David B the moderator suggested that I should place the subject of the abuse of science by potical and social elements in another thread. So here it is.
One example I discussed was the development of Social Darwinism, which, though some evolutionists would wish it not be true, is a derivative from the theories of Evolution. It was to be a commentary on the human condition, something for us to overcome. Instead it became a philosophy that, to those who believe it, is used to justify the continuance of heinous conditions we hae today, including the slave trade, and subjugation of women. In the past it manifested itself into the Third Reich. Bored2001, in the “Creation/Evolution: Comments from the Mailbag” thread, said in eponse to me:
“So basically you’re saying if we took social darwinism away from hitler then the holocaust wouldn’t have happened? the problem I see with this is that even without darwin that idea would have probably reared it’s ugly head anyway.”
My response is that Hitler had the backing of ‘science’ to do what he had done. ‘Science’ gave him sanction to conduct his beyond heinous actions. I’m not saying the misuse of science invalidates the science itself. What I am saying is that scientists should not keep quiet while its misuse, and its catostrophic consenquences, is going on.
Science didn’t influence the Nazis in any real way, except that they used it to develop new weapons. The lesson to learn from this is that if the politicians want something done, anything else is secondary. People will be people, and if ‘science’ backs them up, so much the better. If there is no relevant ‘science’, they’d do it anyway. All people should stand up to tyrants and aggressors. The only way to fight a violent unreasoning enemy is through war, and science has its most breathtaking advances during war because the politicians are finally willing to fund it as long as it develops new weapons. The sun shines on the evil as well as the good, so the advances of one nation quickly become the weapons of another. This is not the fault of science, just a fact of human nature.
It was my impression that the “science” that Hitler used to back up his agenda was actually held in fairly low regard by the rest of the mainstream scientific community of the 1930s. I thought he basically just rummaged through Science’s attic until he found something to back up his racist arguments, and then used it lavishly.
You are aware, of course, of the long history of racism and prejudice. In the decade before Darwin published Origin of Species one of the most fierce debates in anthropology regarded the ranking of human races. One camp argued that God had Created the seperate races of humans in their individual environments, all others being subservient to the descendants of Adam (that is, white Europeans of whatever nationality was writing the paper at that time).
The opposition argued that humans were only Created once, and all non-European races could be ranked by how far they had degenerated from the European standard. Of course, some Europeans were more equal than others, and my ancestors were considered to be just three steps above lemurs.
People have been hateful to each other for the longest time; whether they find their justifications in “Science” is irrelevant to the disease.
Boy, you are dense, aren’t you? I’ll leave it to others to explain to you the difference between Social Darwinism and the scientific theory of evolution. Or, maybe everyone will decide not to bother, since this has been explained to you before and you seem unable to grasp it. I’ll just say this:
Are you actually under the impression that justifications for heinous conditions such as the slave trade and the subjugation of women did not exist before Darwin? In fact, xianity offered centuries and centuries of justification for the very ills you cite, as well as a number of others, before Darwin was even born. IMHO, religion is much more deserving of censure for human rights violations than science will ever be.
Do you think Hitler would have been swayed by what some scientists said about his policies? He’d give him a one way ticket to the concentration camp. I feel that this is kind of a backhand slap at scientists, saying that they unleash this knowledge on an ignorant public who can’t handle everything. Religion is just as bad. For years, people have used the bible to justify slavery, the crusades, subjugation of women, discrimination, and just about everything else. Where was Pope Pius when Hitler was accusing the Jews of deicide?
Today, people use science to justify claims about psychics and ESP. I have the “use 10% of the brain” in mind. This was addressed in a straight dope column. While scientists tell people that the statement is not true, people still believe that it is. The fact is, people will believe what they want to believe, and if it has any backing, whether it be from science or relgion, it will only entrench them further in their own beliefs.
Is it that we should turn our collective backs on anything that has been used by bad folk towards bad ends? Can you see the utter and absolute impracticality of such a statement?
No what I am saying that what was supposed to be commentary on the human condition became a philosophy to justify the continuance of it.
My focus on this thread here is on the misuse of science, not the abuse of religion. Yes, the misuse of both and is mostly applied to justify and perpetuate longstanding prejudices that previously exist in the culture.
You will continuously say that Social Darwinism is separate from evolution in that it is a philosophy bourne from previous prejudices, than a real science. I know the difference too. But this philosophy Social Darwinism is a twisted version of Darwin’s theories, twisted to suit people’s ends. I don’t hear many scientists explicity saying, “This is not what evolution was meant for!” When people remain silent against the face of evil, evil will win. Don’t turn your backs from science. Don’t let science be manipulated for nefarious ends, or have the means to prevent it.
When this way of thinking became popular in America, there was a movement called The Progresive Movement. That’s when people like Nellie Bly and Upton Sinclair and Ida Tarbell let the nation know what was going on via the written word. That was a time when people wanted the Government to take more responsibility for the people in the nation. What were the “Captains of Industry” and other rich people to do? Why, they were going to take a radical new theory and manipulate it for their own purposes. So that’s what happened. Social Darwinism was later dismissed as stupid because it is. It had nothing to do with science or Darwin or evolution, it had everything to do with greed.
I don’t understand why you are so hung up on it. It’s not like it disproves macro or micro evolution.
