Why is Social Darwinism Pseudo-Science?

[Laika]

I'm going to use a very broad definition of "Social Darwinism" to cover the application of the laws of biology to society, especially natural selection. The reason is that an "evolutionary" view of society is common amongst a large number of political ideologies, notably Nazism and Communism but also Liberalism, in the 19th century.
However, this has become classed as a "pseudo-scientific" position during the 20th century but I'm struggling to understand why.

Here's roughly what I am getting at. Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution and published it in The Origin of Species in 1859. Eventually, he went on to author The Descent of Man in 1871. The basic principle of Social Darwinism is that man is an animal and therefore that the laws of biology therefore govern human beings. This challanges the view that man was created in god's image and has a "special" place in creation, when instead man is just another animal engaged in the struggle for survival. Importantly, if man is both subject to and the product of the laws of nature, it follows that human behaviour is determined rather than having the capacity for "free will" as individual agency independent of our physical existence and limitations.

The Most common interpretation of Social Darwinism refers to the "survival of the fittest", in which human social organisation is a reflection of the evolutionary struggle for survival. This can on the one hand explain social conflicts and has applications in Liberalism, by treating the competition within the free market as a "biological" law. Through this process of "natural selection" the economy develops through a process of "creative destruction" in which new techniques of production superscede old and less productive ones. Many would argue that "sucess" in the market place was a measure of biological fitness in the struggle for life, with the wealthy being considered "fit" and the poor being "unfit".

Another interpretation is one more closely associated with Nazism, that social conflict is organised along the lines of race and that racial conflicts represent a basis for imperialism, colonialism, nationalism and militarism.

A third one is the Communist variety, in which a process of social evolution takes place through economic laws, which mimics biological laws of natural selection in so far as the most "progressive" classes and socio-economic systems compete and triumph over more "reactionary" one. This is one of the few areas- applying evolution to society- where Communist and Nazi ideologies overlapped (but even then it is still in the most general terms).

I also want to bring up the less common interpretation, which is not simply that evolution works by competition but also by co-operation and that man is a "social animal" who is predisposed by an evolutionary advantage to live in small communities. This co-operative interpretation was used to some extent in all the interpretations (as even war is a social activity).

Many Christian Fundamentalists would try to link Darwin's conception of evolution as applied to animals to the atrocities committed by totalitarian systems in the 20th century. It should be stated that the relationship is not a simple linear one, and that there were many influences at work. However objectionable this view may be in terms of our emotional senstitivty and that it denies that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property and happiness, I'm struggling to see why this is was dismissed.

I'm going to get ahead of a few replies and say that no, I don't buy the argument that social darwinism is unfalsifiable, as Karl Popper's work on demarcating science and pseudoscience has little relationship to the realities of practicing science. Scientific theories are not falsified but are superceded by better theories with greater explanatory power. This simply appeals to "commonsense" notions of truth and falsehood which don't apply in abosolute terms with regards the degree to which models correspond to actual observations and represent "workable" theories. Nor do I accept the simplistic notion that, because man has free will we cannot predict human social development- because we have never at any point developed a scientific method to test for the existence of free will whilst scientific evidence is more favourable to determinism. this treats free will as an assumption defining the limits of science rather than a conclusion based on evidence for the existence of free will.

I grant that specific applications of this idea are very much dependent on the validity of specific circumstances, but I fail to see why it is pseudoscientific in it's entirity and that the principle of evolution is not in some form applicable to understanding both individual behaviour and to social development. what am I missing?

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought "social darwinism" was more of an analogy, observing that the fittest tend to rise.
There was supposed to be science behind it?

 

[LuisDantas]

It has no evidencial support to speak of, and I doubt it ever produced an experiment, let alone a falsifiable one.

