That’s something we can agree on, Steve. 
Sorry, it’s not the time for me to converse about this with Klax.
Just to clarify, the fields of psychology, sociology and religion obviously change-over-time. Speaking of their “evolution” reveals a “matching problem”, as Subrena Smith showed, among other problems with using it in those fields. My preference along with most colleagues in the human-social sciences, is to speak of “human development”, instead of “human evolution”. Human development is where the real action is, not some biologizing of the human-social sciences trying to promote to over-focus on “human evolution” with biological language as it’s source. Anyone aware of the 4 schools of anthropology in the English-language tradition will understand why the distinction between “biological anthropology” and “cultural anthropology” matters, and what difference it makes.
It’s nice that we agree that “evolution can’t be detected over so short a time frame”. That’s another good reason why I and many, many others in the human-social sciences choose not to use it.
There are better options, more accurate, precise, or just more suitable, than forcing “evolution” into the wrong conversation. You may not like or respect our choice, Klax, but some of us have carefully and deeply thought this through. And it makes a lot of sense to put our feet down against “evolutionary universalism” somewhere, right? More people ought to try that, even just as an experiment, around here, one might think.
~~
Another way to form @knor’s question would be: “what is evolution in modern humans limited to?” or “what is the scope of the evolution of modern humans?” These would both allow for a much larger conversation about human development, when the topic climbs up (or down) the ladder of knowledge from biology, human physiology, and anatomy, to anthropology, sociology & psychology.
Once you say “in societies”, the topic is not biology, but rather sociology with human beings; us.
The topic of “evolution” is a rather small and insignificant one in certain fields; this should be understood from the start, or much distortion will happen to the meanings and proportions involved, and thus much confusion will likely ensue.
Indeed, it makes a lot of sense to say “the direction of development in human societies [or / direction of human development] seems to have changed during the last century”. That would enable many discussions within the human-social sciences, the proper fields, to address the topic, without succumbing to biologism or requiring the adopting of biological language or naturalistic language and ideology to discuss properly human-social topics. Do we agree on this Kai?
People inquiring about “humanity” shouldn’t rightly choose to go to biologists to talk about anything more than the biological layer of “human beings”, right? People shouldn’t look to biologists as experts to discuss sociology, psychology, or anthropology, in most cases, or at least they must be careful when doing so.
Most people I speak with about the limits of evolutionary thinking, scholars and non-scholars alike, find moderation to be a rather well-balanced approach here, rather than extremism or fetishized usage of “evolution” involving human beings on the “cultural” or “social” (non-biological) levels. Nevertheless, some dispute arises when the terms aren’t well defined, which is sadly all too often.
It’s not a matter of choice. And what’s not to like? The evolution of the ape brain to the point of intentionality in, as humans happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and may have continued if behavioural modernity emerged within the last hundred thousand, i.e. up to that point. If behavioural modernity emerged with speech only as recently as 40-50 thousand years ago, that would have been the last significant evolutionary change. I strongly suspect it’s easily older even than 80,000 years ago and twice and quadruple that and more gradual. Either side of biological evolution, the term is an analogy and I agree it’s best not used in the psychology and sociology of the past 100 thousand years, or done so in inverted commas. However the evolved biological basis of psychology and sociology including religion will have plateaued by then and must be explicated.
If we define evolution as change in the heritable characteristics over successive generations, the evolution of human societies would mean that some key behaviors within societies have a genetic basis (relatively high heritability). I am not aware of such a link between key behaviors and genes.
However, if certain behaviors lead to much higher fitness than others, I assume that such behaviors would become more common, either through genetic or non-genetic inheritance. If we include non-genetic inheritance, then changes could happen faster and could affect whole societies. Evolution of human societies would be a more probable phenomenon.
Evolution at the level of human societies assumes some form of group selection. Some societies are more successful than others and spread or send more dispersers than others.
This assumption also views societies, or certain key behaviors within societies, as something that is relatively static, in the sense that the key features do not change often.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the processes acting in metacommunity dynamics. Metacommunity is a set of local communities that are connected through flows of dispersers and matter. The key processes are local selection and dispersal, although in the long term also ecological drift and speciation affect community composition. The relative strength of local selection and dispersal determines whether community composition is mainly driven by local conditions or by what happens in the surrounding landscape.
Mixing of societies through dispersal was earlier mainly regional or national but is now increasingly global. Also the spread of ideas that could form non-genetic inheritance is much faster through media and internet. As people move more often long distances, dispersal is likely to override local selection. This leads me to the conclusion that only such inherited characteristics that are changing within most societies are likely to prevail at the local scale.
To conclude, I assume that evolution of human societies through genetic inheritance is not likely to play a key role in the short term (within a century or two). Non-genetic inheritance could play a more influential role.
Sociology and biology are two viewpoints to societal change. I think we need both.
‘Evolution’ has a simple general definition. The meaning of ‘human development’ is not obvious to me - I’m a biologist, not a sociologist, and English is a foreign language for me. What do you mean with the words ‘human development’?
You are correct, and your usage was fine. Gregory likes to police people’s use of the word evolution according to rules he made up himself that ignore the broad range of contexts in which typical English speakers use the word. Don’t second guess your English skills over this.
7 Likes
It’s always a welcome opportunity to give lessons to biologists about “social science” when they ask about it, since they don’t usually get much of it in their training at university. Thus, some of their amateur sociology can be quite right, while other major parts of their sociology are so bad they’re not even wrong, yet still not laughable because usually the biologist is sincere in trying to find an authentic social or cultural ground for their questions.
“I assume that evolution of human societies through genetic inheritance is not likely to play a key role in the short term (within a century or two).” – Kai
Yes, we are agreed. That’s why I used the term “development” instead. It’s a far more widely used term among scholars than “evolution” when discussing change-over-time of human societies. It’s not biology-centric or gene-centric, but rather humanity & society-centric, and sometimes just about economics. Do you wish to challenge this claim as an outsider to the human-social sciences? I was specifically intended toward “the short term (within a century or two)” when I responded to “modern societies”.
One of the reasons to reject or avoid the term “evolution” when speaking of “modern (human) societies” is due to improper (translation of) time scales. My definition of “modern societies” means “within a century or two”. Thus, to me “evolution in modern societies” is largely irrelevant, according to your nature-oriented meaning. It’s the kind of topic only a biologist or geologist would ask about, from the back of the social sciences classroom, during a brief departure from the longer “more human” conversation, which takes up the majority of community time. Do we understand each other, Kai, biologist to sociologist and back again?
“Non-genetic inheritance could play a more influential role.” – Kai
Also agreed. And not only “could”, but “does”. There’s no doubt about that. Yet “inheritance” is a low-order, marginal category in most human-social thinking. Are you aware we don’t use that biological inheritance and indirect “population” language? We use instead sociology and “community” or “group” language. Have you heard of the extended mind thesis, for example? Do you know what “grounded theory” means in the social sciences? “Genetic inheritance” in (modern) human societies thus might indeed seem to be or even be an interesting bio-social topic for some people. It just isn’t of interest for me as a sociologist exploring human development, societal change, and social movements, who steadfastly rejects calling development “evolution”.
“societies change much faster than humans evolve and the effects of the latter are likely small.” – Steve
Again, we are agreed. This is where I’d like to invite Prof. emeritus @Sy_Garte in here to clarify and specify where he draws the line in ceasing to use “evolution” outside of “strictly natural science” applications. I’m quite intrigued that he seems to be trying to do this the right way, though haven’t seen him articulate himself widely on the topic in writing. If Sy were to explain to BioLogos what he sees as unwise in using the term “evolution” outside of natural sciences, for example, in the cultural study of human societies, then perhaps some new awareness might be raised. Would you welcome Sy’s explanation of how & why he limits using the term “evolution” and “evolve” to biology and other natural-physical sciences, Kai & Steve, fellow biologists to Sy?
