Educated beyond his intelligence like Blair and Cameron (bring back grammar schools and rid us of these people), Oliver Kamm accuses me of being a creationist for pointing out that the theory of the survival of the fittest is tautologous, since the only way to spot the fittest is that they are the ones that survive.
In fact, this rather obvious observation appears in every textbook on the philosophy of science. I myself first encountered it in a book edited by A C Grayling.
"Survival of the fittest" is not a proposition about science. Evolution is, but "survival of the fittest" isn't. It is philosophical, a product of Darwin's and his early supporters' culture. And in those terms, it is drivel, and very dangerous drivel at that.
If you don't believe me, then ask A C Grayling.
Or just think about it. If you can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Survival of the fittest" is not a proposition about science. Evolution is
ReplyDeleteEr... no it isn't, because the term "proposition" implies that it's either true or false. The overwhelming volume of evidence in support of Darwin's theory of evolution makes that statement untenable.
Or rather, in order to demonstrate that it's a "proposition", you're going to have to challenge this evidence, which involves overturning a century and a half of scientific investigation and convincingly explaining why just about every scientist working in the field of biology is so tragically misguided.
Whether or not your alternative is the usual creationist viewpoint (essentially, "a magical sky-fairy did it") or something else entirely, you're also going to have to come up with supporting evidence that stands up to independent scrutiny.
Call me a sceptic, but since your postgrad degree was in English Literature, I'm not going to be holding my breath.
It wasn't.
ReplyDeleteEvolution was a proposition when Darwin first proposed it. A scientific proposition, which stands up in scientific terms.
"The survival of the fittest", by contrast, is a philosophical proposition. A tautologous (and deeply dangerous) philosophical proposition. As anyone who has ever read any philosophy of science will tell you.
Oh dear, Mr Numismatist appears to be a Dawkinsite.
ReplyDeleteDawkins, Mr Numismatist, is not a scientist. He is a bad historian of science (there are a lot of them about) and an extremely bad philosopher of science.
His PhD is somewhere between 30 and 40 years old, and he doesn't seem to have published a word of science since then. What he does publish is in other fields in which he manifestly a hopeless incompetent.
David, you posted once about how Christianity created the intellectual climate that made possible the rise of science. Any chance of reprising it?
Kamm doesn't know what a tautology is, and Mr Numistatist doesn't know what a proposition is.
ReplyDeleteScientists complain about being under-represented among decision-makers and opinion-formers. Perhaps that is because so many scientists clearly have almost no general education. Which brings us back to Dawkins.
Be fair, R. As Anonymous points out, Dawkins isn't really a scientist at all.
ReplyDeleteDarwin's only degree was a pass degree in Theology. Think on that.
Anonymous: Oh dear, Mr Numismatist appears to be a Dawkinsite.
ReplyDeleteSince I expressed no opinion on Dawkins, either in this thread or anywhere else, I'm not entirely clear why you'd come to that conclusion.
Then again, David Lindsay is inordinately fond of trying to cram people into ill-fitting pigeonholes, regardless of the level of painful chafing, so I suppose it's in keeping with the general tenor of this blog.
Dawkins, Mr Numismatist, is not a scientist. He is a bad historian of science (there are a lot of them about) and an extremely bad philosopher of science.
But since I didn't mention Dawkins in the first place, or even refer to him obliquely in passing, why is this relevant?
David Lindsay: Evolution was a proposition when Darwin first proposed it. A scientific proposition, which stands up in scientific terms.
Oh, I'm quite prepared to accept that evolution was a proposition. The problem is, you used the present tense, as if to imply that it's still just as controversial today. You might wish to believe that for whatever personal reasons, but the evidence says otherwise.
And on the subject of tautology, would you care to respond to this?
I hate (and I really do hate with a passion) to have to agree with Coulter, but she is right, if totally unoriginal, about this.
ReplyDeleteNot that it matters, because "the survival of the fittest" is not about science. It is about philosophy. And it is philosophically worthless. (The author of this piece refers to his "freshman biology". So what?)
However, it really does function as a creation myth. And I'm afraid that secular liberals are among the nicer people for whom it so functions.