A Pale Blue Dot_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
29 Nov 2003 11:33:41 AM |
|
|
Which was my point at the outset of the thread, but one of YOUR ilk, a
"Carol Lee Smith" contested it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.96.1031122092344.19981U-100000%40alpha1.csd.uwm.edu&output
That post is below in its entirety.
What exactly does it contest?
YOU contested the fact that many scientists have dispensed with much
of what Darwin said.
Many indeed have.
Folks like Gould have posited punctuated equilibrium in contrast to
Darwin's gradual transitions.
Folks like Gould have dispensed with Darwin's sense that evolution
creates a hierarchy of beings, and more importantly, a hierarchy of
races and nations.
Almost all modern evolutionists have rejected Darwin's advocacy of
Social Darwinism
Many scientists have even shown that Natural Selection cannot do what
Darwin claimed it can do.
But this was all told to you before, and you persistently denied it.
Therefore, when I was told that evolutionists don't deny that Darwin
was wrong on many accounts, I pointed to you as one who, on the
record, has done so.
Searle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
29 Nov 2003 12:09:09 PM |
|
|
ambrose searle wrote in talk.origins
(Darwin was also wrong on numerous
accounts),
That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
themselves to admit.
Wrong, almost everyone who has any understanding of evolution and Darwin
knows and says this.
Which was my point at the outset of the thread, but one of YOUR ilk, a
"Carol Lee Smith" contested it:
as always you are either wrong or lying. I said that Darwin was wrong on
many points, you claimed that his theories had been refuted. There is a
major difference. His theories have not been refuted. They have been
improved upon and modified, but not refuted.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.96.1031122092344.19981U-
100000%40alpha1.csd.uwm.edu&output
However, people of your ilk always make some claim
about Darwin, almost always false,
Darwin was a racist, and his racism was grounded in his "science."
Period. Fact. Demonstrable. Proven.
Claimed but never proven. All we have ever seen are misinterpretations
of his writing by people who seem to think that casting aspersions on
Darwin's character somehow disproves science.
and then try to make out that he was
wrong in what you claim.
Good science does not lead to racism. Darwin was wrong.
And you have everything backwards. Any racism in victorian england
was based upon the English arrogance and biblical interpretation,
not science.
This was the beginning problem that led to this
present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
Social Darwinism.
No, the beginning of the problem is when you posted your lies to the
usenet.
Your broad, unsupported assertion is typical.
What unsupported assertion? You lied, you posted them to the usenet.
and that is when our problem with your lies started.
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?
That is not social darwinism.
Yep, sure is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
and that is what Darwin believed.
It is those who are ideologues unwilling to follow the evidence
wherever it lies.
It is you who are unwilling to be intellectually honest. It is you
who, for some reason, hates Darwin so much that you have to invent
stories, and take quotes out of context in order to force the facts
to fit your prejudices.
Darwin's words are so clear that all one has to do is go right to his
writings to see that he held the view that individuals or groups
achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological
superiority.
That is common of victorian thought, and even more common among the
anti evolutionist.
And that is something that you seem to be hell bent on ignoring.
As a matter of fact, your entire premise is built upon your modern
understanding of everything, not any understanding of the way things
really were 150 years ago.
snip
--
***** #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
29 Nov 2003 11:42:25 PM |
|
|
***** C <dickcr@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns944267A885F63dickcrlocalnet@216.168.3.50>...
ambrose searle wrote in talk.origins
(Darwin was also wrong on numerous
accounts),
That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
themselves to admit.
Wrong, almost everyone who has any understanding of evolution and Darwin
knows and says this.
Which was my point at the outset of the thread, but one of YOUR ilk, a
"Carol Lee Smith" contested it:
as always you are either wrong or lying. I said that Darwin was wrong on
many points, you claimed that his theories had been refuted. There is a
major difference. His theories have not been refuted. They have been
improved upon and modified, but not refuted.
Human racial superiority as a result of natural selection has been
rejected by scholars like S.J. Gould.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.96.1031122092344.19981U-
100000%40alpha1.csd.uwm.edu&output
However, people of your ilk always make some claim
about Darwin, almost always false,
Darwin was a racist, and his racism was grounded in his "science."
Period. Fact. Demonstrable. Proven.
Claimed but never proven. All we have ever seen are misinterpretations
of his writing by people who seem to think that casting aspersions on
Darwin's character somehow disproves science.
