Darwin and responsibilty

The relationship of Darwinism to social darwinism is real, and recorded by many mainstream historians, including historians who are evolutionists.- some of the most influential Darwinist scientists such as Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Haeckel, Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, mixed social Darwinism into their work, and advocated some form of social darwinism in their works.- since it's conception natural selection theory has been questioned, and continues to be questioned by many reputable scientists / philosphers, on grounds of simple errors, prejudices, and valuejudgement inherent in various formulations of the theory. (the groupselective racial theories for instance) You can assert that natural selection is just knowledge and doesn't suffer from any of these errors, but it would be mistaken to define natural selection as not containing any of these errors.It would be a very bad mistake after the experience we had of a very well respected Darwinist pseudoscientist such as Heackel declaring to have put "the jewish question" on the political agenda, to once again simply assume that what is asserted as science is free of error and valuejudgement.What falls under the personal responsibility of Darwin are some questions about scientific rigour in formulating and expressing his theory, and really very farreaching judgementalism / moral theory in some of his work. (talking about what the highest state of morality is, talking about the "fall of man" as described by evolutionary theory, opinionating that people inferior should not marry, talking about colonization in terms of natural selection, etc. )regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The social darwinism more comes into play when Darwin discusses his theory in relation to human beings in "Descent of Man". You can find the moral theory I talked about in Descent of Man".Looking at the posts in this thread, it seems that all the standards of science are out the window when discussing a subject of history, or social science. The subject how Darwinism influenced intellectual climate of opinion.Hitler appears to have been a Christian of Jesus is greatest as a figher (against the Jews) in stead of greatest as a sufferer kind. His main belief appears to have been anti-semitism, and all his other beliefs subordinate and adapted to this anti-semitism. The main workingbeliefs of the Nazi's appear to have been social darwinism mixed into volkish philosophy, with a decidedly pseudoscientific bent:(K. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History)
"The message embodied
in these doctrines was unmistakable: any living organism is engaged in
a ceaseless struggle for existence and is doomed to extinction if it
does not fight. Nations, like individuals, are also engaged in a
ceaseless conflict in which only the fittest can hope to survive. The
fighting quality of a nation depends upon its racial purity and its
ability to breed the fittest specimens in the form of productive
workers, savage fighters, and charismatic leaders. Those who defile a
race of people Jews, Gypsies, Asiatic inferiors must be eliminated
through appropriate state measures. Of all the human racial stocks,
the Aryan race clearly represents the apex of human achievement; and
since Germany is the homeland of the Aryan race, the German people are
charged with a sacred mission to propagate the Aryan race and dominate
the world. Racial mongrelization, however, has gone so far that the
hour may be late indeed. Only state intervention can protect the Aryan
race from further infections by inferior races. In 1913 Eugen Fischer
boldly prophesied "with absolute certainty" that all Europeans would
become extinct unless governments, especially the German government,
developed and implemented a coherent racial policy. Adolf Hitler
provided that policy."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

About the fall of man, Darwin referencing someone writing in the newspaper."A writer in the Spectator (March 12, 1871, p. 320) comments as follows on this passage:- "Mr. Darwin finds himself compelled to reintroduce a new doctrine of the fall of man. He shews that the instincts of the higher animals are far nobler than the habits of savage races of men, and he finds himself, therefore, compelled to re-introduce,- in a form of the substantial orthodoxy of which he appears to be quite unconscious,- and to introduce as a scientific hypothesis the doctrine that man's gain of knowledge was the cause of a temporary but long-enduring moral deterioration as indicated by the many foul customs, especially as to marriage, of savage tribes. What does the Jewish tradition of the moral degeneration of man through his snatching at a knowledge forbidden him by his highest instinct assert beyond this?"You can find the rest of the quotes yourselves right? Right.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The quote is Darwin quoting someone in "Descent of Man".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

We don't need bloody lawyers to defend Darwinists scientists, we need impartial judges respecting the ideal of objectivity cleaning up Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It means you are acting like a lawyer defending Darwin's work, in stead of like an impartial judge concerned with the ideal of objectivity in science.The significant thing seems to be that Darwin intermixed racism in his theory. There were I'm sure many violently racist chemists, however they did not mix their racism into their works on chemistry. They did not advocate that people in any significant degree inferior should not marry in their work. They didn't carry newspaper comments about moral theory in their work.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, you are arguing assuming some kind of absolute purity of objectivity of knowledge, which doesn't exist. Pseudoscientific texts often start out with the assertion that "this is scientific", "this is objective", and throughout the text there are assurances, and reassurances about it. But these assurances are often based on nothing more then their say so. The objectivitity of a fact is a tentative justification based on some standards that support the ideal. I suggest you to judge the work of Darwin in terms of the ideal of objectivity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You can find Darwin's theory in the opening of "Descent of Man". from memory "Do the races or species of man, whichever term applies, encroach on and replace one another until some finally become extinct, just as with the lower animals?" So it is a malthusian encroachment theory in terms of groupselection. from memory "Extinction follows chiefly of competition of tribe with tribe and race with race" "when of two adjoining tribes one becomes weaker then the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism and absorption". So what are the main selective factors in the descendancy of man according to Darwin?Darwin had a few more vague principles in expressing natural selection, such as struggle for life / existence, perfection etc. There is of course much more to be said about objectivity in natural selection theory, such as the paper I referenced in another thread suggests modern natural selection theory still has valueladen illegitimate teleology.But regardless of that, how do you get from your formulation to quoting someone about the fall of man as a scientific doctrine? I can take all of what you said the wrong way. I can understand it as saying that yes indeed the fall of man is a scientific theory etc. And what of all the mentions of inferior and superior, low and high? Should that be understood as grades of complexity, or grades in value? Or should some mentions be understood as grades of complexity, and other mentions as grades in value?Where it becomes dubious is also where Darwin glosses over the power of choice of human beings. So the Australian aboriginal will certainly become extinct if there is one selective check slightly against it. The civilized races of man, will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races. Choice plays no role in Darwin's writing many times.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well as a matter of law I would favour Hitler's "Mein Kampf" being freely available, and not forbidden. But that I would allow it doesn't mean it can't cause any damage IMO. Besides I would only allow it in so far as the knowledge is not forced on people. If scientists would respect people's integrity of personal knowledge, the freedom to reject or accept any knowledge, then that would be a great step forward in my opinion. But many scientists don't respect this integrity of the individual, and even the law says that people have to hear some things, even if they don't want to.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

