![]() ![]() ![]() Even after the field of genetics was established in the early 1900s, another two decades passed before researchers finally demonstrated that selective breeding among humans could not rid society of transmittable diseases such as syphilis, nor could it eliminate conditions, such as alcoholism and mental illness.īetween 19 in the United States, support for eugenics continued to grow. The gaps in knowledge concerning the mechanisms of inheritance as well as disease transmission made it impossible to tackle the basic scientific questions posed by eugenics. Of course, the word gene and the field of genetics didn’t exist in the 19th century. Support for the fundamental principles of eugenics relied on demonstrating that certain disadvantageous traits, such as disease and lack of intelligence, were inherited and that selecting against these traits would benefit society. Furthermore, those who viewed themselves as superior, usually members of the upper classes of society, found that they could rely upon the theories put forth by Galton and Spencer to justify their discrimination against the lower classes.īut while social Darwinism and eugenics flourished in popularity in the late 19th century, there was little evidence that solidified eugenics as anything more than a preferred theory of the morally elite. The notion that filth and disease were associated with immorality was widespread. However, when his theory was united with Spencer’s socially inclined concept of survival, the result was social Darwinism, a gripping theory about competition for survival among human races and social classes.ĭuring Galton’s era-the Victorian Age in Britain-eugenics and social Darwinism seemed reasonable. At the time, Galton was probably thinking simply in terms of science, using his theory to describe selective breeding in humans as a means to improve the fitness of the human race. Galton introduced his own controversial idea-the theory of eugenics-in 1883. So too did British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” just five years after Darwin’s publication. But his cousin Francis Galton (pictured right), who by the 1860s was an established explorer and anthropologist, found the question of natural selection in humans an irresistible topic of study. But Darwin’s ideas also played to the dangerously receptive imaginations of certain members of Victorian society, who threw caution to the wind and hastily carried Darwinian ideals beyond the realm of basic science.ĭarwin, likely having realized the problems-scientific and social-arising from the study of natural selection in humans, remained decidedly focused on plants and animals, at least publicly. Walsh DM, Lewens T, Ariew A (2002) The trials of life: natural selection and random drift.Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and concept of the “struggle for existence,” presented in his On the Origin of Species in 1859, captivated the minds of biologists. Stigler SM (2010) Darwin, Galton and the statistical enlightenment. Sober E (2008) Evidence and evolution: the logic behind the science. Sober E (1980) Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh In: Machamer PK, Wolters G (eds) Thinking about causes: from greek philosophy to modern physics. Shapiro L, Sober E (2007) Epiphenomenalism–the Do’s and the Don’ts. Mayo DG (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Lange M (2013b) Really statistical explanations and genetic drift. Lange M (2013a) What makes a scientific explanation distinctively mathematical? Br J Philos Sci 64(3):485–511 University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 291–312 In: Harman Oren, Dietrich MichaelR (eds) Outsider scientists: routes to innovation in biology. Lamm E (2013) Theoreticians as Professional Outsiders: The Modeling Strategies of John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener. ![]() Keller EF (2003) Making sense of life: explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Hacking I (2016) Logic of statistical inference. Hacking I (1990) The taming of chance, vol 17. Br J Philos SciĪriew A, Rice C, Rohwer Y (2015) Autonomous-statistical explanations and natural selection. ![]() Andersen H (forthcoming) Complements, not competitors: causal and mathematical explanations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |