Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T09:20:36.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary Biology and Cultural Values: Is It Irremediably Corrupt?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Michael Ruse
Get access

Extract

In recent years, philosophers have come to realize that the relationship between science and values raises questions which are both important and not readily answered. It is true that the major figures in that tradition known as ‘logical empiricism’ appreciated that science always exceeds its empirical grasp and that it is necessary for scientists to be guided and constrained by so-called ‘epistemic values,’ these being values (in the words of one supporter) ‘presumed to promote the truth-like character of science, its character as the most secure knowledge available to us of the world we seek to understand.’ However, these values — such things as internal and external consistency, simplicity, predictive accuracy and fertility, unificatory power (consilience) — were considered special. Inasmuch as they could not be reduced to basic principles of logic — and there were attempts to do this — they were still thought of, in some sense, as beyond the vagaries of human emotion. Their importance was not a function of the individual’s personal inclinations, nor of those of the group, whether this group be understood as a closely knit band of researchers or even up to a complete society.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 20: Biology & Society - Reflections on Methodology , 1994 , pp. 43 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McMullin, E. ‘Values in Science,’ in Asquith, P.D. and Nickles, T. eds., PSA 1982 (East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association 1983) 3-28Google Scholar, at 18

2 Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1972)

3 Young, R.Darwin’s Metaphor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985)Google Scholar

4 Barnes, B.Interests and the Growth of Knowledge (London: Routledge 1977)Google Scholar

5 Desmond, A.The Politics of Evolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1989)Google Scholar

6 Fausto-Sterling, A.Myths of Gender (New York: Basic Books 1985)Google Scholar

7 Rifkin, J.Algeny: A New Word — A New World (New York: Penguin 1984)Google Scholar

8 Longino, H.Science as Social Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1990)Google Scholar

9 Graham, L.Betiveen Science and Values (New York: Columbia University Press 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Ruse, M.The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge 1989)Google Scholar

11 See Levins, R. and Lewontin, R.The Dialectical Biologist (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1985)Google Scholar; Gould, S.J.The Mismeasure of Man (New York: Norton 1981)Google Scholar; Hubbard, R. ‘Have Only Men Evolved?’ in Harding, S. and Hintikka, M.B. eds., Discovering Reality (Dordrecht: Reidel 1983) 45-69Google Scholar.

12 Ruse, M.But is it Science? (Buffalo: Prometheus 1988)Google Scholar

13 Ruse, M.Darwinism Defended (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 1982)Google Scholar

14 Darwin, C.The Descent of Man (London: John Murray 1871)Google Scholar

15 Hofstadter, R.Social Darwinism in American Thought (New York: Braziller 1959)Google Scholar

16 Gasman, D.The Scientific Origins of National Socialism (Now York: Elsevier 1971)Google Scholar

17 Ruse, M.The Darwinian Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1979)Google Scholar

18 Kelly, A.The Descent of Darwin (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1981)Google Scholar

19 Oxford: Oxford University Press 1976

20 ‘Out for the Sperm Count,’ Nature 337 (1986) 508-9

21 The Selfish Gene

22 Desmond, A. and Moore, J.Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: Warner 1992)Google Scholar

23 Life and Letters of Thomas Huxley, L. Huxley, ed. (New York: Appleton 1902)

24 See R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought.

25 Russett, CE.Darwin in America: The Intellectual Response, 1865-1912 (San Francisco: Freeman 1976)Google Scholar

26 Kropotkin, P.Mutual Aid, reprinted with an introduction by Montague, A. (Boston: Extending Horizons Books 1955Google Scholar [1902])

27 Todes, D.Darwin Without Malthus (New York: Oxford University Press 1989)Google Scholar

28 Mitman, G.The State of Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1992)Google Scholar

29 Wallace, A.R.Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection (London: Macmillan 1870)Google Scholar

30 Looking Backward, 2000-1898, reprinted with an introduction by R. Shurter (New York: Modern Library 1951 [1889])

31 Wallace, A.R.My Life (London: Chapman Hall 1905)Google Scholar

32 Morgan, E.The Descent of Woman (London: Souvenir 1972)Google Scholar

33 The Woman That Never Evolved (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1981)

34 Wilson, E.O.Biophilia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1984)Google Scholar; Wilson, E.O. and Peter, F.M. eds., Biodiversity (Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1988)Google Scholar

35 See their The Dialectical Biologist.

36 See M. Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm.

37 Wilson, E.O.Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1975)Google Scholar

38 Segerstrale, U. ‘Colleagues in Conflict: An “in vitro” Analysis of the Sociobiol-ogy Controversy,’ Biology and Philosophy 1 (1985) 53-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Popper, K.Unended Quest: An Intellectual A utobiography (La Salle, IL: Open Court 1976)Google Scholar

40 On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1978), 192

41 Kuhn, T.The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1957)Google Scholar

42 See M. Ruse, The Darwinian Revolution.

43 Hamilton, W.D. “The Genetic Evolution of Social Behavior,’ journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1964) 1-52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 See Ruse, M.The Philosophy of Biology (London: Hutchinson 1973)Google Scholar; and Sober, E.The Nature of Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1984)Google Scholar.

45 Gale, B. ‘Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence,’ Isis 63 (1972) 321-44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Ruse, M.Molecules to Men: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press forthcoming)Google Scholar

47 Hesse, M. and Arbib, M.The Construction of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986)Google Scholar

48 Fisher, R.A.The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 See Ruse, M. ‘Are Pictures Really Necessary? The Case of Sewell Wright’s “adaptive landscapes”’ in Fine, A.Forbes, M. and Wessells, L. eds., PSA 1990 vol. 2 (East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association 1991) 63-77Google Scholar.

50 Ruse, M. ‘Evolution and Progress,’ Trends in Evolution and Ecology 8 (1993)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

51 See his Objective Knowledge.

52 Simpson, G.G.The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press 1950)Google Scholar

53 See Dobzhansky, T.The Biology of Ultimate Concern (New York: New American Library 1967)Google Scholar.

54 Russett, CE.The Concept of Equilibrium in American Social Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press 1966)Google Scholar

55 See especially Wonderful Life (New York: Norton 1989).

56 Ruse, M.Taking Darwin Seriously (Oxford: Blackwell 1986)Google Scholar

57 Ibid.; see also The Darwinian Paradigm.