OCTOBER 11, 2010 1:19AM
The Jurisdiction of Science
Somerset, NJ. In the second half of their book What Darwin Got Wrong,authors Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmerini critique the theory of natural selection from a conceptual standpoint, arguing that the theory fails to satisfy the criteria of a scientific law, especially, in its failure to support counterfactual statements, and that therefore “there isn’t any theory of evolution.” I am not interested here in weighing the merits of their argument; I think it has much to say for it, and some things to say against it. But the response from the evolutionary crowd has been unambiguous; these people hated it, and have seized every opportunity available to them to express their disgust in print. Nearly everyone of their reviews included the assertion, somewhere among the vitriol, that Fodor (in particular) should not be writing on the topic of evolutionary theory because he is, after all, a mere philosopher, and evolutionary theory is a matter for evolutionary biologists to consider.
This assertion should seem remarkable to any sensible person, since, as I indicated, what Fodor was doing was examining the conceptual coherence of a theory which purports to have a very broad application to human and non-human nature. It may come as news to those in the Darwinian camp, but that is actually what philosophers do for a living. Pursuing conceptual rigor, and exposing its absence, is one way of defining the philosopher’s craft. So simply as a matter of academic credentials, no one could be more suited for the work that Fodor was doing than someone who possessed, like him, a philosophical training. Whether one ultimately agreed with his conclusions, no reasonable person could doubt his professional right to examine the coherence of the theory of natural selection. And yet every Darwinian did object to his doing so.
Image not related to this article/Imagem não relacionada com este artigo
Of course, Fodor is not the first author to be on the receiving end of this “argument from professional jurisdiction.” This is the first rhetorical tick of any Darwinian when their theories are challenged; instantly, they complain that the critic has not properly understood evolutionary theory, and loudly lament the intrusion of the unscientific mind upon such topics. They warn us of the complexity and depth of scientific research, and remind us of the dark eras of superstition when scientists were subject to the censure of the unknowing. Almost everyone of their polemical endeavors resorts to such arguments at some point. They have been remarkably successful too, since Darwinian theory comes in for far less criticism than such a paltry and popular system deserves, and this can only be explained by an undue deference on the part of the general public.
What is so nakedly hypocritical about this tactic is that, in fact, the Darwinians have no general objections to non-scientists writing about their theories. To the contrary, among the leading figures in the movement to extend evolutionary explanations to a variety of academic disciplines – literature and the arts and ethical philosophy, among others – are journalists, English professors, and other similarly unscientifically credentialed individuals. Their books are received by the Darwinians ranks with varying levels of acclaim. Their qualifications to publicly pronounce on the significance of evolutionary theory are never called into question, though some of them display an ignorance of the topic as thorough as could be imagined. For instance, in his quite popular account of “Darwinian aesthetics,” Denis Dutton declares that “paradoxically, it is evolution – most significantly, the evolution of imagination and intellect – that enables us to transcend even our animal selves,” though any intelligent person who has read and understood evolutionary theory knows perfectly well that there is absolutely no warrant for claiming that theory as the grounds for any conception of transcendence; rather, the whole point of the theory is to demonstrate how the ultimate directedness of all man’s faculties reduce to the same level of survival and reproduction. Yet such a gross misapprehension of evolutionary theory prompted no outrage from the minatory Darwinists. Their only criteria for whether or not an author understands their ideas is whether or not an author agrees with their ideas. They have no objections to non-scientists writing on evolutionary topics, so long as they do so in the proper spirit of submissiveness and adulation.
Yet if evolutionary theory does have broad consequences for the study of ethics or the study of the arts – as we have been told with greater and greater frequency of late – then it is a theory which may be fairly considered, and fairly criticized, by scholars in the fields of ethical philosophy or literary criticism. This should be a perfectly uncontroversial matter. To maintain that evolutionary theory needs to be taken seriously by humanist scholars, while simultaneously forbidding those same scholars, under penalty of the severest invective, to weigh the rational substance of evolutionary theory, is a piece of impudence so raw and ridiculous that it could only be performed in this most outlandish of ages. Whatever absurdities were perpetrated in the past by Freudian and Marxist theorists, they never retorted to objections towards their ideological reading of texts by saying, “you are no psychologist,” or “you are no economist.” If the Darwinians wish their theory to be taken seriously outside the laboratories of the biology departments, then they simply must accept the fact that it has become a fair subject of refutation to the entirety of the educated community.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Open Salon
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Sem comentários, apenas destacar que esta atitude darwinista contra as críticas, mesmo as científicas, é universal.
