Science Books Communists should read

[bailey_187]

I'm making this book because i want some recomendations (please) but i may as well make some of my own too

Natalie Angier - The Canon: The buetiful basic of Science
What i am reading now, quite a good introduction to basic parts of science, written in an entertaining way

Ardea Skybreak - Of Primeval Steps & Future leaps
I suppose this could be called more anthropological maybe, but it includes some good bits on evolution

Ardea Skybreak - The Science of Evolution

Richard C. Lewontin - Biology Under the Influence: Dialectical Essays on the Coevolution of Nature and Society (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biology-Under-Influence-Dialectical-Coevolution/dp/1583671579/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I8IXR1Z38T7AY&colid=1HJQV9XV4BW1B)

Kenneth Camron - Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science

No Author named - China: Science walks on two legs
Fairly interesting book on Science in Maoist China

Books dont necesary have to be from or have anything to do with Marxism/Communism, just books that you feel are important to be read by Marxist/Communists to understand Science

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Books dont necesary have to be from or have anything to do with Marxism/Communism, just books that you feel are important to be read by Marxist/Communists to understand Science

Well since you asked, I would strongly recommend Richard Dawkin's books on evolution and development. I'm currently re-reading River Out Of Eden, but I have also read The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

Continuing in the evolution vein, Daniel C. Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea is another good one, as it also deals with the philosophical implications of Darwin's idea which may also have repercussions for other areas of science.

For what I feel to be a much-needed change from usually human-centred views of biology, Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan offers a different vision of life on Earth; that of a collusion between countless tiny microbes.

Moving onto physics, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin discusses three main possibilities for a "unified theory" of physics. He also wrote The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, which is an interesting and slightly disturbing analysis of the dominance of string theory in theoretical physics.

Michio Kaku writes some very readable books, but I'm not sure about the quality of the science, so it is with some hesitation that I recommend Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century and Beyond, which I think is his strongest work, and his two other, weaker works that I have read; Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension and Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos. Another book of his is Physics of the Impossible, which is fun to read if nothing else.

By far the most comprehensive introduction to string theory/M-theory/what have you is F. David Peat's Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything, but I must warn you that it can be very hard going.

Oh, just thought of a couple of others: The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, and The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. The Naked Ape in particular greatly changed my perception of my own species.

[Spencer]

You might like to look at:

The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (In fact anything by Gould)
Not In Our Genes by Lewontin, Rose and Kamin
The Pure Society by Andre Pichot

They all deal with issues around eugenics, intelligence testing and scientific racism, that kind of thing.

Also depending on whether or not you're a complete beginner physics wise, maybe check out Feynman's lectures in 'Six Easy Pieces' and 'Six Not-So-Easy Pieces'.

[Devrim]

Richard Dawkins-The Selfish Gene. In my opinion probaly the best explanation of modern evolutionary theory.

Devrim

[bricolage]

Do communists need to read different science book from non-communists?

[bailey_187]

Do communists need to read different science book from non-communists?

No not really. But Communism is meant to be a scientific world view, so what science books should Communists read to be literate in Science.

[bailey_187]

Richard Dawkins-The Selfish Gene. In my opinion probaly the best explanation of modern evolutionary theory.

Devrim

I know Dawkins isnt saying people are prone to be selfish in this book, but i read many Marxist scientists like Lewonitz and Gould criticised it and other Marxists like Ted Grant did. Why is this, do you know?

[bailey_187]

What books are a good history of science? Im looking for ones that are fairly easy to read concerning the theories please

[Devrim]

I know Dawkins isnt saying people are prone to be selfish in this book, but i read many Marxist scientists like Lewonitz and Gould criticised it and other Marxists like Ted Grant did. Why is this, do you know?

I think that a lot of people who criticised it didn't actually read the book. Obviously Gould, and Co did, but Dawkins accuses them of building a straw man and attacking things that he didn't say.

I can't link to Dawkins site for his arguments, as it is banned in this country, but here is a pdf version of his review of the book, 'Not in our genes'.

I think that one of the problems with the attacks on it, was that people attacked it because they didn't like the ideas it contained, or that they thought it contained.

At the moment, the Neo-Darwinist Synthesis (i.e. Dawkins line) is the mainstream view of evolutionary biology. If it is to be discredited, it must be done on a scientific basis, and not because people don't like its implications.

Personally, I don't find any conflict between it and my political beliefs.

Devrim

[Joe_Germinal]

Do communists need to read different science book from non-communists?

Yes and no. Certainly, communists should keep up with the mainstream scientific literature as it represents our society's best attempt at a reliable account natural reality. We must keep in mind, however, that science--like any other human pursuit--is not isolated from the class system. Scientists in capitalist societies often have their research programs dictated or partially dictated by the demands of the bourgeoisie which funds almost all scientific pursuit.

I'd recommend reading Boris Hessen's oldie but goodie The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's Principia. Hessen makes an excellent case that Newton's work, as well as much of 17th century science, was a response to the industrial, military, and ideological problems of the rising bourgeoisie. In Hessen's words, Newton "was a typical child of the class compromise of 1688."

Indeed, much of the criticism that Lewontin, Gould, et al. have of Dawkins and the gene-centered view of evolution concerns the bourgeois ideological assumptions underlying the science. Lewontin's Biology as Ideology is an excellent rebuke to the contemporary cult of DNA.

