What makes you arrive at this conclusion? Apart from the issue that I would call that a misnomer. But don't get me wrong, I know what you mean here.
But I believe that this article makes a very good point, because if you followed social sciences a bit in the recent past, you could get the impression that they seem to reject the theory of evolution almost in its entirety.
This is a frustratingly common but utterly confused viewpoint stemming from the naturalistic fallacy. Facts about our evolution do not entail that we should strive to embrace every human tendency which it has imparted to us.
People are appalled at the suggestion that we have innate tendencies toward aggression, for example, because it clashes with narratives about all social ills being caused by culture, and if you suffer from utopian notions of humanity in its natural state, it seems like endorsement of violence to acknowledge that it is an evolved behaviour, as opposed to a brute fact which we can use to better understand and combat the problem.
"Social Darwinism" is a misleading label, because it refers to the idea that we should allow the weak to perish because it improves the quality of people in society, but this principle does not follow from the fact of human evolution. It is deriving a highly questionable "ought" from an "is", and it's a line of thought which long predates the discovery of evolution. Socrates argued against Callicles' belief that the strong dominating the weak was the justice of nature more than two millennia before Darwin was born.
Not sure what you're trying to hint at, but I'd say this should be part of the discourse and part of research as well, obviously. True to the principles of the scientific method.
Admittedly I’m a little shocked and disappointed that the field of social science wouldn’t already be leaning heavily on the concepts of evolution to understand and explain human behavior. Personally, it’s one of the primary ways I’m able to make sense of the world and the human experience. For those interested, Sapiens is IMO the best, most accessible book on this topic. Puts human evolution and behavior in great context.
People are working on this, but it's incredibly complicated and hard to get right. Look at what's going on in evolutionary psychology and neuroeconomics, as well as the controversies surrounding them, for an idea of what's involved.
7 comments
[ 28.5 ms ] story [ 459 ms ] threadBut I believe that this article makes a very good point, because if you followed social sciences a bit in the recent past, you could get the impression that they seem to reject the theory of evolution almost in its entirety.
People are appalled at the suggestion that we have innate tendencies toward aggression, for example, because it clashes with narratives about all social ills being caused by culture, and if you suffer from utopian notions of humanity in its natural state, it seems like endorsement of violence to acknowledge that it is an evolved behaviour, as opposed to a brute fact which we can use to better understand and combat the problem.
"Social Darwinism" is a misleading label, because it refers to the idea that we should allow the weak to perish because it improves the quality of people in society, but this principle does not follow from the fact of human evolution. It is deriving a highly questionable "ought" from an "is", and it's a line of thought which long predates the discovery of evolution. Socrates argued against Callicles' belief that the strong dominating the weak was the justice of nature more than two millennia before Darwin was born.
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-sel...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_...