To force people to hear facts, is just bigotry in another disguise. Of course the facts they will teach are about the degeneration of the race in a situation where civilization constrains the workings of natural selection. Why with "absolute certainty" the well respected scientist Eugen Fischer announced that all European races would become extinct. So then supposedly we *must* all hear this, over and over, and over.This is still believed by many mainstream biologists by the way, that medicine is losing in a race against disease generated by increased spread of genetic mutation. That we don't hear so much about it is largely due to the history of the holocaust suppressing this idea of genetic detoriation.Anyway, you should be able to see now why it is better to have checkpoints at every individual to accept or reject anything, because of the possibility of having to deal with some very overexcited scientists and governments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Chiroptera:
"Now his theory of common descent by natural selection is a purely scientific theory. It is an objective explanation of observable phenomena, and makes definite predictions. It, itself, contains no hint of racism."You can't guarantee that the modern conception of natural selection doesn't have "illegitimate valueladen teleology", as in the paper I referenced in another thread.I can't see your opinion as anything other then shameless lawyering on behalf of Darwin, undermining the ideal of objectivity in science in the process. Assertions about "purely scientific" kill the ideal of objectivity IMO. Every theory has it's weaknesses in regards to objectivity. Even the force of gravity is now said not to exist, that it was just a subjective notion over the underlying reality of bending space or something.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Usually people excuse Darwin's mixing of valuejudgements into his work, by saying that it was the common practice of the time (eventhough actually Mendel's work of the same timeframe doesn't suffer from the same errors). But you on the other hand just make out as though how Darwin writes is the proper way to do science. That is why I say you undermine the ideal of objectivity in defending Darwin in the way you do.Science should be uniformly understandable, unlike religious texts which may contain deep wisdom in highly interpretative texts, saying much to many people with just a few words.What Darwin meant with civilized races exterminating savage races, what he meant with a hope for higher civilization then the white race, seems unclear to me. It seems to me he meant Western colonising will largely make natives in the colonies extinct, as he also talks about the extinction of the Maori's and Aboriginals elsewhere. The higher civilization could refer to higher technology, or maybe democracy and social laws, in stead of higher biological nature. But since in the same paragraph he refers to gorilla's being exterminated, who have no technology to speak of, it seems like he is referring to higher biological nature, for the paragraph to be consistent.Now give me your "correct" reading of the passage.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I can find something in the passage that indicates that Darwin approves of the decimation of savage races, namely his expressed hope for higher. In any case, why this passage is wrong in the first place, is not because of that, but because of proclaiming certainty ("will almost certainly" "no doubt") over issues which properly fall into the domain of human choices. Imagine the problems of politicians having to deal with issues such as this, when the scientists proclaim the outcome is almost a certainty already.Darwin's morality as expressed in "Descent of Man" is some sort of rational selfishness. It runs parallel to Christian notions (as he also quotes the commentary about the Fall of Man, parallel to Christianity) that if you help someone else then your soul becomes better. So your purpose in helping is not to improve the fate of someone else, but to improve your own fate. The soul is replaced with higher parts of human nature in Darwin's moral doctrine, including sensitivity, tenderness and sympathy. The proper benefit of this tenderness etc. is probably something like the pursuit of science and arts, and the side-effect of this sensitivity is to help the "lower" people. Darwin theorizes that you can't check your sympathies to not help the "lower", because that would kill your sympathies alltogether, so you also wouldn't be able to have sympathy in places where it is "proper".Also, in other passages of the book, it describes the kind of totalitarian (Nazi) tribal society, as being very low on the scale of human societal evolution, as being savage.So you can argue that in fact Darwin's book is an argument against eugenics, against totalitairianism etc. But I think the more significant point is that he makes up some sort of pseudosscientific racist religion. There are sects in this religion with differing opinion, some softer, some harder, but I believe the point is that it is basicly a pseudoscientific racist religion. Religions such as that will naturally degenerate towards more cruel versions of themselves, as the effects of the religion permeate throughout society, and the religion is changed by personal experiences. (in this light you might consider what will happen when depressed and otherwise mentally ill people get indoctrinated with an evopsych worldview, how they will change such a worldview).That Darwin is against eugenics because it would destroy the higher part of human nature, doesn't stop him from saying that people in any significant degree inferior shouldn't marry. It doesn't stop him from hoping for a higher state of civilization, in a passage about the organic chain of man and his nearest allies. It is a particular sect of pseudoscientific racist religion, largely influenced by Christianity, but it is that all the same.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you may find the repetition stems from just seeking arguments to defend Darwin, in stead of exploring Darwin's work in respect to the ideal of objectivity. The reality of the complexities of objectivity and subjectivity in Darwin's work do not coincde with your simplistic notions of objectivity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu