Butler argument had been that everything that Darwin has written has been said before. He attacked Darwin on many points as I discussed in an earlier post, but I would like to concentrate on his theories of Use and Disuse. Butler made the point that Evolution was not necessarily Darwinism. Darwinism included evolution but not vice versa. The theory of use and disuse was first proposed by Lamarck where he used their example of the giraffe. Lamarck also included in his theory spontaneous variation. Butler argued that there was little difference in the theories of Darwin and Lamarck except for the amount of influence of each part.
Lamarck believed that Use and Disuse was the primary means of evolution with a small part of it being due to spontaneous variation, whereas Darwin said spontaneous variation is the main reason behind Variation with use and disuse being secondary. This is not a small difference in the theory. It actually is a completely different theory and way of thinking compared to Lamarck. Darwin knew that Lamarck's Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics was wrong. We now know this because of experiments. We now know that changes that happened in an animals life aren’t passed on to there offspring. If you were to cut the tail off a dog like a Rottweiler, the offspring of the dog would still have a tail. We also now know that traits can only be passed on through genes, and genes cannot be affected by the environment. These and other examples show that Lamarck's theory does not explain evolution correctly. Lamarck has the pieces of the puzzle but he just couldn’t put it together. Darwin did and for that reason he is credited for his theories of evolution.
Showing posts with label Samuel Butler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel Butler. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Butler on Darwin
“The Deadlock of Darwin” by Samuel Butler takes the approach of the Intellectual critique of Charles Darwin and his work. To understand this critique I believe that you must know a little about the past history between Darwin and Butler. Butler had tried to contact Darwin numerous times to discuss some issues he had with The Origin of Species. Darwin did not reply to his critiques so Butler decides to write extensively about Darwin and his work. Without committing the genetic fallacy I think it’s still important to know a little bit about Butler’s motivation to write about Darwin.
Butler was not a scientist so he took the path of critiquing Darwin from within. He did no counter research to disprove Darwin’s theories nor did he provide a counter theory. It was purely a rebuttal to his book. In today’s world of academics and science you would not be taken seriously in your rebuttal if you were not also a scientist or expert in the field that you are crituiqing. The whole purpose of peer reviewed journal is that your paper is reviewed by experts in the field that you’re writing about. You can’t be someone with no training or expertise in a subject and just criticize them. This may be ok for television or blogs but not in the academic world.
Nevertheless Butler produces a decent argument against Darwin at first glance. He goes on to make the point that Darwin has not come up with any of his own ideas. He states that Evolution and Natural selection were not his ideas and that, in essence he was being false with the claim that he came up with these theories and ideas. It seems a plausible argument until you realize that what Darwin did was more than just repeat what other scientist said. It’s true that a lot of the theories in the origin of species were known before Darwin, but Darwin had taken these theories and put them together in a concise clear manner that had not been done before. These theories were like dots on a blank page, what Darwin did is connect these dots to make the picture. This was the genius of Darwin’s work. Most scientist of his day had read the works of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and Buffon. Yet nobody at that time had been able to put the full picture together. Darwin did this and for that reason he will be remembered or credited with sharing these theories with the world.
Butler was not a scientist so he took the path of critiquing Darwin from within. He did no counter research to disprove Darwin’s theories nor did he provide a counter theory. It was purely a rebuttal to his book. In today’s world of academics and science you would not be taken seriously in your rebuttal if you were not also a scientist or expert in the field that you are crituiqing. The whole purpose of peer reviewed journal is that your paper is reviewed by experts in the field that you’re writing about. You can’t be someone with no training or expertise in a subject and just criticize them. This may be ok for television or blogs but not in the academic world.
Nevertheless Butler produces a decent argument against Darwin at first glance. He goes on to make the point that Darwin has not come up with any of his own ideas. He states that Evolution and Natural selection were not his ideas and that, in essence he was being false with the claim that he came up with these theories and ideas. It seems a plausible argument until you realize that what Darwin did was more than just repeat what other scientist said. It’s true that a lot of the theories in the origin of species were known before Darwin, but Darwin had taken these theories and put them together in a concise clear manner that had not been done before. These theories were like dots on a blank page, what Darwin did is connect these dots to make the picture. This was the genius of Darwin’s work. Most scientist of his day had read the works of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and Buffon. Yet nobody at that time had been able to put the full picture together. Darwin did this and for that reason he will be remembered or credited with sharing these theories with the world.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Darwin's rhetorical style: let others defend his ideas
In this week's lecture by Dr. Stephen Ogden, on 7 Oct 2010, we looked at Samuel Butler's essay The Deadlock in Darwinism which suggested Charles Darwin was a better rhetorician (and possibly an immoral one for allegedly claiming a theory he did not originate) than scientist. Dr. Ogden also detailed background information of how Butler's initial support of Darwin gave way to animosity when Butler failed to receive the positive response he craved from Darwin for his initially well-intended assistance.