If you can't understand that speaking of races as "inferior" and
"superior" is racism, then you are incorrigible.
and then try to make out that he was
wrong in what you claim.
Good science does not lead to racism. Darwin was wrong.
And you have everything backwards. Any racism in victorian england
was based upon the English arrogance and biblical interpretation,
not science.
Darwin doesn't cite the Bible in support of his racism in Descent of
Man. He does, however, rely on his "science."
This was the beginning problem that led to this
present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
Social Darwinism.
No, the beginning of the problem is when you posted your lies to the
usenet.
Your broad, unsupported assertion is typical.
What unsupported assertion? You lied, you posted them to the usenet.
and that is when our problem with your lies started.
Is that the best you can do? "Liar liar pants on fire"? Deal with
Darwin's words.
FROM The Descent of Man BY Charles Darwin
THE SLIGHT CORPOREAL STRENGTH OF MAN, his little speed, his want of
natural weapons, &c., are more than counterbalanced, firstly by his
intellectual powers, through which he has, whilst still remaining in a
barbarous state, formed for himself weapons, tools, &c., and secondly
by his social qualities which lead him to give aid to his fellow-men
and to receive it in return. No country in the world abounds in a
greater degree with dangerous beasts than Southern Africa; no country
presents more fearful physical hardships than the Arctic regions; yet
one of the puniest races, namely, the Bushmen, maintain themselves in
Southern Africa, as do the dwarfed Esquimaux in the Arctic regions.
The early progenitors of man were, no doubt, inferior in intellect,
and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages;
but it is quite conceivable that they might have existed, or even
flourished, if, whilst they gradually lost their brutelike powers,
such as climbing trees, &c., they at the same time advanced in
intellect. But granting that the progenitors of man were far more
helpless and defenceless than any existing savages, if they had
inhabited some warm continent or large island, such as Australia or
New Guinea, or Borneo (the latter island being now tenanted by the
orang), they would not have been exposed to any special danger. In an
area as large as one of these islands, the competition between tribe
and tribe would have been sufficient, under favourable conditions, to
have raised man, through the survival of the fittest, combined with
the inherited effects of habit, lo his present high position in the
organic scale.
* * *
Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that primeval
men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,
they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel
other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same
general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from
their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love;
they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid
in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy,
fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance
of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt
acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely,
through natural selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes
of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if
the one tribe included (other circumstances being equal) a greater
number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were
always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each
other, this trihe would without doubt succeed best and conquer the
other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important, in the never-ceasing
wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. The advantage which
disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly
from the confidence which each man feels in his comrades. Obedience,
as Mr. Bagehot has well shewn, is of the highest value, for any form
of government is better than none. Selfish and contentious people will
not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe
possessing the above qualities in a high degree would spread and be
victorious over other tribes; but in the course of time it would,
judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other
and still more highly endowed tribe. Thus the social and moral
qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the
world.
* * *
NATURAL SELECTION AS AFFECTING CIVILISED NATIONS
In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of
man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a
barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on
civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably
discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr.
Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With
savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that
survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men,
on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination;
we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we
institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to
save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to
believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a
want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a
domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any
one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason,
without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon
may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that
he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally
to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent
benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear
without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving
and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check
in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society
not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be
indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than
expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
* * *
With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality,
and an increased number of fairly well-endowed men are concerned,
natural selection apparently effects but little; though the
fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained. But I have
already said enough, whilst treating of the lower races, on the causes
which lead to the advance of morality, namely, the approbation of our
fellow-men—the strengthening of our sympathies by habit— example and
imitation—reason experience and even self-interest—instruction during
youth, and religious feelings.
A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the
number of men of a superior class has been strongly urged by Mr. Greg
and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who
are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the
careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late
in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their
children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given
period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr.
Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that
are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger,
and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other
periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of
society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and
generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The
careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the
frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his
morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his
intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy,
marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally
peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts— and in a dozen
generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but
five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would
belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal
'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured
race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good
qualities but of its faults."