Of course, I'd also recommend Dialectics of Nature Engel's brilliant, unfinished attempt at a dialectical materialist approach to scientific knowledge. J.D. Bernal's Science in History is fine attempt at writing a generalist history of science from a materialist perspective. Jerome Ravetz also did some excellent work on science from a materialist perspective in the 1970s in his book Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems.

I'd also recommend a collection of essays edited by Sandra Harding called The Racial Economy of Science as an introduction to the problem of scientific racism.

I think its important for the Left to maintain an independent and critical attitude towards bourgeois science, accepting and lauding its best work while ruthlessly critiquing its many failings. Only in this way can the proletariat prepare itself for the moment when it is in control and will need to carryout scientific research for itself not just in the science of Marxism but in all sciences.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


Richard C. Lewontin - Biology Under the Influence: Dialectical Essays on the Coevolution of Nature and Society

Kenneth Camron - Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science

These two books commit all the usual mistakes (Cameron even denies the law of the negation of the negation!), exposed at this site and at my site. Links to RevLeft threads where I (and others) have done this can be found here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

Comrades can read a letter a supporter of my site sent to Socialist Review about Lewontin's book (which was not published), here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/SR_Letter_001.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joe Germinal:


I'd recommend reading Boris Hessen's oldie but goodie The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's Principia. Hessen makes an excellent case that Newton's work, as well as much of 17th century science, was a response to the industrial, military, and ideological problems of the rising bourgeoisie. In Hessen's words, Newton "was a typical child of the class compromise of 1688."

Well, Hessen was murdered by the Stalinist regime soon after this paper was written (as was Bukharin, too, who organised the conference where it was presented) for his 'adventurous' ideas, but this essay is just a series of dogmatic assertions backed-up with no evidence at all.

On Hessen:

Graham, L. (1985), 'The Socio-Political Roots Of Boris Hessen', Social Studies of Science 15, pp.705-22.

Three far better Marxist books are:

Freudenthal, G. (1986), Atom And Individual In The Age Of Newton. On The Genesis Of The Mechanistic World View (Reidel).

Hadden, R. (1994), On The Shoulders Of Merchants (State University of New York Press).

Conner, C. (2005), A People's History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And "Low Mechanicks" (Nation Books).

The best book on the philosophy of science written from a Marxist angle is:

Miller, R. (1987), Fact And Method (Princeton University Press).


Of course, I'd also recommend Dialectics of Nature Engel's brilliant, unfinished attempt at a dialectical materialist approach to scientific knowledge.

This is one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist; it has been taken apart at RevLeft many times, and in detail at my site:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

I sent a letter to the International Socialist Review on this; a comrade attempted to reply to me. You can read the exchange, and my reply to his reply (which was not published) here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Engels_and_mickey_mouse_science.htm


I think its important for the Left to maintain an independent and critical attitude towards bourgeois science, accepting and lauding its best work while ruthlessly critiquing its many failings. Only in this way can the proletariat prepare itself for the moment when it is in control and will need to carryout scientific research for itself not just in the science of Marxism but in all sciences.

Can we extend this critical stance to dialectics -- a 'theory' not worthy of the name, and one which betrays its mystical roots in Hermetic philosophy (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/glenn_magee.htm)? Historical materialism does not need it; indeed, the latter's scientific status is compromised by it.

[black magick hustla]

The idea of "bourgeois science" is a stalinist idea. Landau almost got murdered.

I think there are some things marxists can criticize about things scientists say. For example, scientists sometimes switch from science to pseudo-philosophy, like a lot of the garbage (realist) interpretations scientists give to some of the most esoteric fields of physics. I suspect this is not what you mean though.

Especially when you cite Dialectics of Nature. Man, that is the worst book ever. I dont think it can even pass as philosophy.

[bailey_187]

The idea of "bourgeois science" is a stalinist idea.

As someone considered a "Stalinist", i have to agree that it was and is a bad idea. This kind of thinking led us to Lysenko, rejecting Einstein etc, something i dont think we should repeat.

[Joe_Germinal]

Well, Hessen was murdered by the Stalinist regime soon after this paper was written (as was Bukharin, too, who organised the conference where it was presented) for his 'adventurous' ideas, but this essay is just a series of dogmatic assertions backed-up with no evidence at all.

On Hessen:

Graham, L. (1985), 'The Socio-Political Roots Of Boris Hessen', Social Studies of Science 15, pp.705-22.

Have you any specific criticisms of Hessen, or are you content in denouncing him with a single sentence and a reference to a paper which makes no attempt whatsoever to contest even a single one of Hessen's claims?



I sent a letter to the International Socialist Review on this; a comrade attempted to reply to me. You can read the exchange, and my reply to his reply (which was not published) here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Engels_and_mickey_mouse_science.htm

Your letters do an excellent job of arguing that there are a great many anomalies which contradict Engels' theory. What I have trouble finding in your argument is a general epistemological statement about what exactly such anomalies mean for a scientific theory. Imre Lakatos pointed out, correctly, that "so-called 'refutations' are not the hallmark of empirical failure . . . since all programmes grow in a permanent ocean of anomalies," viz. the existence of anomalous findings cannot be our criteria for rejecting a scientific theory, for if it were, all scientific theories would have to be rejected.