It isn't science, and probably not even pseudo-science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One of the main reasons is that it's a flawed reading and interpretation of Origin of Species, and failure to recognize how people in power get to power and how many of them have detrimental characteristics, and that more-often-than-not the application of Social Darwinism leads to severe and dire consequences. Also it has been formulated and promoted by people trying to justify eugenics, colonialism, and racism. It also ignores our social nature (pretty much the main problem Darwin saw in it) and promotes the idea of individuals being "self-made," even though there is not even a self or anything to make yourself into if there are no other people or community. It's not even actually based on Darwin's ideas, it's linked to several people who aren't Darwin, and Darwin himself dismissed such ideas.
Another major issue is that political power has nothing to do with "social fitness." Though social understandings and knowledge can help in securing and perpetuating one's power, there is no real strength or weaknesses in which to measure such "fitness for power." From there, it turns into a circular argument because the current regime will claim they are most fit to rule, then the next one will claim they are the most fit, and then the next will claim the same.
It also ignores circumstances and chance. Had Napoleon been born during a different time, we wouldn't remember him. Had colonialism not happened, many Communist revolutions wouldn't have happened, and pictures of Che Guevara wouldn't be found in the homes of those who lean way out into the Left. Had the British treated their colonies differently, history itself would be dramatically altered. It also becomes a problem when ideas such as "let the strong flourish and the weak perish," because there is very often nothing more than coincidental circumstances that lead to wealth and poverty. It also tends to fail at what exactly is supposed to be strong and weak.
Another huge problem for it the fact that Machiavelli had a far greater approach towards obtaining and securing power, and basically you can sum up his works (most notably The Prince) into a list of "dos and don'ts." Of course there is more to it than that, but it so much about biologically being made fit to rule but doing things that can only be done with power in order to obtain more power and secure your power. His ideas are blind to things such as ideology, which is something Social Darwin heavily resorts to when trying to justify the weak and the strong, even though it can't even define what is weak and what is strong.
As Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:
The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them.
That is pretty much why Social Darwinism doesn't work and why it's not a science and not even a pseudoscience.

 

[Augustus]

I'm going to get ahead of a few replies and say that no, I don't buy the argument that social darwinism is unfalsifiable, as Karl Popper's work on demarcating science and pseudoscience has little relationship to the realities of practicing science. Scientific theories are not falsified but are superceded by better theories with greater explanatory power...

In general, are scientific theories that are later considered to be incorrect/superceded labelled pseudo-science? Or only the unpopular ones that people like to pretend weren't actually considered 'real' scientific views favoured by many prominent figures in the scientific community?

I grant that specific applications of this idea are very much dependent on the validity of specific circumstances, but I fail to see why it is pseudoscientific in it's entirity and that the principle of evolution is not in some form applicable to understanding both individual behaviour and to social development. what am I missing?

"Such questions cannot be approached without referring to what was called in the 19th century ‘man’s place in nature’. Starting from Popper’s remark that ‘definitions must be read from right to left’, the story of Social Darwinism teaches us that the revaluation of ‘Darwinism’ must reconsider its history from its origins. The study of Social Darwinism would then be considered as a branch of the studies advocating a wider definition of ‘Darwinism’, which itself would be considered as inescapably social and historical. It will then appear to refer clearly to the relationship we establish between biology and society, whether biological laws are directly prolonged in society, or more or less intermingle in a close network: is the necessary analogy between nature and society loose or dense, and to what extent can we associate or dissociate nature and culture?The issue of the definition—or rejection—of Social Darwinism depends obviously on the possible answers to this question, and so does the issue of redefining Darwinism at large"

Social Darwinism: from reality to myth and from myth to reality" - Daniel Becquemont (Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2011) 12–19)

Is this really something distinct from many things that we consider 'science' today (at the very least social science).

Deciding what is pseudo-science and what is science is not a particularly scientific endeavour. (theoretical physics anyone?)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry, my level of background on this isn't sufficient to add too much.
However, for some people, pseudo-science is a term used for almost any acietific endevour that doesn't fit into the 'hard sciences'.

It's certainly something I heard plenty of times as a psychology major.

It's a valid (if self-serving) view, even. So I wouldn't get too worried about being in the pseudo-science bucket. There's plenty of company.

 

[metis]

I

Deciding what is pseudo-science and what is science is not a particularly scientific endeavour. (theoretical physics anyone?)

We use the term "pseudo-science" to refer to any supposed approach that doesn't use the scientific method and/or refuses to submit to peer-review. However, "pseudo-science" does not mean that what they may come up with or believe is intrinsically wrong.

 

[rocala]

I also want to bring up the less common interpretation, which is not simply that evolution works by competition but also by co-operation and that man is a "social animal" who is predisposed by an evolutionary advantage to live in small communities. This co-operative interpretation was used to some extent in all the interpretations (as even war is a social activity).

I am very glad that you mentioned this. My only real exposure to social Darwinism was to witness a debate about a lengthy article where the research was based on British industrial relations in general and the coal mines in particular. The author stated that mineworkers tended to be from small, somewhat isolated, closely knit communities which were centred around a coal mine. People of ability tended to move out, the remainder stayed and interbred. The result was an inferior group who were less able to tolerate change and were unlikely to be able to work with sophisticated methods of negotiation. This manifested itself as workers militancy.

The argument was well researched and backed by statistics,all concerning traditional mining communities. The argument was however completely destroyed by a knowledgeable opponent who showed that the Kent coalfields were far less isolated, experienced greater numbers of people moving in to the community yet were amongst the most militant of mining areas in the country.

