[lit-ideas] Re: Grice on Darwin (Was: Popper on Darwin)
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
Lennox is lecturing on Darwin, against Popper, as an 'inductivist'.
Palma thinks he means 'abductivist', since Darwin was a 'heuristic
reasoner'.
McEvoy criticised Omar K.'s reference to MANDEL having confirmed Darwin's
induction about the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
And then there's the usual implicature of a tautology arrived at
deductively - as in "Either he will, or he won't".
Darwin's Untimely Burial by Stephen Jay Gould
Evolution and Philosophy: A Good Tautology is Hard to Find by John
Wilkins, part of the talk.origins archive.
CA500: "Survival of the fittest is a tautology" from the talk.origins
index to creationist claims by Mark Ridley.
Is "survival of the fittest" a tautology by Don Lindsay.
Darwin's Great Tautology by the Doubting Thomas
----
In a message dated 5/29/2013 9:30:36 A.M. UTC-02,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
It is hardly adequate to meet a request for fleshing out the supposed
"inductive" character of Darwin's theory by making assertions like "Darwinian
theory is inductive in various important respects" - the point was to
specify them, or at least one of them.
Touché, as they say.
I should consult with Wikipedia, on Darwin, and check if there is a
rudimentary diagram (or diagramme) of the basic Darwin tenets and provide
inductive reasoning patterns to support each of them.
A NON-inductive claim seems to be Darwinian famous,
-- The fittest survives.
which seems analtically a priori, rather -- or as Grice would say, "a
tautology -- even if not a patent one". More below.
But the fact that Darwin sometimes reasoned _deductively_ (as when he
claimed to conclude, "the fittest survives") sometimes he did rely on
induction.
Note that in his manuscripts he observes flowers, stones, animals (he was
a naturalist). The pattern is:
"This flower f-1 has characteristic c-1"
"This flower f-2 has chracteristic c-2" (which is comparable to 'c-1' as
had by f-1)
'This flower f-3..'
and so on.
From them, the 'inductive leap' (unlike deductive reasoners, inductive
reasoners _leap_):
"All flowers f have characteristic c".
Cheers,
Speranza
---
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory,
as an alternative description of natural selection. The phrase is today
commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as
intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert
Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On
the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he
drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones,
writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to
express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural
selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a
synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species,
published in 1869."
"Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local
environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape"".
"Hence, it is not a scientific description"
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern
biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural
selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to
differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis.
"Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First,
survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has
specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular
culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential
reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically
fit" –
bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers
to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.
An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the
fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social
Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any
individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will
contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones,
though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than
others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of
the fit enough".
"Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while
direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and
species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force
in
the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles
and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty
ecological niches.[8] In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental and
biological change, the factor determining survival is often not superiority
over another in competition but ability to survive dramatic changes in
environmental conditions, such as after a meteor impact energetic enough to
greatly change the environment globally. The main land dwelling animals to
survive the K-T impact 65 million years ago had the ability to live in
underground tunnels, for example.
Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival
of those who are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology.
What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment" by
differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in
changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an
independent criterion of fitness.[4]
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase — after reading Charles Darwin's On
the Origin of Species — in his Principles of Biology of 1864[9] in which he
drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin's biological,
evolutionary ones, writing, “This survival of the fittest, which I have here
sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called
'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for
life."
In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin used the
phrase "natural selection"."
"Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for
life,
of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or
instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well
expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural
selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious
choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity". Darwin
agreed
with Alfred Russel Wallace that this new phrase — "survival of the fittest"
— avoided the troublesome anthropomorphism of "selecting", though it "lost
the analogy between nature's selection and the fanciers'". In Chapter 4 of
the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[2] Darwin implies again
the synonym: "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest"."
"By the word "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for immediate, local
environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape"
(think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete)."
"In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing "I have called
this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,
by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power
of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the
Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient.""
"In The Man Versus The State, Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to
justify a plausible explanation for why his theories would not be adopted by
"societies of militant type". He uses the term in the context of societies
at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a
general principle."
"Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes
characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a
loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever".
Herbert Spencer is credited with starting the concept of Social Darwinism.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" has become widely used in popular
literature as a catchphrase for any topic related or analogous to evolution and
natural selection. It has thus been applied to principles of unrestrained
competition, and it has been used extensively by both proponents and
opponents of Social Darwinism. Its shortcomings as a description of Darwinian
evolution have also become more apparent (see below).
Evolutionary biologists criticize how the term is used by non-scientists
and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The
phrase also does not help in conveying the complex nature of natural
selection, so modern biologists prefer and almost exclusively use the term
natural selection. Indeed, in modern biology, the term fitness mostly refers
to
reproductive success, and is not explicit about the specific ways in which
organisms can be "fit" as in "having phenotypic characteristics which
enhance survival and reproduction" (which was the meaning that Spencer had in
mind).
In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is little evidence that intrinsic,
biological factors such as competition have been the driving force in the
evolution of large groups. Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors
such as expansion as the driving factor on a large evolutionary scale. The
rise of dominant groups such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds
occurred by opportunistic expansion into empty ecological niches and the
extinction of groups happened due to large shifts in the abiotic
environment.[8]
Is "survival of the fittest" a tautology, as Grice claims?
"Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology, by Grice
and his followers -- called "Griceians" or "Griceans"..
"The reasoning is that if one takes the term "fit" to mean, in English,
"endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and
reproduction" (which is roughly how Spencer understood it), then "survival
of the fittest" can simply be rewritten as "survival of those who are
better equipped for surviving"".
"Still, it can _implicate_ something different". Grice's example here was
George Formby's film, 'Get Fit'.