In an article by John Angus Campbell entitled The Invisible Rhetorician: Darwin's "Third Party" Strategy, the author makes the point that rather than respond directly, Darwin habitually had his allies, (particularly his "inner guard" of Joseph Dalton Hooker, Charles Lyell, Asa Gray, and Thomas Henry Huxley) publicly defend the ideas he put forward in Origin - even when he philosophically disagreed with these men privately. As Samuel Butler writes it: "a powerful literary backing at once came forward to support him [Darwin]." Campbell describes Darwin as "a rhetorician in a distinct but complementary sense: his skill as the manager of his own campaign."
Campbell documents Darwin's correspondence with his "inner guard" to solicit their support of his doctrine. He wanted to win them over personally because, for example, "Lyell's public stature was so great that his hesitation would slow general acceptance, while his "conversion" would virtually spell victory." In addition to explicitly directing these four colleagues in how to respond to his troublesome critics, Darwin also had copies of their articles (if complimentary to Origin) republished, at his own expense, and sent to journals, critics, scientists, and clerics to bolster belief in his ideas. In this way, Darwin was able to indulge his "desire for action without compromising his appearance of being above the fray."
Darwin's tactics seem to have been to win detractors over by persuasion rather than combat: "While Darwin himself certainly used battle imagery, for every reference to battle in his letters, there are two to "conversion" ... When we consider that Darwin's "enemies" were also his friends [i.e. orthodox colleagues], even those of his own household [his religious wife], his dominant imagery is consistent with his rhetorical aim." Campbell makes the analogy: "Not Huxley's mythical battle between the scientific David and the religious Goliath, but the subtle diplomacy of Jacob versus Essau prepares us to grasp the kind of tactics Darwin used to convert his culture to his theory."
The article also provides some insight into Darwin's scientific philosophy:
Campbell quotes Darwin writing to Huxley (who "'accepted' Darwin's theory on the caveat that natural selection had not yet been confirmed experimentally") on the topic:
In an article by John Angus Campbell entitled The Invisible Rhetorician: Darwin's "Third Party" Strategy, the author makes the point that rather than respond directly, Darwin habitually had his allies, (particularly his "inner guard" of Joseph Dalton Hooker, Charles Lyell, Asa Gray, and Thomas Henry Huxley) publicly defend the ideas he put forward in Origin - even when he philosophically disagreed with these men privately. As Samuel Butler writes it: "a powerful literary backing at once came forward to support him [Darwin]." Campbell describes Darwin as "a rhetorician in a distinct but complementary sense: his skill as the manager of his own campaign."
Campbell documents Darwin's correspondence with his "inner guard" to solicit their support of his doctrine. He wanted to win them over personally because, for example, "Lyell's public stature was so great that his hesitation would slow general acceptance, while his "conversion" would virtually spell victory." In addition to explicitly directing these four colleagues in how to respond to his troublesome critics, Darwin also had copies of their articles (if complimentary to Origin) republished, at his own expense, and sent to journals, critics, scientists, and clerics to bolster belief in his ideas. In this way, Darwin was able to indulge his "desire for action without compromising his appearance of being above the fray."
Darwin's tactics seem to have been to win detractors over by persuasion rather than combat: "While Darwin himself certainly used battle imagery, for every reference to battle in his letters, there are two to "conversion" ... When we consider that Darwin's "enemies" were also his friends [i.e. orthodox colleagues], even those of his own household [his religious wife], his dominant imagery is consistent with his rhetorical aim." Campbell makes the analogy: "Not Huxley's mythical battle between the scientific David and the religious Goliath, but the subtle diplomacy of Jacob versus Essau prepares us to grasp the kind of tactics Darwin used to convert his culture to his theory."
The article also provides some insight into Darwin's scientific philosophy:
Darwin's empiricism was narratological; that is, he believed that the testable unit in science was less the isolated fact than the unified narrative. In Darwin's view, natural selection should be accepted, not because it could be proven experimentally but because it could bring greater coherence to larger bodies of facts than any other theory then available.
Campbell quotes Darwin writing to Huxley (who "'accepted' Darwin's theory on the caveat that natural selection had not yet been confirmed experimentally") on the topic:
You speak of finding a flaw in my hypothesis, and this shows you do not understand its nature. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts. My question is whether the rag is worth anything? I think by careful treatment I can carry in it my fruit to market for a short distance over a gentle road; but I fear you will give the poor rag such a devil of a shake that it will fall all to atoms: and a poor rag is better than nothing.
But even according to his personal & intellectual critic, Samuel Butler, the effect of Darwin's "poor rag" is influential and lasting. He writes that, unlike Darwin's evolutionary theory predecessors, who "did not bring people round to their opinion ... Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace did, and the public cannot be expected to look beyond this broad and indisputable fact."
Campbell's article shows Darwin's savvy ability not only to successfully write rhetorically in Origin, but also to draw attention and support for his ideas by persuading others to defend them on his behalf - though perhaps this tactic backfired with Samuel Butler, who might have been content to be Darwin's ardent fan, had he early on been offered the personal touch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)