 

[metis]

Darwin never believed in nor taught "social Darwinism".

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm going to use a very broad definition of "Social Darwinism" to cover the application of the laws of biology to society, especially natural selection.

I think that may be the problem here: the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism has a much narrower definition. What you define here is perfectly good science: biological forces, including evolution, apply to humans. No argument there.

When people normally disparage social darwinism, however, they are generally speaking about the overextension of Darwin's theories in ways that buttress a person's political position. Herbert Spencer, in particular, promoted the idea that charity for the poor was bad because the poor had bad genes that prevented them from thriving. Nature should be allowed to take its course. This is the philosophy of Ebenezer Scrooge when he says the poor should die, and decrease the surplus population. Darwin really never espoused any such idea, and actually resisted it vehemently.

The reason is that an "evolutionary" view of society is common amongst a large number of political ideologies, notably Nazism and Communism but also Liberalism, in the 19th century.
However, this has become classed as a "pseudo-scientific" position during the 20th century but I'm struggling to understand why.

Well, I don't know of anyone in the anti-SD movement who was saying that the laws of biology didn't apply to humans. On the contrary, opponents of the ideas I cite above have pointed out that "good genes" aren't always good, nor bad ones always bad. What's good for the population is a widely varied gene pool, which those social forces that oppressed the poor were threatening. Therefore a more careful reading of Darwin's work would suggest that we SHOULD take care of the poor, so as to preserve their genes for when the world turns on its ear. After all, we never know when a shift in the world situation will cause formerly maladaptive traits to be beneficial, and beneficial ones maladaptive.

THAT is the reason it's classed as pseudoscience. Because it uses the language of science as trappings to dress up a preestablished idea that is actually contradicted by a more careful reading of the science.

 

[Sunstone]

To me, one of the more interesting issues with Social Darwinism is the notion that success within the context of a social hierarchy is somehow translatable into biological fitness.

 

[Sunstone]

...what am I missing?

I think you've all but reduced the ideology of Social Darwinism to the much simpler (and defensible) notion that humans are animals subject to biological evolution.

 

[DeepShadow]

I think you've all but reduced the ideology of Social Darwinism to the much simpler (and defensible) notion that humans are animals subject to biological evolution.

^This. It's what I was trying to say, only better in every way.

 

[Laika]

Thanks everyone. Some really good and well thought out responses here.

I thought "social darwinism" was more of an analogy, observing that the fittest tend to rise.
There was supposed to be science behind it?

This is sort of where my confusion is, because it relies on an "older" definition of science from the 19th century (which was less rigourous in terms of the strict application of the scientific method and more philosophical in its approach). Social Science is generally less reliable than Natural Science because it cannot be performed in a laboratory setting [and we wouldn't allow it now either]. In the 19th century however the consensus was that you could understand society "scientifically" and the term "social science" is very much a legacy of that. This idea comes up in various guises (as said in the OP) like "Scientific Racism" or Marxist "Scientific Socialism" as well as Eugenics. But the basic underpinning that man is part of nature and therefore subject to natural laws is common to all of them, even if they disagree as to how those laws operate. The broadness of that definition I've used is (as some posters have said) defensible, but the individual propositions within social darwinist philosophies themselves are not "testable" in a recognisable sense.

 

[Augustus]

We use the term "pseudo-science" to refer to any supposed approach that doesn't use the scientific method and/or refuses to submit to peer-review. However, "pseudo-science" does not mean that what they may come up with or believe is intrinsically wrong.

Personally, I don't particularly care much for the term, as it is is subjective, polemical and an inhibitor to thought.

I acknowledge that there are some things that could be pretty fairly labelled pseudo-science, but there is also no clear divide between what is science, what is pseudo-science, what is non-science, etc. What counts as pseudo-science is not objective, but subjective. People don't label certain ideas in theoretical physics 'pseudo-science', although some argue they are not really 'scientific'.

As to why it inhibits thought: 'All Reasonable People' know that social Darwinism is pseudo-science, ditto scientific racialism. As such they get to shield themselves from confronting the idea that these were popular theories considered real science. It also sees 'science' as something set in stone with clearly defined edges, abstracted from the philosophy of science and broader context.

It is a term that can be used to dismiss something out of hand before even engaging the brain with the topic.

That's why I said there is nothing scientific about the label 'pseudo-science'. It's simply 'stuff we don't like that we don't consider meets our subjective standard of what constitutes science'.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm going to use a very broad definition of "Social Darwinism" to cover the application of the laws of biology to society, especially natural selection. The reason is that an "evolutionary" view of society is common amongst a large number of political ideologies, notably Nazism and Communism but also Liberalism, in the 19th century.
However, this has become classed as a "pseudo-scientific" position during the 20th century but I'm struggling to understand why.