There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have
seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and
the extremely profligate leave few offspring. The poorest classes
crowd into towns, and it has been proved by Dr. Stark from the
statistics of ten years in Scotland, that at all ages the death-rate
is higher in towns than in rural districts, "and during the first five
years of life the town death-rate is almost exactly double that of the
rural districts." As these returns include both the rich and the poor,
no doubt more than double the number of births would be requisite to
keep up the number of the very poor inhabitants in the towns,
relatively to those in the country. With women, marriage at too early
an age is highly injurious; for it has been found in France that,
"twice as many wives under twenty die in the year, as died out of the
same number of the unmarried." The mortality, also, of husbands under
twenty is "excessively high," but what the cause of this may be seems
doubtful. Lastly, if the men who prudently delay marrying until they
can bring up their families in comfort, were to select, as they often
do, women in the prime of life, the rate of increase in the better
class would be only slightly lessened.
Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and this
from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not bitterly to
regret, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man
tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide
and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty,
celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers
from the same physical evils with the lower animals, he has no right
to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for
existence. Had he not been subjected to natural selection, assuredly
he would never have attained to the rank of manhood. When we see in
many parts of the world enormous areas of the most fertile land
peopled by a few wandering savages, but which are capable of
supporting numerous happy homes, it might be argued that the struggle
for existence had not been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to
his highest standard. Judging from all that we know of man and the
lower animals, there has always been sufficient variability in the
intellectual and moral faculties, for their steady advancement through
natural selection. No doubt such advancement demands many favourable
concurrent circumstances; but it may well be doubted whether the most
favourable would have sufficed, had not the rate of increase been
rapid, and the consequent struggle for existence severe to an extreme
degree.
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?
That is not social darwinism.
Yep, sure is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
and that is what Darwin believed.
It is those who are ideologues unwilling to follow the evidence
wherever it lies.
It is you who are unwilling to be intellectually honest. It is you
who, for some reason, hates Darwin so much that you have to invent
stories, and take quotes out of context in order to force the facts
to fit your prejudices.
Darwin's words are so clear that all one has to do is go right to his
writings to see that he held the view that individuals or groups
achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological
superiority.
That is common of victorian thought, and even more common among the
anti evolutionist.
And that is something that you seem to be hell bent on ignoring.
No objection from me. Some Non Darwinists were very racist too.
Darwin, however, felt that he had scientific justification for racism.
In a world where science is elevated to the most important status in
determining what is appropriate for public education of children, a
scientific justification for racism is extremely dangerous, while the
typical religious justification for similar bigotry is comparatively
inconsequential.
As a matter of fact, your entire premise is built upon your modern
understanding of everything, not any understanding of the way things
really were 150 years ago.
As a matter of fact, Darwin used the theory of natural selection to
show that WASPs are superior to Africans.
Run from it all you like, it isn't going to go away.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
30 Nov 2003 07:23:36 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
***** C <dickcr@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns944267A885F63dickcrlocalnet@216.168.3.50>...
ambrose searle wrote in talk.origins
as always you are either wrong or lying. I said that Darwin was wrong on
many points, you claimed that his theories had been refuted. There is a
major difference. His theories have not been refuted. They have been
improved upon and modified, but not refuted.
Human racial superiority as a result of natural selection has been
rejected by scholars like S.J. Gould.
That was not Darwin's theory. Since you do not understand what a
theory is, you seem to persist in thinking that anything someone
writes is a theory; it isn't. A theory is an explanation for a
phenomenon backed by sufficient scientific evidence that it convinces
other scientists.
The observation of a phenomenon, even if described in highly biased or
subjective terms, is not a theory. Much of what you've quoted from
Darwin are such subjectively biased observations.
Claimed but never proven. All we have ever seen are misinterpretations
of his writing by people who seem to think that casting aspersions on
Darwin's character somehow disproves science.
If you can't understand that speaking of races as "inferior" and
"superior" is racism, then you are incorrigible.
It is nowadays when we know that the classification of humans into
races is genetically unsupportable. In the 1850s, when the only means
of determining the situation was ad-hoc observation of surface traits,
this was quite unclear, so reference to "races" was not unscientific.
Once you accept that reference to race could be scientific in the
given context, observation that a dark-skinned 'race' tends to be
"superior" in avoiding sunburn and eventual skin cancer is NOT racism.
It is a summary of observations.
This was the beginning problem that led to this
present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
Social Darwinism.
No, the beginning of the problem is when you posted your lies to the
usenet.
Your broad, unsupported assertion is typical.