“the poster used the correct term, since he or she was in fact asking about the biological evolution of modern humans.” - Steve
Carry on discussing “the biological evolution of modern humans” with Kai then, and I will absent myself from that conversation, if that’s all Kai meant to inquire about. My concern instead is with claims about so-called “evolution” when it comes to “modern societies”, as that’s a field I’m trained in. My belief that it is the wrong term to use “evolution” there must be faced on sociological grounds, not on biological or linguistic (semantic) grounds. There are other more accurate terms to use to understand how, when, where, and why societies change. If you don’t want to discuss human societal change, but only animal “societal” change or plant “societal” change (or linguistic “societal” change), then please carry on with me absent also.
Kai seemed to be alluding to more than “just biology”, however, when he asked, “But what about evolution in modern human societies?”. But maybe Steve’s right, and it was just a “biological view of human society” that Kai was speaking about, and thus only a fraction of a portion of a conversation about “modern societies” that all sociologists, and other social scientists are accustomed to.
Shall we call a spade a spade and recognize that the question was biologistic in orientation and not well stated? In any case, it could both please Steve and raise immediate and easily explainable concern with me.
“Either side of biological evolution, the term is an analogy and I agree it’s best not used in the psychology and sociology of the past 100 thousand years, or done so in inverted commas.” - Klax
We are agreed in removing “evolution” when talking about “modern societies” for “the past 100 thousand years”. That would improve the conversation immensely! 
So, what is the argument then really about here? Is it about how (some/most) biologists strongly wish to have their voices heard by co-defining “modern societies” with sociologists? Or is it asking a sociologist to defer to the language of a biologist in describing “modern societies”? (Or is it for some here mainly about how a linguist can always enter a conversation with “gracious anger” and “police” peoples’ words involving biology and sociology as a form of “moderation”?)
We’ve heard talk of “evolution of modern societies” before with E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology, right? Did BioLogos like sociobiology? Probably not, but perhaps not really. Where is it’s position on sociobiology explained, one way or another?
Can we agree that “[biological e]volution in modern societies” is a marginal nature-oriented specialist topic that barely addresses the varieties of human-social change happening around us? Kai, why do you think they’re called “Human Development Goals”, instead of “Human Evolution Goals” by the United Nations? It would be VERY helpful if you would answer this question directly as a practising biologist. Would you please share your thoughts about this with us? 
“Sociology and biology are two viewpoints to societal change.” – Kai
Well, they’re “fields of knowledge” or “disciplines”, at least, not just “viewpoints”, don’t you think? What is being requested of you, Kai, is to step up your game acknowledging the “edge of fields of knowledge” that you’re familiar with, educated as a biologist, which requires some philosophy of you (did you do your PhD in biology, or a master or bachelor?). Once/if this is done, then “evolution” becomes a more humble natural scientific theory (cf. fact of natural history), instead of a universalistic ideology that sucks in non-biological disciplines, like with the arrival of a Wilson, or a Wilson or a Jablonka/Lamb or a Laland or Mesoudi. Without doing that, since none of those are Christian paths, you instead to me as a sociologist sound ideological promoting “evolution of modern societies” as a biologist who doesn’t primarily study how, when, where, and why human societies change. That’s “ivory tower” distance from reality that biologists sometimes commit, unfortunately. Please be gentle in response if you find that to be an unfair characterization of this “evolution in modern humans” thread.
It’s a question of weights and measures regarding human change & who studies it primarily vs. who studies it peripherally, or as a hobby in their spare time. My suggestion is: listen to the people who study “societal change” primarily, as their main focus of work, rather than those who study it peripherally, or who just repeat pop academia on the topic, instead of showing and sharing a more informed and inquisitive understanding.
In short, my argument is that between biologists and sociologists, by “weight” and “concentration”, it is the sociologists who are the scholars trained to study, both in the field and wrestling with theories, social and societal change. Biologists largely learn about or study “human societal change” peripherally, as that is not the primary focus of their field of study, while studying “biological change” primarily. Do you disagree, Kai, Steve, or Mitchell?
It would be great if we could at least agree it is a good idea to “listen to the specialists” who primarily focus on “modern societies”, instead of the amateurs with their sometimes wild ideas, unless only “biological humans”, instead of “modern societies” is what Kai really meant to address in this thread.
p.s. Happy non-evolutionary Thanksgiving to those giving thanks today!
