Yesterday, Janelle asked “why did the credit of natural
selection go solely to Darwin?”
Personally, I believe that it was the way that he presented his ideas
and arguments that set him apart from other naturalists of the time.
We briefly touched on the fact that Darwin was heavily
influenced by Dickens, which comes through in his repetition of themes and
opinions. This, along with the use
of relatively simple examples to expose his arguments, allowed Darwin to
communicate his findings to academics and the masses alike. By appealing to the public instead of
just one small group, it seems that the chances of a theory lasting are greatly
increased.
Darwin also seemed to have a unique ability to escape the
necessity of providing full proof for some of his assertions. He accomplished this through two
different methods:
1)
by publishing his ideas first as an abstract
instead of a complete treatise and
2)
using the lack of comprehensive data and
knowledge in certain subjects to account for gaps in his reasoning.
In the first case, Darwin could state that he had concrete
evidence to support his claims but at the same time did not subject that
evidence to critique. In the
second, he was able make contentions that other naturalists might not agree
with, but were incapable of disproving due to the dearth of knowledge on those
subjects.
While I have not read works of other naturalists of the
time, these facets of Darwin’s writing stood out to me as possible answers to
the question.
What are your thoughts on the question? Are there other reasons that you can
think of? Do you think it is fair/ethical
to use arguments that either can’t be proven or at the very least won’t be
substantiated for 12 years (when The
Descent of Man was published)?
I think the notion of ethics here is interesting, as Darwin seemed particularly concerned in his letters (App. E) about appearing as if he had plagiarized Wallace's work. That said, I don't think his use of a lack of disproving evidence to support his theory was neccessarily unfair or unethical. Because of a lack of some supporting concrete evidence, as well as the "grave" failing that the imperfection of the geological record afforded him, it was wise on his part to limit the scope of his theory (including man 12 years later). I think Darwin's work largely caught on because he lifted the veil on the inner-workings of Nature to the public, but didn't go so far as to make any immutable prescriptions or try to extend his theory to man. In Todd's post, he suggests that the imagination of the reader is what lends weight to Darwin's theories and I'd agree with him. I think "On The Origin.." engaged the reader/public in the quest for answers regarding nature and life, letting them apply the theory to their own existence, without preaching absolutes.
ReplyDelete