What unsupported assertion? You lied, you posted them to the usenet.
and that is when our problem with your lies started.
Is that the best you can do? "Liar liar pants on fire"? Deal with
Darwin's words.
This (Darwin) thread started with the following exchange on 11/9:
1. Some classes are mandatory for graduation. 2. Some people, based on
financial situations, are compelled to attend the state university
most affordable: an institution funded partially by public tax
dollars, ergo, the proselyzation of atheism is publicly funded.
rushing up to thrust copies of Betrand Russell into your
hands and warning you of dire personal consenquences if you
didn't change your metaphysics?
Some push Russell. More push Darwin and Marx.
Darwin is science, not religion or philosophy.
That's what L.Ron Hubbard says too.
L. Ron did not pass peer review.
and it acquired the current subject line from Carol on 11/24 when she
posted:
On 23 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
To be Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution, DARWIN HIMSELF had to
propose it.
What publication did Darwin do this in?
No such thing. It's called Social Darwinism, but it's a bastardization of
Darwin's ideas in natural history in to social theory. It doesn't work
there. Social Darwinism has nothing really to do with Darwin,
Wrong. Dead Wrong.
I think you are the one who is dead wrong.
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/ls172.htm
http://www.gennet.org/metro15.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html#social
Darwin's words are so clear that all one has to do is go right to his
writings to see that he held the view that individuals or groups
achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological
superiority.
That is common of victorian thought, and even more common among the
anti evolutionist.
And that is something that you seem to be hell bent on ignoring.
No objection from me. Some Non Darwinists were very racist too.
Darwin, however, felt that he had scientific justification for racism.
Even if he did, that is not social Darwinism, because his view of
races was biological. Social darwinism by necessity needs to have a
social component in order to justify the name and the classification
within sociology rather than biology.
In a world where science is elevated to the most important status in
determining what is appropriate for public education of children,
That was not the situation in Victorian England; in 21st century
America, kids don't read Darwin's books.
As a matter of fact, your entire premise is built upon your modern
understanding of everything, not any understanding of the way things
really were 150 years ago.
As a matter of fact, Darwin used the theory of natural selection to
show that WASPs are superior to Africans.
I don't think that you will find any reference to a race called
"WASPs" in Darwin's writings; nor do I think I saw "Africans" in the
quoted text. It appears that he made observations about "civilized"
and "savage" races, but the latter were primarily those he had
observed in South America on the Beagle, who were therefore not
Africans.
lojbab
--
lojbab
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
30 Nov 2003 10:57:00 PM |
|
|
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
Whether Darwin was the first to articulate it is not contested,
whether he, in fact, was a proponent of it is factual.
Natural selection is certainly a THEORY.
http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm
Since you do not understand what a
theory is, you seem to persist in thinking that anything someone
writes is a theory; it isn't. A theory is an explanation for a
phenomenon backed by sufficient scientific evidence that it convinces
other scientists.
Social Darwinism is a THEORY:
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
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hmd365.shtml
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/activity.html
http://hs.riverdale.k12.or.us/~dthompso/exhib_03/joshw/Soc.htm
http://www.killer-essays.com/American_History/aky259.shtml
As a matter of fact, Darwin used the theory of natural selection to
show that WASPs are superior to Africans.
I don't think that you will find any reference to a race called
"WASPs" in Darwin's writings;
Correct, he was more inclined to speak in terms of Northern European
Caucasians.
nor do I think I saw "Africans" in the
quoted text.
In chapter 7 of Descent of Man Darwin speaks of Africans almost
exclusively in terms of "savages."
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
01 Dec 2003 08:28:12 AM |
|
|
(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.
Whether Darwin was the first to articulate it is not contested,
If he was not, then it would not be "his" theory.
Nobody will ever go around talking about LeChevalier's Theory of
Evolution merely because I write things supportive of that theory.
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).
Natural selection is certainly a THEORY.
http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm
Yes.
Since you do not understand what a
theory is, you seem to persist in thinking that anything someone
writes is a theory; it isn't. A theory is an explanation for a
phenomenon backed by sufficient scientific evidence that it convinces
other scientists.
Social Darwinism is a THEORY:
I have a "theory" that you like to play semantic games. In a
scientific context, it is NOT a theory.
nor do I think I saw "Africans" in the
quoted text.