In response to this, I spent some time this morning looking into the differences between our cells and that of insects. It was an interesting exploration. It is currently important because it is promising utility in the manufacturing. The biggest difference talked about in this news is the tendency of insect cells to be infected by a type of virus called baculoviridae. This along with a lower metabolism can make insect cells useful for the industrial production of amino acids and mammalian proteins. But the point I am making here is that the differences are subtle ones rather than huge. All multicellular organisms have the same kind of cell called eukaryotic and the differences between all the multicellular species have to do with interactions and specializations.
What does this have to do with the topic of human evolution? I am drawing an analogy here. Just as the changes in individual cells hasn’t been the focus for the evolution of multicellular organisms in the last 3 billion years, changes in individual human beings hasn’t been the focus of the evolution of the homo sapiens species in modern human civilization. To be sure there have been subtle changes in the last couple million years, supporting the importance of language for example. And such subtle changes are enough to transform our lives radically by enabling us to take specialized roles in a community for the development of specialized skills and technology.
Nothing could be further from the truth to say that human evolution has practically halted. Quite the contrary the changes in human existence keep coming faster and faster. But it is primarily social rather than individual. If anything the condition of individual human biology has been far from promising, but we are compensating for such problems with technology. But again the analogy with the development of multicellular organisms shows that this is tried and true part of the process of evolution as our individual cells have become less and less capable of living independently as well.
I would certainly agree that we have no call to think that biology can replace sociological and psychological sciences as some recent trends might look like they are moving in that direction. I agree that this sort of reductionism is a serious mistake.
I can understand how many in the softer sciences sociology and psychology might long for the concrete solid ground of the physical sciences so they can stop blowing in the wind according to the most recent faddish paradigm. AND perhaps their investigations of the connections with biology will help them find that solid ground. But I really do not think that reducing sociology to biology is the answer in the long run.
This is a positive step forward, Mitchell.
“I would certainly agree that we have no call to think that biology can replace sociological and psychological sciences … I agree that this sort of reductionism is a serious mistake … I really do not think that reducing sociology to biology is the answer in the long run.”
We are agreed. Yes, reductionism is one of the problems with such a “replacement” approach. “Nice ‘soft’ social science can be replaced with higher value ‘hard’ natural science"; you are correct, Mitchell, that this is the attitude that actually needs replacing.
“I can understand how many in the softer sciences sociology and psychology might long for the concrete solid ground of the physical sciences so they can stop blowing in the wind according to the most recent faddish paradigm. AND perhaps their investigations of the connections with biology will help them find that solid ground."
It seems you’re misunderstanding then. Any sociologist or psychologist “longing for the concrete solid ground of the physical sciences” is just trying to turn their back on the inevitable reflexivity of the human-social sciences. Anyone seeking the “positivism” you speak of isn’t actually a very good sociologist, or a psychologist worth their salt. Collecting empirical evidence in the social sciences is also helpful, while depending on or limiting social science to empiricism is to be avoided. Do you see the difference between our ways of thinking, Mitchell, or is this a hard struggle for you?
The emotionally cold (as opposed to “soft”) sciences of the natural and physical world suffer from meaninglessness without the “soft sciences” to add meaning to them. This is a key conclusion we are required to draw from the “hard/soft” view of “sciences”. An ongoing fact/value distinction to take back to the philosophers. So, “soft sciences” are seen as “add-ons” to the “real deal”, which is curiously called “hard” sciences, while not implying “harder” or “more difficult” sciences, the sciences that study nature and the physical world. Soft(er) scholars study soft(er) sciences too, while emotionally cold people who detach themselves “objectively” from what they study, study the natural-physical world only. This seems to be required of the outdated “soft/hard” division. Not all that flattering of a division of labour requirement, it seems. Do you remember which philosopher you got that soft/hard distinction from, as if it is now some kind of “standard view” among natural scientists towards the social sciences and humanities, Mitchell?
“the most recent faddish paradigm”
The dichotomy “soft sciences vs. hard sciences” is apparently still a “faddish paradigm” held by natural scientists. Most aware and awake social scientists have advanced beyond that primitive fad already. Even natural scientists get caught up in “paradigms” too, Mitchell, and ideology is not escaped among the emotionally cold hard sciences.
“perhaps their investigations of the connections with biology will help them find that solid ground.”
Not likely. And not really wanted except for proportionally. Will you invite proportionality, Mitchell? Biologism is not proportional and not invited by this sociologist.
Biology is indeed much “softer” than geology, chemistry or physics, of course you agree also, right Mitchell? What is wise in sociology is not to “seek shelter” in biology or physical anthropology, or some other “outside” field of study, certainly not one committed to ideological naturalism. Instead, “solid ground” comes from doing good reflexive sociology with people, which involves first and foremost communications, ideas, and relationships, as much as only “physical, natural or material” resources. Turning to biology for explanations has become a trap for many sociologists, through behaviourism, sociobiology, and now evolutionary psychology, which openly embraces ideological biologism. Do you disagree with any of this, Mitchell, or is it simply not on your radar to notice one way or another?
This was the question that was asked if you agree or disagree, in line with my concern about the title and aim of this thread. To the following statement, I don’t yet see agreement from you, Mitchell:
“Biologists largely learn about or study “human societal change” peripherally, as that is not the primary focus of their field of study, while studying “biological change” primarily.”
So, then do you disagree?
Not really. The biologist can most of the time put their object of study under the microscope. And with genetics it can perhaps even be argued the biology is becoming more of a hard science than geology and physics. Few sciences have the history of their object of study written down in code for all to read. Compare that to cosmology for example. (ok… ok… not too unlike, for cosmology we have light from distant sources, and in geology we have a strata of rocks, but for biology the genetic code is in addition to the fossil record)
I do not disagree with that. I can see how it can be a trap. But just because there are traps doesn’t mean a forest should not be explored or that there is nothing of value to be found there. So I while I agree that evolutionary psychology should not replace psychology, I disagree with the claim that evolutionary psychology is not a worthwhile field of study.
The difference is the accumulation of evidence. No change of theory can make the evidence go away. So the first test of general relativity was to see if it reproduced Newtonian physics in the regime where Newtonian physics was working. Only then can we see if it also correctly predicts those things where Newtonian physics was getting it wrong.
But a science where the evidence is scarce, hard to connect with conclusions, or blurred by the blunt tool of statistics, there is no accumulation of evidence to give it any hard ground for its conclusions. Thus the newest paradigm easily rules the science. AND YES, the appeal to biology and evolution can indeed be considered such a paradigm. But I would agree with you in so far as hoping that the stumbling efforts to explore doesn’t end there.
Naturalism is the work of science – science is all about looking for the laws of nature which explains things. Accusing any science of “ideological naturalism” just looks like an excuse to employ “ideological religionism,” which leaves any legitimate claim to science in ashes.
From encyclopedia Britannica
Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural.
This makes it clear that naturalism is all about reducing philosophy to an extension of science but to accuse science itself of excessive naturalism is a nonsensical absurdity.
Human Development Goals is a limited list of topics with a defined goal. Development is to eradicate poverty and hunger, to achieve universal primary education, to promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat disease, ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership for development. A nice list, I can support these goals.
Yet, if this would be a definition of development, research on development would be a very limited branch of science and anything but neutral. I assume that your definition is a wider one.
What do you mean with the word ‘development’?
1 Like
“What do you mean with the word ‘development’?”
I mean a better term than “evolution” for describing societal change-over-time. It involves direction, aim, purpose, meaning, goal, intention, and importantly, responsibility, which are all at a discount in the “evolutionary” paradigm.
You said “evolution” had a “simple definition”. Ok, please provide this simple definition of “evolution.” Then at least we’ll be able to see what you mean.
I’ll go after you re: defining “development”, since you raised the topic of “modern human societies”, but seem to have only meant the mere physical-biological-natural change in people. Your question thus reveals highly suspect social thinking that in my experience no Abrahamic monotheist should adopt.
If it’s a lesson for a biologist about “societies”, then please say what you’re learning, as it’s hard to tell so far. You’re now aware, at least, that they’re not called “Human Evolution Goals”. But you haven’t given a SINGLE reason why the UN chose NOT to use “evolution”. Can you come up with anything, Kai, or is your “modern human societies” talk of “evolution” just biological bloat? I believe you will quit trying when you realize that the language of biology is largely irrelevant for discussing modern societal change. And then that you’ll revert to speaking loosely about “evolving societies” solely because of your own biologism, not because of good reasoning or having done any sociological reading.
I’ve spoken with many biologists who frankly have none or almost NO CLUE about ideology. They get no training about it and thus usually have little discernment about ideas outside of natural science. PhDs naive about humanity and human society sometimes dominate biology departments. Some biologists are sincerely open to learning, while others are so excessively proud of what they “know” about the biosphere that they simply won’t allow any “lessons” from a social scientist about what they think they know. What kind of a biologist are you, Kai? Are you a willing learner or simply stuck promoting biologism about society?
What is most surprising, it that the biologists I’ve met nevertheless ALWAYS advertise their ideologies rather quickly when discussing topics OUTSIDE of biology. It’s sadly rather widespread and chronic, these ideological biologists who honestly to themselves believe they have no ideologies. It’s a HUGE biologistic irony for these folks!! Have you not experienced this, Kai?
“in every epoch, naturalism presents itself as if it were the result of human progress” - Mariano Artigas
Can you imagine it, Kai, some people think “naturalism” isn’t an ideology?! 
“Evolutionary theory” is of almost NO HELP for understanding the changes in modern societies. What would it take for you to accept this, Kai? There’s a HUGE matching problem, as Subrena Smith showed. Let’s finally stop trying to force the concept of “evolution” into fields outside of biology & other natural sciences, shall we? Thankfully, @Sy_Garte would agree.
As long as the evolution of the genetically very hard wired human brain and its complexity at the heart of human behaviour including morality and therefore social morality is ever more taken in to account, the more emergent ‘spandrels’ of psychology and sociology are fine.
“while I agree that evolutionary psychology should not replace psychology, I disagree with the claim that evolutionary psychology is not a worthwhile field of study.”
I’ve yet to see a single soul at BioLogos make a halfway decent or anywhere near convincing argument that eVopsych 1) doesn’t suffer from the “matching problem”, which pretty much makes it invalid, and 2) isn’t a field led by 99% atheists and agnostics, many of whom use “evolutionary religious studies” as their basis for both accepting eVopsych and rejecting Abrahamic monotheism.
Have you seen it yet, Mitchell? If so, please provide the link to it. I haven’t seen anything constructive about eVopsych at BioLogos yet, and have been paying close attention. Justin Barrett has not been convincing, and he’s all BioLogos has in this area. What have you seen valuable from BioLogos about “evolutionary psychology”, Mitchell? Please be forthcoming so we can assess your analysis. Let’s start with that to see if you’re informed or uninformed.
You call eVopsych a “worthwhile field of study”. ROTFL! Please point to the best example of an eVopsych paper that you consider “valuable” and “worthwhile”. I doubt you’ll come up with anything specific. Indeed, I doubt you’ve read almost ANY eVopsych, and that you’re just “expecting” or opining from a distance that “evolution” SHOULD be applied in “psychology”, is it not true Mitchell?
“The difference is the accumulation of evidence.”
Uh, yeah. And there are also different types of evidence and different ways to analyse evidence. There is no lack of evidence about how modern societies are NOT “evolving”, but rather “developing” with intention. What would it take for you to see this? We can look at societal development together, Kai, instead of making insinuations about how much biology has to teach sociology.
“Naturalism is the work of science – science is all about looking for the laws of nature which explains things. Accusing any science of “ideological naturalism” just looks like an excuse to employ “ideological religionism,” which leaves any legitimate claim to science in ashes.”
You appear unable to grasp the power of ideas. “Naturalism” is NOT “the work of science”. Where did you learn such nonsense as that, so that we can work to remove it from the guilty teachers?
“Accusing any science of ‘ideological naturalism’…”
No, please pay closer attention, as that was not proposed or “accused”. Not all science done is done based on ideology, and not all natural sciences require ideological naturalism. This might seem difficult for you to parse, since you’re likely trained as a “naturalist”, both professionally and ideologically. That’s what is taught, after all, in biology classrooms! One must be free though, surely you must admit, Mitchell, to “accuse” ideology of being ideological. Do you actually disagree?