The question, it seems to me, is not whether Engels or anyone else has constructed a powerful scientific heuristic capable of being a guide to action in future scientific endeavor. I believe he has; however, that is difficult for me to prove, because while the bourgeoisie control nearly the entire the means of scientific production, their scientific pursuits are bound to be better developed than those of the proletariat. This shouldn't shock anybody familiar with the history of science. The whole amazing story of the development of modern science is but a subplot in the larger epic of the development of the modern bourgeoisie. To take but one example, it is not merely a coincidence that the death throws of alchemy begin around the time the of the execution of a British monarch and end 150 years later around the time of the execution of a French monarch.

Still, despite the scientific underdevelopment of the proletariat, dialectical materialism has enjoyed a number of successes as a guide to scientific research. In the west, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an excellent example. Soviet science had many regrettable failures; however, in that country became one of the most scientifically successful in the world. Indeed, despite a revisionist leadership and creeping capitalist restoration, Chinese science has become known for its startling and unforeseen discoveries. Indeed, in the discipline of Dialectics of Nature, three Chinese journals stand out as producing amazing results, far advanced from Engels' original contribution although still guided by it, The Journal of the Dialectics of Nature, Studies in the Dialectics of Nature, and Science, Technology, and Dialectics.

These successes are too often obscured by the high-profile failures of socialist science. The Lysenko affair is the most prominent example. Surely, such failures are an unfortunate but necessary part of scientific development. Bourgeois scientists clung to the theory of spontaneous generation for far longer than Soviet scientists clung to Lysenkoism; however, nobody takes this to be an indictment of the entire edifice of bourgeois science. (Incidentally, we should all be thankful that Pasteur choose to ignore outright the preponderance of anomalous evidence in his own experiments which suggested spontaneous generation to be true. If he had not done so, untold millions would have died needlessly.)

[Joe_Germinal]

The idea of "bourgeois science" is a stalinist idea. Landau almost got murdered.

I don't know what we are supposed to called scientific knowledge produced under circumstances where the bourgeoisie have control over the means of scientific production. I don't mean to say that bourgeois science is false, most of it, as Marx and Engels (among many others) have noted, is spectacularly successful. That doesn't mean, however, that we cannot apply class analysis to scientific knowledge.


I think there are some things marxists can criticize about things scientists say. For example, scientists sometimes switch from science to pseudo-philosophy

I also can't agree with you here. Whether or not scientists lapse into pseudo-philosophy has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of their claims. One of the greatest bits of scientific pseudo-philosophy is Newtonian mechanics, which is one of the greatest scientific research programmes in history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joe Germinal:


Have you any specific criticisms of Hessen, or are you content in denouncing him with a single sentence and a reference to a paper which makes no attempt whatsoever to contest even a single one of Hessen's claims?

Hessen presented a series of brilliant observations on the history of science, but they were backed-up by no evidence at all, and in history, brilliance is not enough. Had he lived, I am sure he'd have produced some evidence, but his work has now been superseded by more recent, and more fact-based work (for example, in the books I mentioned earlier, and others).


Your letters do an excellent job of arguing that there are a great many anomalies which contradict Engels' theory. What I have trouble finding in your argument is a general epistemological statement about what exactly such anomalies mean for a scientific theory. Imre Lakatos pointed out, correctly, that "so-called 'refutations' are not the hallmark of empirical failure . . . since all programmes grow in a permanent ocean of anomalies," viz. the existence of anomalous findings cannot be our criteria for rejecting a scientific theory, for if it were, all scientific theories would have to be rejected.

Well, I'm no fan of Lakatos, but even if I were, my overall claim isn't that this 'theory' is defective, or false, only that it is far too vague, amateurish and imprecise to be called a theory to begin with. And, where it makes empirical claims, these are either incorrect, distorted or based on a slippery definition of "quality", for example. Countless counter-examples are also ignored. Hence, it can't be called a science; it's more a dogma inherited from Hegel (upside down or the 'right way up'), who, likewise based his ideas, not on evidence, but on a priori[/], mystical speculation.

Recall, that those letters were merely summaries of [I]one of my essays, where I go into this in extensive detail:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm


The question, it seems to me, is not whether Engels or anyone else has constructed a powerful scientific heuristic capable of being a guide to action in future scientific endeavor. I believe he has; however, that is difficult for me to prove, because while the bourgeoisie control nearly the entire the means of scientific production, their scientific pursuits are bound to be better developed than those of the proletariat. This shouldn't shock anybody familiar with the history of science. The whole amazing story of the development of modern science is but a subplot in the larger epic of the development of the modern bourgeoisie. To take but one example, it is not merely a coincidence that the death throws of alchemy begin around the time the of the execution of a British monarch and end 150 years later around the time of the execution of a French monarch.

I agree with this, but merely add that Engels's amateurish attempt to do some a priori science is not worth the paper it was printed on. Moreover, I fail to see how this is true:


it seems to me, is not whether Engels or anyone else has constructed a powerful scientific heuristic capable of being a guide to action in future scientific endeavor. I believe he has

He has no more provided us with such an heuristic than creation science has.


Still, despite the scientific underdevelopment of the proletariat, dialectical materialism has enjoyed a number of successes as a guide to scientific research. In the west, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an excellent example. Soviet science had many regrettable failures; however, in that country became one of the most scientifically successful in the world. Indeed, despite a revisionist leadership and creeping capitalist restoration, Chinese science has become known for its startling and unforeseen discoveries. Indeed, in the discipline of Dialectics of Nature, three Chinese journals stand out as producing amazing results, far advanced from Engels' original contribution although still guided by it, The Journal of the Dialectics of Nature, Studies in the Dialectics of Nature, and Science, Technology, and Dialectics.