In chapter 7 of Descent of Man Darwin speaks of Africans almost
exclusively in terms of "savages."
You quoted from Chapter 5.
lojbab
--
lojbab
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
01 Dec 2003 09:31:28 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<ssjmsvcmiilkiv34k1qq3a13odfj9412u6@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (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--
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."
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. Darwin also had his own theory of
social Darwinism, 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.
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. The chances of you publishing on this
matter, however, are zero and none.
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
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.
Natural selection is certainly a THEORY.
http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm
Yes.
And rightly called Darwin's theory, in spite of the fact that
Empedocles was one of the "first" to conceive of it.
Since you do not understand what a
theory is, you seem to persist in thinking that anything someone
writes is a theory; it isn't. A theory is an explanation for a
phenomenon backed by sufficient scientific evidence that it convinces
other scientists.
Social Darwinism is a THEORY:
I have a "theory" that you like to play semantic games. In a
scientific context, it is NOT a theory.
Correct, scientifically it is a psychological delusion.
nor do I think I saw "Africans" in the
quoted text.
In chapter 7 of Descent of Man Darwin speaks of Africans almost
exclusively in terms of "savages."
You quoted from Chapter 5.
Darwin wrote both chapters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
02 Dec 2003 12:42:19 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote in message news:<ssjmsvcmiilkiv34k1qq3a13odfj9412u6@4ax.com>...
(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
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
03 Dec 2003 03:26:27 PM |
|
|
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."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
03 Dec 2003 11:38:57 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
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.
Because their "theory of natural selection", if they were really
theories rather than "concepts", were not substantially correct and
useful to scientists. Darwin's theory was.
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?
Since Gould died, I don't know. I'm not sure that there is any single
person who is "most noted" these days. But of course "natural
selection" doesn't need a proponent. Darwin established the theory,
and in science it hasn't been controversial for more than 100 years.
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
I don't see him calling it a "theory" much less a "theory of Social
Darwinism".
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
That is not the definition on the cited page. But it would be helpful
if you started using dictionaries that had more than one
line-definitions filled with uncertainly-defined terms.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory
In science, a theory is a model of reality, used for rationalizing,
explaining, predicting, and mastering physical phenomena. There is a
difference between the technical term and its common usage. A theory
has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one
can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an
apple, to see what happens. Many scientists, but not all, argue that
religious beliefs are not testable, and thus not theories, because
they are matters of faith.
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is
a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately
describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that
contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite
predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to
state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that
it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many
times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can
never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the
theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even
a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the
theory."
There are two types of theories; a supposition which is not backed by
observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it
is a hypothesis. A theory is different from a theorem. The former is
a model of physical events and cannot be proved from basic axioms.
The latter is a statement of mathematical fact which logically
follows from a set of axioms. A theory is also different from a
physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the
latter is a statement of what has been observed.
...
Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess
or a hypothesis. But in science, a theory is much more than that. A
theory is an established paradigm that explains all of the data we
have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a
theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know
all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they
are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or
modified slightly.
Some theories that have been disproved are those such as Lamarckism
and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has risen to
declare these theories false.
Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss
controversial theories such as evolution, but in science a theory
usually
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single
foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not
totally correct,
has survived many critical tests that could have
proven it false,
makes predictions that might someday be used to
disprove the theory, and
is the best known explanation, in the sense
of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations
for the same data.
So far as I know, Empedocles did not meet these conditions.
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.
Blyth's theory was therefore contradicted by Darwin's. Why would we
use the same name for two opposing theories, one of which has been
falsified?
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.
I gave several definitions from scientific dictionaries.
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,
That is your strawman of what I claimed.
lojbab
--
lojbab
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Dec 2003 11:04:04 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<mdgtsv4ledm1d061907mv21rpo2buan39d@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
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.
Because their "theory of natural selection", if they were really
theories rather than "concepts", were not substantially correct and
useful to scientists. Darwin's theory was.
Precisely my point. Which shows that Darwin's THEORY of Social
Darwinism is rightly called a theory, regardless of whether he
originated it or whether it is correct.
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?
Since Gould died, I don't know.
Basic cultural literacy question:
For which scientist/philosopher is the concept of "natural selection"
best known?
There's really only one correct answer, 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
I don't see him calling it a "theory" much less a "theory of Social
Darwinism".
