Robert Wright took on a Princeton anthropologist‘s assertion that Darwin offered a “justification of empire and colonialism, and genocide, through ‘survival of the fittest.’ ”

https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-darwin?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

The article touches on a lot of themes touched on here at RfM over the years. This is pertinent:

“The fact that I’m often on the receiving end of this kind of question may be one reason I’ve come to see this conflation—let’s call it the “explain/excuse conflation”—as something whose extinction would be a wonderful thing. But there’s another reason: I believe this conflation is a genuine impediment to solving some of the world’s biggest problems. If people get shouted down every time they start a sentence with, “I think the reason bad thing X happened is…” then we’ll have trouble understanding enough about bad things to reduce their frequency.”


This conflation bothers me, and I agree with Wright that it gets in the way of even investigating many important problems, let alone solving them.

That's an excellent article. Thanks for posting the link.

CZ

I agree with the author of the article. You can explain something without justifying it. For instance, you can explain what led to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany without approving of the party's actions.

Reading the author's reaction to Chapter 7 of The Descent of Man: It seems to me that the 19th century scientists were in the process of trying to figure things out, i.e. are modern-day humans one species or several species? What seems obvious to us in the year 2021 was not so obvious in the 19th century. That's the process of science. Perhaps in 150 years the people of our day may seem rather ignorant as well.

"I agree with the author of the article. You can explain something without justifying it. For instance, you can explain what led to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany without approving of the party's actions."

RESPONSE: Yes, but when explanations are offered for social or historical events that are more contemporary and controversial, it is far more difficult to separate an objective "explanation" from a subjective "justification." Part of the problem is that the very articulation of an explanatory narrative can imply justification.

Here is an example:

One might seek to "explain" how the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict came about by suggesting the following alternative narratives, each of which is arguably true on their face.

(1) The bombing by Israel of Gaza was a defensive response to the recent proliferation of missile attacks on Israel from Gaza by the terrorist group Hamas;

(2) The bombings of Israel by Hamas were in response to the continuing and recently increased efforts by Israel to suppress the Palestinians, socially, politically, and religiously, in Jerusalem and throughout Israel.

Notice that "justification" is found in both narratives, even though strictly speaking there is objective truth in both.
____________________________________________

"Reading the author's reaction to Chapter 7 of The Descent of Man: It seems to me that the 19th century scientists were in the process of trying to figure things out . . . ."

RESPONSE: I agree that Darwin acted in good faith with solely scientific motives, as did most other scientists of that period, and today. Notwithstanding, the issue of evolution very soon became politicized, as the implications of evolution took hold, and the pushback began from both secular humanists and the religious. Evolution--including its scope and implications--has been a source of social contention every since, as we all know. Very often Darwinism is presented as an explanation for some social policy where justification is not far behind. (For example, Darwinism is presented as both the scientific explanation and justification for keeping creationism out of public schools!)

Conspicuously missing in the linked article was any discussion of Social Darwinism, which resulted in the Eugenics movement of the first half of the 20th century and served as the basis for Nazi race cleansing policies. One could have easily provided a compelling Darwinian "explanation" for such policies, which would essentially be equivalent to a justification. Such "explanations" were actually provided at the time by "scientists" both inside and outside Nazi Germany. Since then, there has been a strong reaction against such interpretations of Darwin; including reactions against the milder justifications for class-based social policy--like trickle down economics.

Notwithstanding, it has been hard to get Darwinism out of politics. In the 70s there was an intense and bitter fight among scientists (biologists!) over Sociobiology. The reaction against Sociobiology was based upon the fear that it validated the social nonegalitarian status quo through a more-less Darwinian view of biological determinism as related to human behavior. Currently, it is assumed that Sociobiology won that debate, and Darwinism is now the fundamental source of explanations of human behavior and culture. The dangers of such a position are evident; just what do human beings have control over if ultimately behavior and culture are the products of the human genome?

In short, the explanation vs. justification "conflation" is easy to express, but as a practical matter "explanations" and "justifications" when applied to current events, or controversial historical events, are much closer concepts than we would like to admit.

It’s just a matter of time before Shakespeare gets cancelled.

"Woke" is elitist, isn't it? Or maybe it's misused, or overused. I don't care for the way it's bandied about.

Same here.

“This conflation bothers me, and I agree with Wright that it gets in the way of even investigating many important problems, let alone solving them.”

Is this conflation a symptom of ideology? For example, TBMs are so closely identified with their ideology that they take any criticism of the church as a personal criticism. Often they take it as a personal attack. Discussion of “The Expositor” becomes “oh, so you think I’m fat”. Mormonism is an easy ox to gore, but we forget that some people love that ox. Maybe oxen aren’t so bad as pets.

I wonder if people of today can even relate to Charles Darwin. Darwinism isn’t even Darwinism anymore if you go by Darwin’s acceptance of Lamarckian inheritance versus today’s eschewing of the supernatural.

I think wokeness is a reaction to secularism. Aren’t ideologies reactionary? The past 40 years of suppression of open dialog in higher education, which began after the Vietnam War protests, may be coming home to roost. The dam has burst and now every institution is being questioned. There’s a religious fervor to wokeness, a feeling of righteousness. It operates as a religion even if its God isn’t the one you’re used to.

To go further down the rabbit hole, the recent mainstream resurgence of psychedelics sprang from a huge psychedelic underground like fruit bodies springing from a mycelium. Wokeness could be a natural outgrowth of the use of ego-dissolving substances. Why stop at dissolving the ego? Why not dissolve culture itself?

Darwin may have unwittingly killed Nietzsche’s God, leading to the horrors of the 20th century. He might be due some criticism. But then, should he be responsible for what was done with his ideas after his death? If science got it wrong, that shouldn’t be on him. Science, like religion, is always co-opted for political ends.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2021 05:05AM by babyloncansuckit.

"Here’s the confusion: In reading Darwin, Fuentes fails to distinguish between an explanation of something and a justification of something."

This^^^^ So tired of so many people who don't know the difference between the two that I seem to run into everyday.

Thanks for the link, Human.

Done & done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Here’s the confusion: In reading Darwin,
> Fuentes fails to distinguish between an
> explanation of something and a justification of
> something."
>
> This^^^^ So tired of so many people who don't
> know the difference between the two that I seem to
> run into everyday.
>
> Thanks for the link, Human.

I agree. Take, for instance, Sam Harris getting mobbed by the Woke CULT, just for interviewing Charles Murray about his 30yo book, The Bell Curve. He didn’t agree with Charles Murray except when it came to the facts, which are still valid and borne out by every standardized test. This is why Harvard is getting sued by Asians in Supreme Court, because Harvard discriminated against Asians, who consistently score higher than EVERYBODY else, except perhaps Jews.
Why is that?
Charles Murray thinks it is genetic.
Sam Harris thinks it’s more social/cultural expectations.
I agree with Sam, but he’s been cancelled for interviewing a social scientist who presented data that’s 30yrs old and has yet to be be contradicted.

WTF does "woke" mean ?

If you've never culturally 'slept', you can't be culturally 'woke'.


Or you could be like me: no culture.

You are a veritable Petri dish of culture/s.

Yeah, and you're Lady Alexandria Fleming.

You got that right, Saint Petri.

Columbia Linguistics Professor John McWhortor, on new religion of Woke CULT
https://chalkandtalk.wordpress.com/2020/06/18/anti-racism-the-new-religion-of-woke-millennials/

I've seen "fans" of celebrities and influencers get really worked up because the celebs are not publicly commenting, or not commenting to the fans' satisfaction, on every social justice issue in the news. These are celebs that focus their social media on lifestyle, fashion, beauty, etc. And heaven help the celebs who promise to be "allies," because then they are held to account and never get any peace.

One thing,among many, I admired when reading Darwin's books is that he was always quick to point out and praise, his contemporaries' works.

looking at it objectively, extinction of Homo Sapiens would benefit all life on earth enormously.

Some days it seems that way, but if we weren’t supposed to make it we’d be gone by now.

> if we weren’t supposed to make it we’d be gone by now.

Bradley, that's Panglossian nonsense. The logic implies that the Holocaust was "supposed to be" because it occurred. It means that the Great Plague and and AIDS and ingrown toenails are all manifestations of God's (insert your choice of supernatural forces) will and intent.

Does God really care about your toenail?

I really hate painful ingrown toenails. Please god, make it stop !

Ah, the fruits of apostasy

I was thinking of all the ways it all could have ended but didn’t. The human race should have died out twice but didn’t. The nukes should have fried the planet but didn’t.

Perhaps we have free will because we think we do. It’s an effect that arises because of mind. If there are infinite different timelines, there is one best one. I think as they approach “the now”, they get compressed into a point of divine perfection as if passing through the center of a Minkowski space-time diagram. That point is always shifting due to our free will. As you point out, suffering happens. On some timelines, the Holocaust never happened. Did we choose wrongly? What is “we”? We are the cosmic mind and we are never wrong. But we in another sense are human, with our own perceived sensibilities and illusion of free will that lets us push around timelines as if we were gods.

You presume that suffering is a bad thing, not divinely appointed. Here’s where Mormonism gets distasteful. It equates sin with suffering. If you are suffering, you did something to deserve it. Really? What did the Jews do to deserve the Holocaust? Oh right, they killed Jesus. Kind of like killing John Wick’s dog. No, they didn’t deserve the Holocaust.

This may be a reason to give Buddhism a second look. Isn’t the paradox of suffering the central question of life? The past (where did we come from?) and the future (where are we going?) are the stuff of storytellers. If that’s your main focus, your religion is BS.

Hervey Willets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> looking at it objectively, extinction of Homo
> Sapiens would benefit all life on earth
> enormously.


Lots of animals benefit from humans.
(Dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, cows, crows, rats, cockroaches.) they’ll survive no matter what.
Next time the sun is here, in this position on the wheel in the sky, 225million yrs, humans will be long extinct and cats will still be here.
Only they will have 8 lives and will be as big as humans and walking upright, but they can clear a 20ft tall barrier.
And they’ll still knock shit off of counters just for the hell of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2021 09:32PM by schrodingerscat.

_Some_ people have survived every cataclysm. That's why we have the myths about Noah, Gilgamesh etc.

It's annoying when people intentionally and dishonestly conflate justification with explanation in order to mischaracterize and manufacture outrage for political, financial, or other gains.

It's even more annoying that vast swaths of humanity fall for it and jump on the bandwagon...