It may be that you simply don’t believe there are ANY ideologies, as this is a position that some biologists, untrained in ideology, hold. Thus, naturalism CANNOT be an ideology by definition, because some biologists have declared “there are no ideologies” and “biology cannot become ideologically corrupt”.
The most difficult part for the natural scientist is often simply that they may indeed have fallen prey to ideology that compromises their “objectivity”, yet without even realizing it! Biologists simply don’t know when they transition into ideologues, most of the time. It’s a typical blind spot of the discipline. Natural science and ideological naturalism are two separate yet overlapping concepts, and many natural scientists cannot make a coherent and worthy argument against ideological naturalism. Can you, Mitchell?
“which leaves any legitimate claim to science in ashes”
No, you mistake my claim, as I’m not taking things as far as your caricature. Science of many varieties is valuable and legitimate within limited domains. Too easily “science” nowadays is exaggerated beyond its proper domain, thereby becoming empty of meaning and illegitimate. People calling themselves “scientists” yet untrained in philosophy, however, often don’t like to think about the illegitimacy of their ideologies, which they masquerade as “strictly science.” This is why BioLogos rejects ideological scientism, even while some of its representatives promote scientism in their embrace of ideological evolutionism (which they of course deny, under the general umbrella of “theistic evolutionism”).
“From encyclopedia Britannica: Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. / This makes it clear that naturalism is all about reducing philosophy to an extension of science but to accuse science itself of excessive naturalism is a nonsensical absurdity.”
Well Britannica, I disagree that naturalism is a “theory”. To me it is an ideology as that makes the most sense of how it is used both sociologically and philosophically. Otherwise, it looks like a philosophistic “fun house” right now in N. America about “evolution” and I have no idea what you call your “philosophy”, if you think “naturalism” is (only) a (mere) philosophy.
“to accuse science itself of excessive naturalism is a nonsensical absurdity”
Yes, and I would never do that. At least be fair in what you are accusing someone of, ok?
You may be aware that “science” isn’t a person, Mitchell, and only persons hold ideologies. Were you aware of that? “Science” itself thus can’t “be ideological”, any more than it can be “happy” or “sad”. Scientists, however, can be ideological, happy or sad. Do you acknowledge and accept this distinction?
I’m trying to help you see your ideological evolutionism can be either 1) shrunk considerably, or 2) overcome entirely. Do you think it’s possible, Mitchell?
What has Abrahamic monotheism got to do with the human brain? And theism and gnosticism? Apart from being products of it? And what has the classic probability “matching problem” to do with the evolution of the human mind?
What is ideological about nature? And why is it so funny?
Thanks for trying to explain. A better term. Ok, lets assume so. I get the impression that you are speaking of a term that includes a wide range of processes and mechanisms leading to societal change-over-time. I assume that these include both inherited (non-genetical inheritance) and other changes. Did I get it right?
Your mentioned purpose, goal and responsibility. Does this mean neutral observation of the purpose, goal and responsibility of those studied, or does it include some sort of idealism, like expectations that people and societies should behave in a certain way or they are somehow ‘inferior’?
Evolution is a change in the heritable characteristics of a population (group, society or anything like that) over successive generations. In a broad sense, this does include non-genetical inheritance.
Please note that I have nothing against sociology and I do not think that biology as a branch of science is somehow superior to sociology. My questions aim to better understanding. ‘Development’ is a word that could be used in many ways so it is not self-evident what you mean with the word.
1 Like
I feel like I am talking to a creationist arguing that evolution isn’t true because nobody has convinced them of this, while declaring that anyone supporting evolution is an atheist. LOL This shifting the burden of proof onto everyone who disagrees with them is SO typical! I don’t don’t see why I should care about any matching problem, let alone accept your assertion this has ANYTHING to do with the value of evolutionary psychology. I see no evidence of your claim that 99% are atheists or agnostics. I look for a list of famous evolutionary psychologists and I read about one theist after another. But of course, since they disagree with you about the value of evolutionary psychology, they must be atheists according to you.
