SaC- review of "The New Social Darwinists"

[Lisa Rogers <EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's a piece of a comment I am writing on the article entitled

"The New Social Darwinists" by John Horgan, Scientific American,
October 1995.

I hope this may be considered of some use, interest or relation to
list-topic[s].

--Overview--

This article is in the "Trends in Social Science" category in SciAm,
is apparently intended to be a report on a recent "trend", and the
author does not represent it as a general summary of a field or
critique of particular papers or positions.  It reports specifically
on the topics, positions and discussions evident at the most recent
meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society [HBES].  It
includes summaries of some of the presentations at the meeting,
quotes from some speakers and a bit of interview with some
participants.

--Its Bias--

The title and illustration [* see end of section] present and
emphasize the most extreme view of HBES-related work in general, as
well as the most extreme views of the most extreme few of the many
diverse participants at the conference.  Although the contents of the
article present a more balanced view of the diversity of opinions
which claim _some kind_ of relevance of [neodarwinian] evolution to
understanding human behavior, the specific meaning, historical source
and flammatory effects of the term "Social Darwinism" cannot be
overlooked.

The article does not present even one example of a claim that what is
"natural" is therefore morally "correct", should be legally
"justified", or is "better" for people/ society/ economy, in any way.
 To the contrary, Horgan says "Most [new social Darwinists] shun the
naturalistic fallacy, the conflation of what is with what should and
must be."  Now, to many readers, especially those concerned with the
evils of real, historical "social darwinism" this should be good
news.  In fact, it seems to thoroughly undercut the accuracy/
applicability of Horgan's title.

But the reporter Horgan also states that this position of most HBES
members [and most scientists and reasonable people in general, I
would add] is due to "their effort to avoid the political pitfalls
into which their predecessors stumbled".  He presents no support for
this passing remark, nor any explanation of what those "political
pitfalls" were/are.  Does he just mean the critique that replied to
real Social Darwinism, from both inside and outside "science" itself?
I don't know, he doesn't say, just hints around about it.

My own assessment of this position, in fact my own position itself,
within my field of science which does find evolution and evolutionary
theory applicable to human behavior, is that there are exceedingly
good scientific reasons for avoiding the "naturalistic fallacy",
other than "to avoid the political pitfalls", whatever that means.

To call it a "fallacy" is, in itself, to say that "naturalistic"
morality is indeed unsupportable, by logic, evidence, by anything
reasonably convincing.  In my view, it is exactly that, by the ideal
standards of "science" itself, in addition to any other approach one
would like to use.  {In my opinion, it is philosophically
unsupportable to claim that there is any absolute basis for moral
judgements, naturalistic or otherwise.  But that's another story.}

On the bases above, I find that Horgan is not only reporting, but
misrepresenting the HBES conference topics and positions to some
extent.

Horgan neither raises nor reports anyone else raising the issue of
how "science" results may be used for evil ends by others, societal
effects of research, or the ethics of conducting any particular
studies.  I do not know if these things were addressed at the HBES
conference or not.

*About the illustration:  On the first two, facing pages, two
gorillas look sideways at each other.  From the nose downward, they
have human faces, including stereotypical gender-specific neckware
[pearls for one, a tie for the other].

--Critique of some HBES participants, _BY_ some participants--

SB Hrdy [not a spelling typo], according to Horgan, says that many
male investigators of sexual behavior see the world through the
filter of their own fantasies, such as those who study the
evolutionary significance of breast symmetry.  Time is wasted on
"preference" studies such as David Buss', surveying people worldwide
about their sexual attitudes, and what they say they find attractive.
 "Men just love coming up with scenarios for female breasts because
they love looking at them."   Hrdy agrees with an [unnamed by Horgan]
conference speaker who states that "evolutionary psychologists must
move beyond their 'discovery' that 'men like pretty girls and women
like wealthy men.'"

Hear, hear, I say, I'm with Hrdy and many others on that.  There is
in fact a lot of debate and dissent within the ranks of HBES and the
field/s of the various members, which is reflected to some extent in
Horgan's report upon the conference.  HBES is far from monolithic.

--My own, "insider's" critique of some HBES presentations--

Next, I offer some comments which are not found in Horgan's article,
altho they may have been raised within the conference, and certainly
have been raised within the field/s in general.

--end of excerpt--



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------