First you must understand what science is so that you can see the difference.

Here's roughly what I am getting at. Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution and published it in The Origin of Species in 1859. Eventually, he went on to author The Descent of Man in 1871. The basic principle of Social Darwinism is that man is an animal and therefore that the laws of biology therefore govern human beings. This challanges the view that man was created in god's image and has a "special" place in creation, when instead man is just another animal engaged in the struggle for survival. Importantly, if man is both subject to and the product of the laws of nature, it follows that human behaviour is determined rather than having the capacity for "free will" as individual agency independent of our physical existence and limitations.

Yes, man is ultimately subject to the laws of nature, That says nothing about free will what-so-ever.

The Most common interpretation of Social Darwinism refers to the "survival of the fittest", in which human social organisation is a reflection of the evolutionary struggle for survival. This can on the one hand explain social conflicts and has applications in Liberalism, by treating the competition within the free market as a "biological" law. Through this process of "natural selection" the economy develops through a process of "creative destruction" in which new techniques of production superscede old and less productive ones. Many would argue that "sucess" in the market place was a measure of biological fitness in the struggle for life, with the wealthy being considered "fit" and the poor being "unfit".

The phrase "survival of the fittest' belongs to Spenser, not Darwin. In any case, Darwin used the phrase in relation to natural selection, indicating that even if all the members of a population died at the same age, simply because some of them would have produced more offspring than others, would be more fit.

Another interpretation is one more closely associated with Nazism, that social conflict is organised along the lines of race and that racial conflicts represent a basis for imperialism, colonialism, nationalism and militarism.

The Nazis were wrong about lots of stuff.

A third one is the Communist variety, in which a process of social evolution takes place through economic laws, which mimics biological laws of natural selection in so far as the most "progressive" classes and socio-economic systems compete and triumph over more "reactionary" one. This is one of the few areas- applying evolution to society- where Communist and Nazi ideologies overlapped (but even then it is still in the most general terms).

The Communists were wrong about lots of stuff.

I also want to bring up the less common interpretation, which is not simply that evolution works by competition but also by co-operation and that man is a "social animal" who is predisposed by an evolutionary advantage to live in small communities. This co-operative interpretation was used to some extent in all the interpretations (as even war is a social activity).

You too appear to be wrong about lots of stuff.

Many Christian Fundamentalists would try to link Darwin's conception of evolution as applied to animals to the atrocities committed by totalitarian systems in the 20th century. It should be stated that the relationship is not a simple linear one, and that there were many influences at work. However objectionable this view may be in terms of our emotional senstitivty and that it denies that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property and happiness, I'm struggling to see why this is was dismissed.

The Christian Fundamentalists are, and have been, wrong most everything.

I'm going to get ahead of a few replies and say that no, I don't buy the argument that social darwinism is unfalsifiable, as Karl Popper's work on demarcating science and pseudoscience has little relationship to the realities of practicing science. Scientific theories are not falsified but are superceded by better theories with greater explanatory power. This simply appeals to "commonsense" notions of truth and falsehood which don't apply in abosolute terms with regards the degree to which models correspond to actual observations and represent "workable" theories. Nor do I accept the simplistic notion that, because man has free will we cannot predict human social development- because we have never at any point developed a scientific method to test for the existence of free will whilst scientific evidence is more favourable to determinism. this treats free will as an assumption defining the limits of science rather than a conclusion based on evidence for the existence of free will.

Popper was wrong and changed his mind concerning the lack of falsifiability of the TOE.

I grant that specific applications of this idea are very much dependent on the validity of specific circumstances, but I fail to see why it is pseudoscientific in it's entirity and that the principle of evolution is not in some form applicable to understanding both individual behaviour and to social development. what am I missing?

It is pseudoscientific because it is, on the face of it wrong despite the pretense and jargon. The TOE relies far more on allopatic speciation and available niche space than it does on head to head competition between incipient siblling species.

 

[metis]

Personally, I don't particularly care much for the term, as it is is subjective, polemical and an inhibitor to thought.

I acknowledge that there are some things that could be pretty fairly labelled pseudo-science, but there is also no clear divide between what is science, what is pseudo-science, what is non-science, etc. What counts as pseudo-science is not objective, but subjective. People don't label certain ideas in theoretical physics 'pseudo-science', although some argue they are not really 'scientific'.

As to why it inhibits thought: 'All Reasonable People' know that social Darwinism is pseudo-science, ditto scientific racialism. As such they get to shield themselves from confronting the idea that these were popular theories considered real science. It also sees 'science' as something set in stone with clearly defined edges, abstracted from the philosophy of science and broader context.

It is a term that can be used to dismiss something out of hand before even engaging the brain with the topic.

That's why I said there is nothing scientific about the label 'pseudo-science'. It's simply 'stuff we don't like that we don't consider meets our subjective standard of what constitutes science'.

I think you should reread what I posted in terms of both the use or non-use of the "scientific method" along with submitting or not submitting articles for "peer-review". We simply do not just go around and label anything "pseudo-science" that we might not like or if the majority in the field may disagree with the conclusions. IOW, it's really about the process, not the results.

 

[Augustus]

I think you should reread what I posted in terms of both the use or non-use of the "scientific method" along with submitting or not submitting articles for "peer-review". We simply do not just go around and label anything "pseudo-science" that we might not like or if the majority in the field may disagree with the conclusions. IOW, it's really about the process, not the results.

Yes, I read that. Doesn't change anything I wanted to say. It's not that anything at all can be labelled pseudo-science, but that there is no clear and uncontested delineation between science, not science and pseudo-science (and no singular 'scientific method'). We don't label aspects of theoretic physics that fail to meet such criteria as 'pseudo-science'.

Deciding that peer review is necessary is also very arbitrary. If it is published openly, people are free to challenge it as it stands. The difference between science and pseudo-science should not be 3 people reading an article before publication.

You could also make a case that many things that pass peer review could be labelled pseudo-science for their methodological failings (something like 50% of published findings in many fields cannot be replicated).

It also makes much of historical science 'pseudo-science' as it was never peer reviewed.

Given the contested, subjective and polemical nature of the term, coupled with its use and misuse in discourse, I can't see the value in it. It is simply an impediment to communication and thought.

If someone knows why something is 'pseudo-science' then there is no situation where it would not be better to actually bother to spend a few more words giving a clear criticism of why they believe this thing to be unscientific. It also means that people can't simply dismiss something as pseudo-science before considering the issues (which often occurs in non-specialist discussions).

If people do this then they can discuss the issues at hand rather than arguing over the definition of pseudo-science. Fair enough?

 

[metis]

Yes, I read that. Doesn't change anything I wanted to say. It's not that anything at all can be labelled pseudo-science, but that there is no clear and uncontested delineation between science, not science and pseudo-science (and no singular 'scientific method'). We don't label aspects of theoretic physics that fail to meet such criteria as 'pseudo-science'.

Deciding that peer review is necessary is also very arbitrary. If it is published openly, people are free to challenge it as it stands. The difference between science and pseudo-science should not be 3 people reading an article before publication.

You could also make a case that many things that pass peer review could be labelled pseudo-science for their methodological failings (something like 50% of published findings in many fields cannot be replicated).

It also makes much of historical science 'pseudo-science' as it was never peer reviewed.

Given the contested, subjective and polemical nature of the term, coupled with its use and misuse in discourse, I can't see the value in it. It is simply an impediment to communication and thought.

If someone knows why something is 'pseudo-science' then there is no situation where it would not be better to actually bother to spend a few more words giving a clear criticism of why they believe this thing to be unscientific. It also means that people can't simply dismiss something as pseudo-science before considering the issues (which often occurs in non-specialist discussions).

If people do this then they can discuss the issues at hand rather than arguing over the definition of pseudo-science. Fair enough?

Just three quick comments in that I said "submitted for 'peer review' since not all that's submitted is accepted. Also, there's no mandate for the peer-review process with historical papers that are not archaeological/anthropological in nature, at least as far as I know, since writing history tends to be quite subjective.

Finally, if some people misuse the term "pseudo-science", and I'm sure some have, that's not to be condoned either, but we don't condemn cars simply because some misuse them.

 

[Augustus]

Just three quick comments in that I said "submitted for 'peer review' since not all that's submitted is accepted.

Do you consider all self-published material to be pseudo-science?

o, there's no mandate for the peer-review process with historical papers that are not archaeological/anthropological in nature, at least as far as I know, since writing history tends to be quite subjective.

Historical as in the past. Scientific texts written in the past before peer-review was widespread.

Finally, if some people misuse the term "pseudo-science", and I'm sure some have, that's not to be condoned either, but we don't condemn cars simply because some misuse them.

It's not just about misuse, it's that there is no exact line where science ends and pseudo-science begins. There isn't even an exact line where science ends and not science begins.

Words exist to aid thought and communication. Cars exist to transport people.

If a car doesn't transport people effectively, then they should take a taxi. If a word doesn't aid thought or communication effectively, then they should choose another way to do so.