I deny that punctuated equilibrium, which is not widely accepted anyway, is an example of the application Engels's ideas -- mainly because the latter are too vague to anything with. I have worked out the details of my objections at the above link.

I agree that soviet science was successful, but I fail to see how this was because of Engels's ideas. Indeed, where they depended on Engels, they screwed up (as the Lysenko affair showed, as you note). Moreover, Einstein's ideas and those expressed in Quantum Mechanics were called 'Idealist' for many years.

I can't comment on the Chinese journals since I do no read or speak Chinese; you will need to be specific, therefore, and show precisely where Engels's ideas have assisted Chinese scientists. I remain sceptical in the meantime.


These successes are too often obscured by the high-profile failures of socialist science. The Lysenko affair is the most prominent example. Surely, such failures are an unfortunate but necessary part of scientific development. Bourgeois scientists clung to the theory of spontaneous generation for far longer than Soviet scientists clung to Lysenkoism; however, nobody takes this to be an indictment of the entire edifice of bourgeois science. (Incidentally, we should all be thankful that Pasteur choose to ignore outright the preponderance of anomalous evidence in his own experiments which suggested spontaneous generation to be true. If he had not done so, untold millions would have died needlessly.)

You are right about mainstream science, but my claim is that both 'dialectical' science and 'bourgeois' science have been crippled or seriously held back by the adoption of non-scientific theories and/or beliefs, such as dialectics, or such as creationism (in say, the 18th century).

So, I see dialectics as no superior to, say, theology -- indeed, it is vastly inferior to theology (the latter is far more precise and theoretically coherent, even if it is a load of rubbish).

In which case, dialectics is fourth-rate metaphysics. So, if we needed a theory of change, or a method, it would not make the bottom of the reserve list of viable candidates.

[ZeroNowhere]

In the west, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an excellent example.Trémaux was a dialectician? This is news to me.


So, I see dialectics as no superior to, say, theology -- indeed, it is vastly inferior to theology (the latter is far more precise and theoretically coherent, even if it is a load of rubbish).Technically, dialectics in Hegel were in a large part theological.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ZeroNowhere:


Technically, dialectics in Hegel were in a large part theological

I agree, but I can't depend on dialectical comrades accepting this allegation when it is applied to their 'materialist' version of it -- 'the right way up', as they say.

The point I wished to make was that when you compare 'materialist dialectics' with, say, Thomist Theology/Philosophy, its amateur and terminally confused nature soon becomes apparent.

Anyway, I do not think Trémaux was a punctuated equilibrium theorist.

[Spencer]

Personally, I thought that Dawkins' review of Not In Our Genes was overly harsh. They are not arguing that Dawkins is cynically and deliberately manufacturing books like 'The Selfish Gene' in order to oppress and exploit the working class. Rather, or at least my interpretation of it, was that their argument was similar to Mary Midgley's in her article 'Gene Juggling' which was that, the actual content aside:


1) Dawkins views on evolution etc. are a result of his own views on politics and his own philosophical leanings.


2) That, however Dawkins sees himself, the social effect is that he is producing stuff that feeds the prejudices of those who 'believe' in the capitalist system, and who are willing to actually stand up and say that this implies that we are all selfish, and thus that biology justifies capitalism.


Firstly, it is commonly observed that in the 'nature-nurture debate' the side which scientists take correlates with their political views. Those generally considered on 'the left' go for nurture, whilst those on 'the right' generally maintain that it is nature. Secondly it is simply impossible to leave your prejudices behind, especially on an issue that has any bearing on human society, and as Gould suggests in 'The Mismeasure Of Man' this may not even be a conscious process.


In the second case Dawkins has observed himself that his book seems to have struck a cord with such people (I cannot, however, remember where he says this, Possibly in 'The God Delusion'...), and I'm sure we've all run into them as well.


That said it's been a while since I read 'Not In Our Genes' or anything by Dawkins (although I haven't actually read 'The Selfish Gene' itself) so if I've said anything horrifically stupid feel free to correct me.


I really don't think it is possible for a scientist to be properly objective, and I think that the only reason that people who challenge mainstream interpretations/theories or whatever are accused of criticising the ideas and not the science (or letting their own views influence them) is because they are criticising ideas that most people hold or have no problem with, and their own views are similarly only shared by a minority. This hides the prejudices of the mainstream whilst emphasising those of their opponents, allowing the mainstream to pretend that their own ideas haven't influenced their thinking. If memory serves 'The Mismeasure of Man' contains examples of people who opposed scientific racism being accused of this, and personally I often find myself being accused of letting my personal views get in the way of objectivity when discussing intelligence testing (particularly with racists). It's always struck me as a cheap trick.

More to the point, Scientific American do a series of 'science made accessible' books. I found 'understanding nanotechnology' quite interesting.

Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer I also remember as being fairly good.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spencer, if you want to read a sophisticated take-down of Dawkins (and other extreme Neo-Darwinians), check this out:

David Stove, (2006), Darwinian Fairytales (Encounter Books).

I have a copy of the first edition of this book as a PDF; I can post it on-line if you want to download a copy.

