5 ms·

Strange that Darwin's theory of human evolution was so culture bound. One would think looking to the science would transcend culture to a greater degree.

• ska 6y ago
  > One would think looking to the science would transcend culture to a greater degree. I don't see why. Nothing humans do transcends culture (tautologically), so pretending it does or could won't get you far. Best you can do is try and understand the effect.
  • yters 6y ago
    Well, for instance in computer science all the theorems are completely culture free, so it is not impossible. But it is indeed difficult, and to be expected for the most part.
    • ska 6y ago
      You are making a category error here. Culture doesn't produce a theorem (or a work of art, or a [fill in the blank]), but the people that did produce it necessarily operate in a culture. Among other things this affects what work gets done supported, what people do it (and get supported), how the results are communicated (and if) etc. As a student it effects what you are taught, what you are told is important, and what areas you are pointed towards. You can't tease this stuff apart. Part of the process of becoming a scientist is to become acculturated to that science.
      • yters 6y ago
        Yes of course there are cultural influences. But it seems some branches of STEM are fairly immune to the opinions of the surrounding culture. E.g. what can we say is victorian about any mathematical conclusion? Yet Darwin's supposedly scientific conclusions in this work appear to be very culture bound.
        • disconcision 6y ago
          i guess i'd argue that the more abstract something becomes, the more its original motivations tend to be obscured. this is the nature of abstraction, for better and worse. i'd hesitate to say though that this means more abstract ideas are less culture-bound in the sense of being value-neutral. an abstract idea still carries at least the implicit assertion that this is an idea worth paying attention to, at the unavoidable opportunity cost paying attention to others. and ideas which seem entirely free-floating are probably worth paying special suspicion to.
          • yters 6y ago
            I would agree with that. There is often a practical question motivating comp sci and mathematical discoveries. The difference from Darwin's case is the mathematical conclusions are never wrong, regardless of the underlying motivation. That is what I mean by culture free. Change in culture cannot change the validity of mathematical deductions. On the other hand, Darwin's conclusions in Descent of Man are wrong, and he appears to have drawn these conclusions due to his cultural bias.
          • wombatmobile 6y ago
            Yes, the maths that underpin a nuclear power plant exist independent of any culture, but the same cannot be said of the decision to deploy that plant in a rain forest on the edge of an ocean where a village has survived for millennia.
• wahern 6y ago
  Even today there is no genetic model that can explain the emergence of human altruism--non-kin eusociality. Eusociality among kin, such as naked mole rat sisters and bee clones, is trivially modeled using selfish gene theory. But no one has yet proposed a stable model for its emergence and persistence outside close kin groups. And in fact humans are the only species that exhibit this phenomenon. All other forms of cooperation in nature can be explained by selfish gene theory (that is, individualized sexual selection benefit directly commensurate with the individualized risk), or as non-stable outliers (e.g. a cat befriending a bird). Apparently Darwin believed in a group selection-type model, as still many do, even though its been disproven (at least refutations have never been overcome). And if you believe in group selection I suppose one would find it easy to rationalize racial models, Victorian or otherwise, especially if you were born on an island or otherwise believed substantially physically segregated human groups--and therefore segregated sexual selection dynamics--was typical. Indeed, even today anthropologists are severely allergic to the possibility of rapid gene flow, especially back flow, of specific genes. The notion that there could have been back flow of genes into Africa is anathema, which makes it easier even for scientists to conceptualize humanity as groups of islands, rationalize group selection theories, and be more credulous of narratives whereby some groups "advance" faster than others--because good genes wouldn't individually leak out, and bad genes wouldn't individually leak in. But that's only a partial defense of Darwin. The very fact that humans are the only species to exhibit inexplicable non-kin eusociality, while all these proposed models would apply equally well to any other species (suggesting they're incomplete, because mass selfless cooperation is quite obviously a powerful group advantage if attainable), hints at a massive gap in our understanding of our own evolution, counseling against strong positivist claims about how human evolution worked and continues to work. IOW, Darwin could have been more humble.
  • babesh 6y ago
    You are looking at the wrong level. It is tribal reproduction that is being optimized. An individual is just a cell of that tribe and doesn’t even need to reproduce as long as the tribe reproduces. This is just like how your hair doesn’t have to reproduce as long as you do. Also, it isn’t your genes that matter but the relative distribution of traits in a population. https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/giants.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/giants.html Look at the related reading. Look at the Catholic Church.