: Right Floyd I've got a lecturer at Uni who is giving Darwinism a really bad name, you see he keeps treating the 'survival of the fitest' Harsh Spencerian Capitalist Social Darwinism as synominous with actual Darwinism, I wondered if you could give me any tips?Yes, lots of tips. I'll assume (although I may be wrong) that he's lecturing in the social sciences, rather than the biological sciences, correct? If so, hop over to the Uni library and check out R. C. Dunnell's (1989) article Aspects of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology in C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky's (ed) Archaeological Thought in America, and his (1988) The Concept of Progress in Cultural Evolution in M. Nitecki's (ed.) Evolutionary Progress, both of which which your library can probably special order if they're not on hand.
Dunnell's basic point in both of these (and a few other unpublished presentations) is that the popular conception of "Darwinism" tends to be akin to Spencer's "Social Darwinism," rather than real science. Darwin himself hated the term "survival of the fittest," and only used it under duress, and not before the 4th edition of "Origin." The connotations of the terms "descent with modification" and "differential persistence of beneficial traits" are much more consistent with Darwin's ideas. John Wilkins has also discussed this issue in his Evolution and Philosophy FAQ and in his Evolution and Metaphysics FAQ over at talkorigins, and anything by John is worth reading.
: I know about Kropotkins 'Mutual Aid a Factor in Evolution' but was that really closer to Darwins position than Spencer?
Well, Darwin DID live in Victorian England, and he was personally biased towards interpreting things in Victorian English terms, as were all upper class British landowners, however Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is perfectly consistent with Darwin's ideas. I wouldn't say that the competitive aspects were "more" or "less" consistent than cooperative aspects of the theory, both are valid in certain contexts. For instance, Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation, which I recommended in another post, explains how cooperative systems can become established and even be resistent to invasion by more competitive strategies. Whether cooperation or competition is going to survive as a stable strategy is determined in a large part by "environment" (sensu lato, including the strategies of other people).
: The only compromise the lecturer has made when contradicted was to admit that following the logic of 'survival of the fitest' people may choose to co-operate for mutual success or benefit or protection by reining in the conflict and competition by creating a system of law and order but I think this is still all very Spencer as opposed to Kropotkin, dont you?
Yes, very much so. One of the examples I use with my students, when they come in with the Spencerian "S. of the F." preconception is that there are still fuzzy bunnies and sparrows around, and if it was all about bloody warfare, you'd expect the bunnies to have been long-since wiped out and the saber toothed cats and velocoraptors to still be about.
A counter-thesis to his argument about a "system of law and order" being an evolutionarily stable strategy is, of course, classical Rome. Lots of laws, lots of order, but the system collapsed anyway (not, as is popularly believed, because of external pressures, but mainly because of internal instability). Besides, since when did laws "reign in" conflict and competition? They certainly don't do so over here, that's for damned certain!
: Besides I thought evolutionary theory was more a case of survival of the most capable 'odd ball' than a conscious struggle, isnt it?
Yes. "Fitness," in Darwinian terms, is simply a reference to differential reproduction. If you have more surviving children than other variants within your gene pool (or the cultural equivalent, more successful students than other theoreticians in your disciplinary "meme pool,") then you're fit. Obviously there is nothing necessarily conscious about this, since you can't control the environment that you children/students are likely to encounter. Besides, even if intentions had an influence (which, to a limited extent, they do) they can only be used as explanations if you're willing to postulate that people never, ever, make mistakes or make wrong predictions, which is clearly not a viable assumption.
: Another thing he was getting stuck into the British National Secular Society because he said, although I'll admit it was in a very blaise manner not that serious, they where promoting atheism, surely any sincere secularist is non-partisan enough not to promote any varient of theism, deism or atheism?
Certainly so. Agnosticism is, as I've said before, the only philosophical position for which there is sufficient evidence, (since its central postulate is that there is insufficient evidence, ;-) but I agree with you that avoiding promoting any specific theological or atheological position is a vital goal.
In any case, feel free to e-mail me at farchy@u.washington.edu and we can discuss this in more detail.
(Note, if anyone other than Lark is thinking of writing, especially if they're planning on trying to save my soul via email, don't bother. I won't respond politely, and probably won't respond at all. The ultimate disposition of my personal imortal soul is none of your damned business.) Talk to you soon, inshallah.
-Floyd
None.