Stove is an atheist and ex-Marxist who belives that Darwin's theory is the best we have, even if it is radically flawed.

The best political analysis of evolutionary theorists like Dawkins is:

Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution by David F. Prindle. Prometheus Books, 2009.

[Spencer]

Cheers, I'd appreciate it if you could post the pdf, assuming its not too much trouble.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, you can read a very short precis of some of his ideas here, in his essay 'So You think You Are A Darwinian':

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/838691/posts

In fact, I have already posted it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993823&postcount=7

Here it is again:


So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

By David Stove

Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians. If they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not knowing enough about what Darwinism says. For Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person; or at least by an educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism.

Of course most educated people now are Darwinians, in the sense that they believe our species to have originated, not in a creative act of the Divine Will, but by evolution from other animals. But believing that proposition is not enough to make someone a Darwinian. It had been believed, as may be learnt from any history of biology, by very many people long before Darwinism, or Darwin, was born.

What is needed to make someone an adherent of a certain school of thought is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar to that school, and are believed either by all of its adherents, or at least by the more thoroughgoing ones. In any large school of thought, there is always a minority who adhere more exclusively than most to the characteristic beliefs of the school: they are the ‘purists’ or ‘ultras’ of that school. What is needed and sufficient, then, to make a person a Darwinian, is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar to Darwinians, and believed either by all of them, or at least by ultra-Darwinians.

I give below ten propositions which are all Darwinian beliefs in the sense just specified. Each of them is obviously false: either a direct falsity about our species or, where the proposition is a general one, obviously false in the case of our species, at least. Some of the ten propositions are quotations; all the others are paraphrases. The quotations are all from authors who are so well-known, at least in Darwinian circles, as spokesmen for Darwinism or ultra-Darwinism, that their names alone will be sufficient evidence that the proposition is a Darwinian one. Where the proposition is a paraphrase, I give quotations or other information which will, I think, suffice to establish its Darwinian credentials.

My ten propositions are nearly in reverse historical order. Thus, I start from the present day, and from the inferno-scene - like something by Hieronymus Bosch - which the 'selfish gene’ theory makes of all life. Then I go back a bit to some of the falsities which, beginning in the 1960s, were contributed to Darwinism by the theory of ‘inclusive fitness’. And finally I get back to some of the falsities, more pedestrian though no less obvious, of the Darwinism of the 19th or early-20th century.

1. The truth is, ‘the total prostitution of all animal life, including Man and all his airs and graces, to the blind purposiveness of these minute virus-like substances’, genes.

This is a thumbnail-sketch, and an accurate one, of the contents of The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins. It was not written by Dawkins, but he quoted it with manifest enthusiasm in a defence of The Selfish Gene which he wrote in this journal in 1981. Dawkins’ status, as a widely admired spokesman for ultra-Darwinism, is too well-known to need evidence of it adduced here. His admirers even include some philosophers who have carried their airs and graces to the length of writing good books on such rarefied subjects as universals, or induction, or the mind. Dawkins can scarcely have gratified these admirers by telling them that, even when engaged in writing those books, they were ‘totally prostituted to the blind purposiveness of their genes Still, you ‘have to hand it’ to genes which can write, even if only through their slaves, a good book on subjects like universals or induction. Those genes must have brains all right, as well as purposes. At least, they must, if genes can have brains and purposes. But in fact, of course, DNA molecules no more have such things than H20 molecules do.

2 '…it is, after all, to [a mother’s] advantage that her child should be adopted’ by another woman.

This quotation is from Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, p. 110.

Obviously false though this proposition is, from the point of view of Darwinism it is well-founded, for the reason which Dawkins gives on the same page: that another woman’s adopting her baby ‘releases a rival female from the burden of child-rearing, and frees her to have another child more quickly.’ This, you will say, is a grotesque way of looking at human life; and so, of course, it is. But it is impossible to deny that it is the Darwinian way.

3. All communication is ‘manipulation of signal-receiver by signal-sender.’

This profound communication, though it might easily have come from any used-car salesman reflecting on life, was actually sent by Dawkins, (in The Extended Phenotype, (1982), p. 57), to the readers whom he was at that point engaged in manipulating. Much as the devil, in many medieval plays, advises the audience not to take his advice.

4. Homosexuality in social animals is a form of sibling-altruism: that is, your homosexuality is a way of helping your brothers and sisters to raise more children.

This very-believable proposition is maintained by Robert Trivers in his book Social Evolution, (1985), pp. 198-9. Professor Trivers is a leading light among ultra-Darwinians, (who are nowadays usually called ‘sociobiologists’). Whether he also believes that suicide, for example, and self-castration, are forms of sibling-altruism, I do not know; but I do not see what there is to stop him. What is there to stop anyone believing such propositions? Only common sense: a thing entirely out of the question among sociobiologists.

5. In all social mammals, the altruism (or apparent altruism) of siblings towards one another is about as strong and common as the altruism (or apparent altruism) of parents towards their offspring.

This proposition is an immediate consequence, and an admitted one, of the theory of inclusive fitness, which says that the degree of altruism depends on the proportion of genes shared. This theory was first put forward by W. D. Hamilton in The Journal of Theoretical Biology in 1964. Since then it has been accepted by Darwinians almost as one man and has revolutionized evolutionary theory. This acceptance has made Professor Hamilton the most influential Darwinian author of the last thirty years.