"Furthermore, the expression, 'survival of the fittest' does become a
tautology if one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in
modern
biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of
characters conducive to this reproductive success)."
"This reasoning, which is deductive in nature, is sometimes used to claim
that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is
fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power."
"However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and
out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural
selection."
"The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural
selection, namely the requirement of heritability."
"It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is
a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction."
"Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success that
is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection)."
"If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of
survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by
definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and
reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely
what is called "evolution by natural selection." On the other hand, if the
characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable,
then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not:
if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not
heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in
frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply
state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states
that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable
characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This
statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that
such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that
has been amply confirmed.)"
"Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Dr. Michael Shermer
addresses this argument in his 1997 book, Why People Believe Weird Things,
in which he points out that although tautologies are sometimes the
beginning of science, they are never the end, and that scientific principles
like
natural selection are testable and falsifiable by virtue of their
predictive power. Shermer points out, as an example, that population genetics
accurately demonstrate when natural selection will and will not effect change
on
a population. Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in
the same geological strata as trilobites, it would be evidence against
natural selection."
"Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a
justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the
strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[16] However,
any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a
naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as
prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive
premises.
Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It
is also suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak
badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour — cooperating
with others and treating them well — might improve evolutionary
fitness.[17][18] This however does not resolve the is-ought problem."
"It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in
biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept
that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social
Darwinism" which at times were used to justify laissez-faire economics, war
and
racism. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas,
and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while
commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The
term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a
term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought
published in 1944."
"Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the
fittest" as supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out his analysis leading to the
conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the best at competing
individually, but often the community made up of those best at working
together. He
concluded that in the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of
species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms
for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense
— not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle
against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal
species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest
limits,
and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are
invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to
further progress."
"Applying this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as
one of the dominant factors of evolution, the other being self-assertion,
and concluded that in the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to
the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted
origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical
progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle – has had the leading
part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best
guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race."
References
1.^ a b "Letter 5140 — Wallace, A. R. to Darwin, C. R., 2 July 1866".
Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 2010-01-12.
"Letter 5145 — Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., 5 July (1866)". Darwin
Correspondence Project. Retrieved 2010-01-12.
^ "Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444,
wrote: 'This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in
mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called "natural selection",
or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.'" Maurice
E. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy, retrieved 2007-08-29, citing
HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac. 2002.)
2.^ a b Freeman, R. B. (1977), "On the Origin of Species", The Works of
Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (2nd ed.), Cannon
House, Folkestone, Kent, England: Wm Dawson & Sons Ltd
3.^ a b "This preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction
of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of the
Fittest." — Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life (5th ed.), London: John Murray, pp. 91–92, retrieved 2009-02-22
4.^ a b c "Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Untimely Burial", 1976; from
Michael Ruse, ed., Philosophy of Biology, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998,
pp.
93-98.
5.^ "Evolutionary biologists customarily employ the metaphor 'survival of
the fittest,' which has a precise meaning in the context of mathematical
population genetics, as a shorthand expression when describing evolutionary
processes." Chew, Matthew K.; Laubichler, Manfred D. (July 4, 2003),
"PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE: Natural Enemies — Metaphor or Misconception?",
Science
301 (5629): 52–53, doi:10.1126/science.1085274, PMID 12846231, retrieved
2008-03-20
6.^ Colby, Chris (1996-1997), Introduction to Evolutionary Biology,
TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 2009-02-22
7.^ Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Eugenie Carol Scott,
University of California Press, 2005, ISBN 0-520-23391-3
8.^ a b Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. and Ferry, P.A. (2010), "Links between
global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of
vertebrates on land" (PDF), Biology Letters 6 (4): 544–547,
doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024, PMC 2936204, PMID 20106856.
9.^ Vol. 1, p. 444
10.^ U. Kutschera (March 14, 2003), A Comparative Analysis of the
Darwin-Wallace Papers and the Development of the Concept of Natural Selection,
Institut für Biologie, Universität Kassel, Germany, archived from the original
on 2008-04-14, retrieved 2008-03-20
11.^ Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
(5th ed.), London: John Murray, p. 72, retrieved 2009-02-22
12.^ The principle of natural selection applied to groups of individual is
known as Group selection.
13.^ Herbert Spencer; Truxton Beale (1916), The Man Versus the State: A
Collection of Essays, M. Kennerley (snippet)
14.^ Michael Anthony Corey (1994), "Chapter 5. Natural Selection", Back to
Darwin: the scientific case for Deistic evolution, Rowman and Littlefield,
p. 147, ISBN 978-0-8191-9307-0
15.^ Shermer, Michael; Why People Believe Weird Things; 1997; Pages 143-144
16.^ Alan Keyes (July 7, 2001), WorldNetDaily: Survival of the fittest?,
WorldNetDaily, retrieved 2007-11-19
17.^ Mark Isaak (2004), CA002: Survival of the fittest implies might makes
right, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 2007-11-19
18.^ a b John S. Wilkins (1997), Evolution and Philosophy: Social
Darwinism – Does evolution make might right?, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved
2007-11-21
19.^ Leonard, Thomas C. (2005), "Mistaking Eugenics for Social Darwinism:
Why Eugenics is Missing from the History of American Economics", History of
Political Economy 37 (supplement:): 200–233,
doi:10.1215/00182702-37-Suppl_1-200
----
Darwin's Untimely Burial by Stephen Jay Gould
Evolution and Philosophy: A Good Tautology is Hard to Find by John
Wilkins, part of the talk.origins archive.
CA500: "Survival of the fittest is a tautology" from the talk.origins
index to creationist claims by Mark Ridley.
Is "survival of the fittest" a tautology by Don Lindsay.
Darwin's Great Tautology by the Doubting Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