He is proposing an explanation for the differential observations he
sees among the various races, nations, tribes, and societies. Such an
explanation is by definition a THEORY.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientific+theory
As far as him not calling his theory by his own name, he never called
his theory of biological natural selection "Darwinism" either. But
that's what it is.
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
That is not the definition on the cited page. But it would be helpful
if you started using dictionaries that had more than one
line-definitions filled with uncertainly-defined terms.
A scientific theory is simply defined. It is a proposed explanation
for observable facts.
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.
Blyth's theory was therefore contradicted by Darwin's. Why would we
use the same name for two opposing theories, one of which has been
falsified?
Nope. Darwin simply articulated the theory with the unique
characteristic of speciation.
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,
That is your strawman of what I claimed.
You shouldn't lie when you know google has these things archived.
What you claimed is clear in the record, Bob:
SEARLE: "Whether Darwin was the first to articulate it is not
contested"
LECHEVALIER: "If he was not, then it would not be 'his' theory."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ssjmsvcmiilkiv34k1qq3a13odfj9412u6%404ax.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
05 Dec 2003 06:57:59 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote in message news:<mdgtsv4ledm1d061907mv21rpo2buan39d@4ax.com>...
(ambrose searle) wrote:
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.
Because their "theory of natural selection", if they were really
theories rather than "concepts", were not substantially correct and
useful to scientists. Darwin's theory was.
Precisely my point. Which shows that Darwin's THEORY of Social
Darwinism is rightly called a theory, regardless of whether he
originated it or whether it is correct.
It wasn't a theory, as science uses the term theory.
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?
Since Gould died, I don't know.
Basic cultural literacy question:
For which scientist/philosopher is the concept of "natural selection"
best known?
No one who is currently still alive. You asked who *has become* its
most noted proponent. He *was* the most noted proponent when he was
still alive, but he's dead and can't be a proponent of anything (and
relative few people not seriously interested in the subject actually
read Darwin's books).
There's really only one correct answer, Bob.
You changed the question.
I don't see him calling it a "theory" much less a "theory of Social
Darwinism".
He is proposing an explanation for the differential observations he
sees among the various races, nations, tribes, and societies. Such an
explanation is by definition a THEORY.
Not the way scientists use the word.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Further explanation of a scientific theory
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess
or a hypothesis. But in science, a theory is much more than that. A
theory is an established paradigm that explains all of the data we
have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a
theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know
all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they
are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or
modified slightly.
... but in science a theory usually
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single
foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not
totally correct,
has survived many critical tests that could have proven it false,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
and
is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the
infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
Darwin's *observations* on the effects of natural selection on
populations were *not* a paradigm that explains all the data we have
(he made clear that there were unknowns), he did not offer predictions
that could be tested, and he did not support it with multiple lines of
evidence.
As far as him not calling his theory by his own name, he never called
his theory of biological natural selection "Darwinism" either. But
that's what it is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
That is not the definition on the cited page. But it would be helpful
if you started using dictionaries that had more than one
line-definitions filled with uncertainly-defined terms.
A scientific theory is simply defined. It is a proposed explanation
for observable facts.
That is a hypothesis. Only after its predictions have been
well-tested does science award the label "theory".
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,
That is your strawman of what I claimed.
You shouldn't lie when you know google has these things archived.
What you claimed is clear in the record, Bob:
SEARLE: "Whether Darwin was the first to articulate it is not
contested"
LECHEVALIER: "If he was not, then it would not be 'his' theory."
Removing context is dishonest. By removing the context, you are
losing the distinction between something being "his" and being "called
his". As I noted, my own ideas on evolution would not be called
LeChevalier's theory of evolution.
Reread
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
and you find out that "Darwin's theory" was unique to him because he
integrated several distinct ideas. It is rightly called his because
he did integrate these components, and he was the first to do so. The
"articulation" is relevant, but not really the issue.
lojbab
--
lojbab
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
02 Dec 2003 04:21:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:31:28 +0000 (UTC), (ambrose
searle) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<ssjmsvcmiilkiv34k1qq3a13odfj9412u6@4ax.com>...
(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--
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."
Can a "theory" *not* be a clearly separable thing?
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"?
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."
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_talk/precursors/precurs7.html
That is because Empedocles didn't really use it to *explain* a wide range
of phenomenon (hint: that is part of what a *scientific* theory does):
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
| | | | | | | |