6. '…no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but everyone will sacrifice it for more than two brothers [or offspring], or four half-brothers, or eight first-cousins.'

This is a quotation from the epoch-making article by Professor Hamilton to which I referred a moment ago. The italics are not in the text. Nor are the two words which I have put in square brackets; but their insertion is certainly authorized by the theory of inclusive fitness.

7. Every organism has as many descendants as it can.

Compare Darwin, in The Origin of Species, p. 66: ‘every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers’; and again, pp. 78-9, ‘each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio’. These page references are to the first edition of the Origin, (1859), but both of the passages just quoted are repeated in all of the five later editions of the book which were published in Darwin’s lifetime. He also says the same thing in other places.

But it would not have mattered if he had not happened to say in print such things as I have just quoted. For it was always obvious, to everyone who understood his theory, that a universal striving-to-the-utmost-to-increase is an essential part of that theory: in fact it is the very ‘motor’ of evolution, according to the theory. It is the thing which, by creating pressure of population on the supply of food, is supposed to bring about the struggle for life among con-specifics, hence natural selection, and hence evolution. As is well known, and as Darwin himself stated, he had got the idea of population permanently pressing on food, because of the constant tendency to increase, from T. R. Malthus’s Essay on Population (1798).

Still, that every organism has as many descendants as it can, while it is or may be true of most species of organisms, is obviously not true of ours. Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants as he or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one of us does. For there can clearly be no question of Darwinism making an exception of man, without openly contradicting itself. ‘Every single organic being’, or ‘each organic being’: this means you.

8. In every species, child-mortality - that is, the proportion of live births which die before reproductive age - is extremely high.

Compare Darwin in the Origin, p. 61: ‘of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive’; or p. 5, ‘many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive’. Again, these passages, from the first edition, are both repeated unchanged in all the later editions of the Origin.

Proposition 8 is not a peripheral or negotiable part of Darwinism. On the contrary it is, like proposition 7, a central part, and one which Darwinians are logically locked-into. For in order to explain evolution, Darwin had adopted (as I have said) Malthus’s principle of population: that population always presses on the supply of food, and tends to increase beyond it. And this principle does require child-mortality to be extremely high in all species.

Because of the strength and universality of the sexual impulse, animals in general have an exuberant tendency to increase in numbers. This much is obvious, but what Malthus’s principle says is something far more definite. It says that the tendency to increase is so strong that every population, of any species, is at all times already as large as its food-supply permits, or else is rapidly approaching that impassable limit. Which means of course that, (as Malthus once put it), the young are always born into ‘a world already possessed’. In any average year, (assuming that the food-supply does not increase), there is simply not enough food to support any greater number of the newborn than is needed to replace the adults which die. But such is the strength of the tendency to increase that, in any average year, the number of births will greatly exceed the number of adult deaths. Which is to say, the great majority of those born must soon die.

Consider a schematic example. Suppose there is a population, with a constant food-supply, of 1000 human beings. Suppose - a very realistic supposition, in fact a conservative one - that 700 of them are of reproductive age. Suppose that this population is already ‘at equilibrium’, (as Darwinians say): that is, is already as large as its food can support. According to Malthus’s principle, people (or flies or fish or whatever) will reproduce if they can. So, since there are 350 females of reproductive age, there will be 350 births this year. But there is no food to support more of these than are needed to replace the adults who die this year; while the highest adult death-rate which we can suppose with any approximation to realism is about 10%. So 100 adults will die this year, but to fill their places, there are 350 applicants. That is, there will this year be a child-mortality of 250 out of 350, or more than 70%.

It was undoubtedly reasoning of this kind from Malthus’s principle which led Darwin to believe that in every species ‘but a small number’ of those born can survive, or that ‘many more’ are born than can survive. What did Darwin mean by these phrases, in percentage, or at least minimum-percentage, terms? Well, we have just seen that Malthus’s principle, in a typical case, delivers a child-mortality of at least 70%. And no one, either in 1859 or now, would dream of calling 30 or more, surviving out of 100, 'but a small number’ surviving. It would be already stretching language violently, to call even 23 (say), surviving out of 100, ‘but a small number’ surviving. To use this phrase of 30-or-more surviving, would be absolutely out of the question. So Darwin must have meant, by the statements I quoted above, that child-mortality in all species is more than 70%.

Which is obviously false in the case of our species. No doubt human child-mortality has often enough been as high as 70%, and often enough higher still. But I do not think that, at any rate within historical times, this can ever have been usual. For under a child-mortality of 70%, a woman would have to give birth 10 times, on the average, to get 3 of her children to puberty, and 30 times to get 9 of them there. Yet a woman’s getting 9 of her children to puberty has never at any time been anything to write home about; whereas a woman who gives birth 30 times has always been a demographic prodigy. The absolute record is about 32 births. (I neglect multiple births, which make up only 1% of all births.) As for the last 100 years, in any advanced country, to suppose child-mortality 70% or anywhere near it, would be nothing but an outlandish joke.

It is important to remember that no one - not even Darwinians - knows anything at all about human demography, except what has been learnt in the last 350 years, principally concerning certain European countries or their colonies. A Darwinian may be tempted, indeed is sure to be tempted, to set all of this knowledge aside, as being of no ‘biological’ validity, because it concerns only an ‘exceptional’ time and place. But if we agreed to set all this knowledge aside, the only result would be that no one knew anything whatever about human demography. And Darwinians would then be no more entitled than anyone else to tell us what the ‘real’, or the ‘natural’, rate of human child-mortality is.

