Nemonemini
Sun, Aug-11-02, 13:57
Subj: Review of In Darwin's Shadow--Shermer on Wallace Date:
8/9/2002 4:54:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Nemonemini To:
science-for-the-people@list.uvm.edu
In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel
Wallace by Michael Shermer
Delicate arrangements John Landon This an important and
readable contribution to the biographical lore of Alfred
Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of the selectionist
theory of evolution, and later a dissenter on the question
of the descent of man, both theoretically and in relation
to his interest in Spiritualism. Although I differ
considerably in perspective, the book is well worth reading
and interesting and useful even to a critic of Darwin. It
also contains compelling 'for the defense' material
(Darwin's, not Wallace's) on the controversy-debate over
the priority question of Wallace and Darwin and the
'delicate arrangement' to use the phrase of Leonard Huxley
and the title of A.Brackman's book by that name. Shermer's
response to the charges of Brackman (and also Brooks in
_Just Before the Origins_) is a needed analytical rejoinder
from a Darwinist, whether successful or not remains open.
The question of divergence and plagiarism seems partly
settled, but still it is all fishy. And is it the real
strategy of our Wallace biographer to rescue Darwin? Even
if the specific charges made by Brackman and Brooks, and it
is an if, were found untrue, the fact remains that
something is strange in the whole episode. As noted by
Brooks, there is the more general question of Darwin's
great delay in publishing his work. If we are confirmed
Darwinists, this is one thing. But if we realize that the
theory of selectionism, as Wallace finally realized, is not
the full picture, we should wonder if Darwin was
unconsciously unsure of his own theory, prodded only under
duress to 'out with it'. His strategy would be obvious in
that case. Does it all matter if Darwin's theory is in fact
not a true or complete theory of evolution? Surely, the
theory is a strange case of 'why people believe weird
things' and call their superstition about natural selection
'science',and why this snowball effect created by Darwin's
book over a mechanism of evolution a host of dissenters
found obviously wrong, a process continuing to this day in
spite of the immense rigidity of social conditioning on the
matter. Here we have missed the point of Wallace,
altogether. For he realized finally there was a problem. In
the final analysis, Darwinists have remained blind in their
dogmatic mythology of Darwin's achievement, and we should
be more attentive to the fact that the man in the 'shadow
of Darwin', Wallace, the co-discoverer, finally shares a
dialectical symmetry of dissent in the account of the
descent of man. To shunt Wallace aside here is a strategy
of the paradigm defenders, and it is Wallace who will be
vindicated in the end. For he saw all too clearly that
there was something extra required to account for man's
evolution, and said so in no uncertain terms. That this
must be a spiritual exception is not the issue, and
Wallace's naivete does not change his important insight.
This has been confused by the issue of Spiritualism, whose
silliness does not gainsay the issue that Darwin's theory
is as silly in reverse on the fundamentals of man's
evolutionary consciousness. It is apt, however, for
Shermer, our Mr. Skeptic, to rub his hands here and get to
work, although I think the positivism of the age of Darwin
requires a similar kind of analysis. The book also has
entwined material on the issue of the science of history,
factor analysis in biography, and references to the work of
Sulloway. I think Shermer's claim that we have found a
science of history is open to some raised eye-brows, and
the issue of Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ taken as
such simply throws the whole matter into doubt. Wallace
deserves many perspectives, this one from a severe
Darwinist is both a welcome attempt to bring him back into
view, and a subtle effort to keep him in his place. There
is a funny joke here, if you stand back and look at the
strangeness of it all, as Darwin's endless delay and the
synchronity of Wallace's extra-ordinary finish line catch
up set the theory into its dialectical jitters right at the
onset. Poetic justice, perhaps.
John Landon Website on the eonic effect http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com
8/9/2002 4:54:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Nemonemini To:
science-for-the-people@list.uvm.edu
In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel
Wallace by Michael Shermer
Delicate arrangements John Landon This an important and
readable contribution to the biographical lore of Alfred
Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of the selectionist
theory of evolution, and later a dissenter on the question
of the descent of man, both theoretically and in relation
to his interest in Spiritualism. Although I differ
considerably in perspective, the book is well worth reading
and interesting and useful even to a critic of Darwin. It
also contains compelling 'for the defense' material
(Darwin's, not Wallace's) on the controversy-debate over
the priority question of Wallace and Darwin and the
'delicate arrangement' to use the phrase of Leonard Huxley
and the title of A.Brackman's book by that name. Shermer's
response to the charges of Brackman (and also Brooks in
_Just Before the Origins_) is a needed analytical rejoinder
from a Darwinist, whether successful or not remains open.
The question of divergence and plagiarism seems partly
settled, but still it is all fishy. And is it the real
strategy of our Wallace biographer to rescue Darwin? Even
if the specific charges made by Brackman and Brooks, and it
is an if, were found untrue, the fact remains that
something is strange in the whole episode. As noted by
Brooks, there is the more general question of Darwin's
great delay in publishing his work. If we are confirmed
Darwinists, this is one thing. But if we realize that the
theory of selectionism, as Wallace finally realized, is not
the full picture, we should wonder if Darwin was
unconsciously unsure of his own theory, prodded only under
duress to 'out with it'. His strategy would be obvious in
that case. Does it all matter if Darwin's theory is in fact
not a true or complete theory of evolution? Surely, the
theory is a strange case of 'why people believe weird
things' and call their superstition about natural selection
'science',and why this snowball effect created by Darwin's
book over a mechanism of evolution a host of dissenters
found obviously wrong, a process continuing to this day in
spite of the immense rigidity of social conditioning on the
matter. Here we have missed the point of Wallace,
altogether. For he realized finally there was a problem. In
the final analysis, Darwinists have remained blind in their
dogmatic mythology of Darwin's achievement, and we should
be more attentive to the fact that the man in the 'shadow
of Darwin', Wallace, the co-discoverer, finally shares a
dialectical symmetry of dissent in the account of the
descent of man. To shunt Wallace aside here is a strategy
of the paradigm defenders, and it is Wallace who will be
vindicated in the end. For he saw all too clearly that
there was something extra required to account for man's
evolution, and said so in no uncertain terms. That this
must be a spiritual exception is not the issue, and
Wallace's naivete does not change his important insight.
This has been confused by the issue of Spiritualism, whose
silliness does not gainsay the issue that Darwin's theory
is as silly in reverse on the fundamentals of man's
evolutionary consciousness. It is apt, however, for
Shermer, our Mr. Skeptic, to rub his hands here and get to
work, although I think the positivism of the age of Darwin
requires a similar kind of analysis. The book also has
entwined material on the issue of the science of history,
factor analysis in biography, and references to the work of
Sulloway. I think Shermer's claim that we have found a
science of history is open to some raised eye-brows, and
the issue of Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ taken as
such simply throws the whole matter into doubt. Wallace
deserves many perspectives, this one from a severe
Darwinist is both a welcome attempt to bring him back into
view, and a subtle effort to keep him in his place. There
is a funny joke here, if you stand back and look at the
strangeness of it all, as Darwin's endless delay and the
synchronity of Wallace's extra-ordinary finish line catch
up set the theory into its dialectical jitters right at the
onset. Poetic justice, perhaps.
John Landon Website on the eonic effect http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com