Nope. Instead I have seen evolutionary psychologists like Jordan Peterson using it to argue for the value of Christian religion.
I have no need whatsoever to overcome my understanding of the value of the theory of evolution since this is the only reason I find Christianity worthy of any consideration. And no I do not think it is possible for you “help” me overcome this.
I’m trying to help you see your that your ideological hostility to evolutionary psychology and evolutionary theory in general is quite unreasonable.
…
I took a look at the article of Justin Weinberg and my criticism is that this argument for a matching problem suffers a common problem with many philosophical arguments of confusing words and language with reality itself. All this babble about having to be the same “kind” sounds totally ridiculous to me. I also do not see the relevance of all this talk of “mental structures” which I would assume to be linguistic and conceptual, immediately granting these have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. I object that human behavior is not exclusively a function of such “mental structures” but also have to do with brain functions which are clearly biological and have everything to do with evolution.
The whole thing, sounds to me, a bit like arguing against anti-depressants because that is chemistry rather than the mind …which is an overly simplistic and ideological approach to psychology. As much as I would abhor the reduction of psychology to chemistry and biology – requiring it to be completely divorced from chemistry and biology is just as unreasonable and absurd.
3 Likes
Discussions on biological evolution and the dynamics and structures (political and cultural) of human communities are extremely difficult to conduct in a rigorous manner, as a great deal of subjective beliefs are inevitable in these activities, whereas scientific theories may be subjected, to various degrees, to tests and analysis.
An additional complication, as far as I can observe, stems from taking areas that are of interest, and ignoring important contextual aspects. An example that comes to mind is that of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, which is solidly grounded in his religion. I am by no means schooled in his philosophy, but having read some of his material, I am convinced of his deeply held religious beliefs, which he equated with his self and life (we may say embodied).
Yet I have come across some material on the web in which atheists have gladly secularised his writings and then used them within an atheist’s setting.
For example, freedom of choice, or freedom of the will, potentially means that a person is free to choose for themselves whom they will be. From this he discusses Adam and Eve and sin. I cannot see how atheists can get past this! furthermore, Kierkegaard’s stages on life’s journey include a kind of increasing awareness where the self experiences an “inward deepening” of increasing spiritual (and psychological) awareness, which leads to the ethical, and of a truer self. But this has its limits as we are both finite and sinful.
I have considered human freedom and societal interactions and have realised that any biological theories cannot enable a deeper understanding of what it is to become a truer self, nor that the complexities and difficulties we have faced historically to be made more comprehensible from our biological insights.
My point, if I can make it, is that religion that makes us increasingly aware of sin and the need for salvation in Christ through faith and grace, are central to humanity finding a way out of destruction, evil and death. Those who feel they can remove these aspects from writing such as Kierkegaard’s (and Patristic writings) and rely on scientific, psychological, and social theories, would be greatly mistaken.
1 Like
Nothing to see, except that the use of the word evolving with respect to societies have nothing to do with mechanism of change in genetic material, and it is your prickly reaction to this use of the word which looks excessively ideological to me.
Looking for the laws of nature which explain things certainly is the work of science. Ignoring my explanations of my own words to wordsnatch isn’t helping anything, nor are the rants you begin based on doing this.
Communication is difficult when you ignore what I say. Looking for the laws of nature which explain things is the work of science. But the idea that an ideology or philosophy of naturalism (which equates reality itself to these laws of nature discovered by science) can somehow poison science is just plain incoherent.
ah… maybe… what you can complain about is confusing the philosophical position of naturalism with science. They are indeed not the same thing at all.
Huh? what does a training in philosophy have to do with being a scientist? …oh I see… you have created confusion with your un-called for challenge to actually being a scientist… and perhaps you just need to work on that sentence a little.
For example… Richard Dawkins is clearly a scientist. But… not only is he lacking of training in philosophy but he has put up his opinions in the field of philosophy with the implications that they are somehow scientific – which, of course, they are not. And thus we can challenge the validity of calling himself a scientist in that particular work of philosophical opinion. Is that kind of what you are getting at?