In any case, as I said earlier, Darwinians cannot without contradicting themselves make an exception of man, or of any particular part of human history. Their theory, like Malthus’s principle, is one which generalizes about all species, and all places and times, indifferently; while man is a species, the last 350 years are times, and European countries are places. And Darwin’s assertion, that child-mortality is extremely high, is quite explicitly universal. For he said (as we saw) that ‘of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive’, and that ‘many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive’. Again, this means us.

9. The more privileged people are the more prolific: if one class in a society is less exposed than another to the misery due to food-shortage, disease, and war, then the members of the more fortunate class will have (on the average) more children than the members of the other class.

That this proposition is false, or rather, is the exact reverse of the truth, is not just obvious. It is notorious, and even proverbial. Everyone knows that, as a popular song of the I 930s had it,

The rich get rich, and
The poor get children.

Not that the song is exactly right, because privilege does not quite always require superior wealth, and superior wealth does not quite always confer privilege. The rule should be stated, not in terms of wealth, but in terms of privilege, thus: that the more privileged class is the less prolific. To this rule, as far as I know, there is not a single exception.

And yet the exact inverse of it, proposition 9, is an inevitable consequence of Darwinism all right. Malthus had said that the main ‘checks’ to human population are misery - principally due to ‘famine, war, and pestilence’ - and vice: by which he meant contraception, foeticide, homosexuality, etc. But he also said that famine - that is, deficiency of food - usually outweighs all the other checks put together, and that population-size depends, near enough, only on the supply of food. Darwin agreed. He wrote (in The Descent of Man, second edition, 1874), that ‘the primary or fundamental check to the continued increase of man is the difficulty of gaining subsistence’, and that if food were doubled in Britain, for example, population would quickly be doubled. But now, a more-privileged class always suffers less from deficiency of food than a less-privileged class does. Therefore, if food-supply is indeed the fundamental determinant of population-size, a more-privileged class would always be a more prolific one; just as proposition 9 says.

William Godwin, as early as 1820, pointed out that Malthus had managed to get the relationship between privilege and fertility exactly upside-down. In the 1860s and ‘70s W. R. Greg, Alfred Russel Wallace, and others, pointed out that Darwin, by depending on Malthus for his explanation of evolution, had saddled himself with Malthus’s mistake about population and privilege. It is perfectly obvious that all these critics were right. But Darwin never took any notice of the criticism. Well, trying to get Darwin to respond to criticism was always exactly like punching a feather-mattress: ‘suddenly absolutely nothing happened’.

The eugenics movement, which was founded a little later by Darwin’s disciple and cousin Francis Galton, was an indirect admission that those critics were right. For what galvanized the eugenists into action was, of course, their realisation that the middle and upper classes in Britain were being out-reproduced by the lowest classes. Such a thing simply could not happen, obviously, if Darwin and Malthus, and proposition 9, had been right. But the eugenists never drew the obvious conclusion, that Darwin and Malthus were wrong, and consequently they never turned their indirect criticism into a direct one. Well, they were fervent Darwinians to the last man and woman, and could not bring themselves to say, or even think, that Darwinism is false.

A later Darwinian and eugenist, R. A. Fisher, discussed the relation between privilege and fertility at length, in his important book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, (1930). But he can hardly be said to have made the falsity of proposition 9 any less of an embarrassment for Darwinism. Fisher acknowledges the fact that there has always been, in all civilized countries an inversion (as he calls it) of fertility-rates: that is, that the more privileged have always and everywhere been the less fertile. His explanation of this fact is that civilized countries have always practised what he calls ‘the social promotion of infertility’. That is, people are enabled to succeed better in civilized life, the fewer children they have.

But this is evidently just a re-phrasing of the problem, rather than a solution of it. The question, for a Darwinian such as Fisher, is how there can be, consistently with Darwinism, such a thing as the social promotion of infertility? In every other species of organisms, after all, comparative infertility is a sure sign, or even the very criterion, of comparative failure. So how can there be if Darwinism is true, a species of organisms in which comparative infertility is a regular and nearly-necessary aid to success?

Fisher’s constant description of the fertility-rates in civilized countries as ‘inverted’, deserves a word to itself. It is a perfect example of an amazingly-arrogant habit of Darwinians, (of which I have collected many examples in my forthcoming book Darwinian Fairytales). This is the habit, when some biological fact inconsistent with Darwinism comes to light, of blaming the fact, instead of blaming their theory. Any such fact Darwinians call a ‘biological error' an ‘error of heredity’, a ‘misfire’, or some thing of that kind: as though the organism in question had gone wrong, when all that has actually happened, of course, is that Darwinism has gone wrong. When Fisher called the birth-rates in civilized countries ‘inverted’, all he meant was that, exactly contrary to Darwinian theory, the more privileged people are the less fertile. From this fact, of course, the only rational conclusion to be drawn is, that Darwinism has got things upside-down. But instead of that Fisher, with typical Darwinian effrontery, concludes that civilised people have got things upside-down!