You have been told repeatedly on the other thread that it is not, yet you continue to repeat this false assertion without backing it up with one shred of evidence.
Herbert Spencer picked out one idea from all the works of Darwin: that species facing new threats that have not adapted to meet those threats will go extinct. From that one idea, he coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” He then used the phrase as a linchpin of a specific theory of society that came to be known as Social Darwinism. Darwin, who became friends with Spencer, used the phrase in his last few revisions of Origin of Species because the phrase had become well-known and Darwin thought that it expressed a single aspect of his theory in a way that his reading public could grasp. Social Darwinism, however, does not begin with the scientific concepts of Natural Selection. Rather, one philosophical writer took a single aspect out of context to develop a theory that has nothing in common with the actual scientific work of Darwin.
Saying that Social Darwinism is a “derivative” of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection is about as accurate as the claim the the bibical statement giving man “dominion” over the Earth meant that the horrors of the ecological disasters inflicted by European technology over the last 200 years were “derived” from Judaism or Christianity–ignoring the clear point that the Bible, in its complete text, exhorts mankind to act as stewards of the Earth, not merely masters of it. If you believe that the Bible, in the story of Noah and Ham, authorized Europeans to subject the peoples of Africa, then you can say that Social Darwinism was “derived” from Natural Selection.
If you are able to distinguish between what any human is capable of doing with any idea and where scientific theories actually produce results in the world, then you will recognize that Social Darwinism has no more connection to Natural Selection than a mis-applied name, based on the friendship of two people.
One problem with social Darwinism is that while its proponents claimed it was, well, based on Darwinism, it left out a big piece – cooperation. Animals in nature cooperate. Social Darwinism didn’t like that part.
There is a new little book out called, A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation, by Peter Singer. In it, he makes the case that the political left should drop socialism and similar causes and pick up with Darwinism, which had generally been thought of as a tool of the right wing, capitalistic types. He makes the point about cooperation and also discusses how evolution can allow us to understand that some things in human nature aren’t going to change, and so the left shouldn’t base their politics on pie-in-the-sky ideas that will never work.
Wow I really touched a nerve here, eh? Okay, so the basis of Social Evolutio was taken out of context from the theories Darwin put forth. Socia Darwinism is stupid enough to be some of the basis of modern books such as “the Bell Curve”.
I was not aware that social darwinism was the basis of “The Bell Curve.”
On what do you base that statement? Are you confusing social darwinism with the claim of a partial genetic basis for intelligence, and variation amongst humans of the same?
According to some critics, The Bell Curve teaches us to learn to live with inequality; there is no way to change it nor help change. Similar to certain aspects of social darwinism, no?
“Herrnstein and Murray bluntly call upon us to learn–or, rather, relearn–to live with inequality. God bless them for it. But we dare not forget that it is inequality among individuals that remains the issue. It will take a maximum effort to bring a high-spirited American people, whose virtues do not include a readiness to accept authority or limits on what men may accomplish in this world, to a realistic appraisal of the narrow range within which it is sensible to speak of equality.”
**
capacitor
**
We all agree that social Darwinism is bad. Linking social Darwinism with evolution is like linking a cat fish with a cat they only share the name. Yes I agree that science has been use for backing evil things but so was regigion used to back the witch hunts.
It is also similar to the rhetoric spouted by Prefessional Wrestlers. So?
The Bell Curve is no longer an issue nor is it considered validation for discrimination. The authors put too much reliance on IQ tests, and neglected the fact that in-group variances are not directly mappable or expandable to explain between-group differences. The best that they did was to show that members of the same socio-economic group which writes IQ tests tend to do better than members of other groups.
If I recall correstly, Hernstein and Murray’s work was not published in the journals, but rather in the popular press. Your quote is from the National Review, and I don’t believe that National Review is a peer-reviewed journal. As such, it can be interesting to read but is hardly an indicator of what “science” says on a subject.
You really must be more careful to distinguish between what “Science” says and what individual lpeople (who may be scientists) say. Individuals have the God-given right to be mind-grogglingly wrong about most everything; a statement or interpretation doesn’t become “science” until we have all had a chance to tear it to shreds. If it is still standing after the journals are through with it, then it may have some merit. The Bell Curve did not even begin to compete.
The Bell Curve is in no way related to social darwinism, or Evolution. Actually, the science in it was attacked primarily becuase it was percieved as rascist. I have no problem believing that one race, on the average, might be a few, almost non-significant % IQ points above or below another, just like one race is taller, and another is better at say, running. Using that as an excuse for rascism, is- well, rascist. Becuase it is such a minor variation, that it cannot be applied to individuals. Even if, say- Asians, were 5 IQ % pts above whites, that does not mean any given Asian is any smarter than any given white. Just becuase Blacks are, on the average, it does not mean that a pygmy is taller than a Chinese basketball player.
And capacitor, it is meaningless what pseudo-scientific claptrap is used to excuse whatever, as these conditions have been around before there was civilization, and will be around after our grandkids are all gone. The ‘excuse’, no matter what it is, did not & does not increase the rascism. Remember, the Bible is used to justify slavery, sexism, and genocide. That does not diminish the Bible as a great book, instead it diminishes those who misuse it.