Fisher, who died in 1962, is nowadays the idol of ultra-Darwinians, and he deserves to be so: he was in fact a sociobiologist ‘born out of due time’. And the old problem for Darwinism, to which he had at least given some publicity, even if he did nothing to solve it, remains to this day the central problem for sociobiologists. The problem (to put it vulgarly) of why ‘the rich and famous’ are such pitiful reproducers as they are.

Of course this ‘problem’ is no problem at all, for anyone except ultra-Darwinians. It is an entirely self-inflicted injury, and as such deserves no sympathy. Who, except an ultra-Darwinian, would expect the highly-privileged to be great breeders? No one; just as no one but an ultra-Darwinian would expect women to adopt-out their babies with maximum expedition. For ultra-Darwinians, on the other hand, the infertility of the privileged is a good deal more than a problem. It is a refutation.

But they react to it in accordance with a well-tried rule of present-day scientific research. The rule is: ‘When your theory meets with a refutation, call it instead "a problem", and demand additional money in order to enable you to solve it.’ Experience has shown that this rule is just the thing for keeping a ‘research program’ afloat, even if it leaks like a sieve. Indeed, the more of these challenging ‘problems’ you can mention, the more money you are plainly entitled to demand.

10. If variations which are useful to their possessors in the struggle for life ‘do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive), that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.’

This is from The Origin of Species, pp. 80-81. Exactly the same words occur in all the editions.

Since this passage expresses the essential idea of natural selection, no further evidence is needed to show that proposition 10 is a Darwinian one. But is it true? In particular, may we really feel sure that every attribute in the least degree injurious to its possessors would be rigidly destroyed by natural selection?

On the contrary, the proposition is (saving Darwin’s reverence) ridiculous. Any educated person can easily think of a hundred characteristics, commonly occurring in our species, which are not only ‘in the least degree’ injurious to their possessors, but seriously or even extremely injurious to them, which have not been ‘rigidly destroyed’, and concerning which there is not the smallest evidence that they are in the process of being destroyed. Here are ten such characteristics, without even going past the first letter of the alphabet. Abortion; adoption; fondness for alcohol; altruism; anal intercourse; respect for ancestors; susceptibility to aneurism; the love of animals; the importance attached to art; asceticism, whether sexual, dietary, or whatever.

Each of these characteristics tends, more or less strongly, to shorten our lives, or to lessen the number of children we have, or both. All of them are of extreme antiquity. Some of them are probably older than our species itself. Adoption, for example is practised by some species of chimpanzees: another adult female taking over the care of a baby whose mother has died. Why has not this ancient and gross ‘biological error’ been rigidly destroyed?

‘There has not been enough time’, replies the Darwinian. Well, that could be so: perhaps there has not been enough time. And then again, perhaps there has been enough time: perhaps even twenty times over. How long does it take for natural selection to destroy an injurious attribute, such as adoption or fondness for alcohol? I have not the faintest idea, of course. I therefore have no positive ground whatever for believing either that there has been enough time for adoption to be destroyed, or that there has not. But then, on this matter, everyone else is in the same state of total ignorance as I am. So how come the Darwinian is so confident that there has not been enough time? What evidence can he point to, for thinking that there has not? Why, nothing but this, that adoption has not been destroyed, despite its being an injurious attribute! But this is palpably arguing in a circle, and taking for granted the very point which is in dispute. The Darwinian has no positive evidence whatever, that there has not been enough time.

Mercifully, Darwinians nowadays are much more reluctant than they formerly were, to rely heavily on the ‘not-enough-time’ defence of their theory against critics. They have benefited from the strictures of philosophers, who have pointed out that it is not good scientific method, to defend Darwinism by a tactic which would always be equally available whatever the state of the evidence, and which will still be equally available to Darwinians a million years hence, if adoption (for example) is still practised then.

The cream of the jest, concerning proposition 10, is that Darwinians themselves do not really believe it. Ask a Darwinian whether he actually believes that the fondness for alcoholic drinks is being destroyed now, or that abortion is, or adoption - and watch his face. Well, of course he does not believe it! Why would he? There is not a particle of evidence in its favour, and there is a great mountain of evidence against it. Absolutely the only thing it has in its favour is that Darwinism says it must be so. But (as Descartes said in another connection) ‘this reasoning cannot be presented to infidels, who might consider that it proceeded in a circle’.

What becomes, then, of the terrifying giant named Natural Selection, which can never sleep, can never fail to detect an attribute which is, even in the least degree, injurious to its possessors in the struggle for life, and can never fail to punish such an attribute with rigid destruction? Why, just that, like so much else in Darwinism, it is an obvious fairytale, at least as far as our species is concerned.

It would not be difficult to compile another list of ten obvious Darwinian falsities; or another one after that, either. But on that scale, the thing would be tiresome both to read and to write. Anyway it ought not to be necessary: ten obvious Darwinian falsities should be enough to make the point. The point, namely, that if most educated people now think they are Darwinians, it is only because they have no idea of the multiplied absurdities which belief in Darwinism requires.

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/ar...ticle.php?id=26 (http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=26)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spencer:


Cheers, I'd appreciate it if you could post the pdf, assuming its not too much trouble.

Ok, I'll get onto that tomorrow, and post the link.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, here's the PDF of Stove's book:

http://rapidshare.com/files/345445916/Darwinian_Fairytales_complete.pdf.html

Click on the Free user button -- only ten downlaods allowed.