The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson

Charles Darwin has had an extraordinary impact on many aspects of human affairs apart from revolutionizing biology. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Cambridge Darwin Festival in July 2009 celebrated these contributions to the humanities, philosophy and religion and the approach to medicine, economics and the social sciences. He is a man to revere. It is no discredit to him that the science of evolutionary biology should continue to evolve. In this article I shall consider some of the ways in which this has happened since his day.

1986 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-107
Author(s):  
A. Muhammad Ma’ruf

I. THE BIOLOGY-CULTURE CONNECTION IN THE HISTORYOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHTThe story of modem anthropology is a story of the Euro-American attemptto discover the other than Euro-American human being. Within thatstory is the story of the intellectual self-discovery of the Euro-American;within that is the story of the discovery of racism; within that is the storyof political and ideological pressures on the processes of such discoveries;within that the amazing and wonderful story of the scientific discovery ofthe worldly nature of the human being - conceptualized generally: acrossall space and time, all colors and languages; and within that story is a storyof the social and natural sciences: of their methods, results, potentialities,and pitfalls.If there is a central theme that runs through all these stories within thestory, it is the story of the impact of Darwinian and post-Darwinian biologyon the social and human sciences. Modem anthropology is not much morethan an evolutionist form of humanism. Evolutionism is to be found in mosttypes of contemporary anthropological studies, as a central position or animplicit assumption. It is clearly axiomatic to thought, analysis, and interpretationin the discipline. As such it is a fundamental issue in the considerationof modem anthropology for inclusion in, and recasting for, Islamic educationalpurposes. The aim of this presentation is to consider briefly how theimpact of Darwin, and of biology after Darwin, on recent anthropologicalthought may be measured as a step toward developing an Islamic methodologyfor anthropological research and teaching.Since its publication in 1859 by Charles Darwin (and Alfred Russell),evolutionary theory has been refined and developed by virturally all life sciencedisciplines and a few other disciplines such as anthropology. Anthropdogyis rooted partly in the life sciences and partly in the social sciences. Humanevolutionary theory developed by anthropologists has gained wide acceptancein all sectors of the Western scientific establishment. Adherence to, and propagationof, an evolutionist world-view has become a symbol of the liberalistmission of Western science in the face of periodic opposition to it comingfrom conservative, evangelist, Christian fundamentalists, and politicians whorepresent them. A few of the anti-evolutionists are also scientists (Williams,1983). They have given leadership to the most recent form of antievolutionism,called scientific creationism. Within the scientific and educationalcommunity their view is at present a minority view; the dominant viewbeing the pro-evolutionary one. Among the Judeo-Christian population atlarge, in the United States, surveys indicate that about half of the people givecredence to the evolutionary view. The others either do not or do not care.An effect of post-Darwinian natural science on social science was to bringhuman evolution into focus as incorporating psychological, social, and culturalaspects in addition to the biological (see e.g. in Eiseley, 1958; Freeman, 1974;Harris, 1968; Opler, 1964; Reed, 1961; Stocking, 1968). The historical relationshipof bio-evolutionary theory to the social sciences in general andspecifically to anthropology, is complex. Nowadays it is one of the dependenceof the latter on the former. It has been argued, however, that in its formativeyears, Darwinian evolutionary theory was in fact an application of socialscience concepts to biology. Darwin himself acknowledged that the Malthusianstatement of the principle that human population, when unchecked, increasesin geometrical ratio while subsistence increases only in arithmeticalratio, influenced his idea of natural selection. The subsequent acceptance ofMendelian genetics, on which the modem form of evolutionism rests, quicklytransformed even the fundamental social science principles of the study ofhuman races and variation. The continuing success of the biological sciences ...


2016 ◽  
Vol 371 (1686) ◽  
pp. 20150066
Author(s):  
Caroline Catmur ◽  
Emily S. Cross ◽  
Harriet Over

In order to interpret and engage with the social world, individuals must understand how they relate to others. Self–other understanding forms the backbone of social cognition and is a central concept explored by research into basic processes such as action perception and empathy, as well as research on more sophisticated social behaviours such as cooperation and intergroup interaction. This theme issue integrates the latest research into self–other understanding from evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience and psychiatry. By gathering perspectives from a diverse range of disciplines, the contributions showcase ways in which research in these areas both informs and is informed by approaches spanning the biological and social sciences, thus deepening our understanding of how we relate to others in a social world.


2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Mesoudi ◽  
Andrew Whiten ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

We suggest that human culture exhibits key Darwinian evolutionary properties, and argue that the structure of a science of cultural evolution should share fundamental features with the structure of the science of biological evolution. This latter claim is tested by outlining the methods and approaches employed by the principal subdisciplines of evolutionary biology and assessing whether there is an existing or potential corresponding approach to the study of cultural evolution. Existing approaches within anthropology and archaeology demonstrate a good match with the macroevolutionary methods of systematics, paleobiology, and biogeography, whereas mathematical models derived from population genetics have been successfully developed to study cultural microevolution. Much potential exists for experimental simulations and field studies of cultural microevolution, where there are opportunities to borrow further methods and hypotheses from biology. Potential also exists for the cultural equivalent of molecular genetics in “social cognitive neuroscience,” although many fundamental issues have yet to be resolved. It is argued that studying culture within a unifying evolutionary framework has the potential to integrate a number of separate disciplines within the social sciences.


In the natural world, some agents (investors) employ strategies that provide resources, services, or information while others (exploiters) achieve gain through these efforts. Such behavior coexists and is observable in many species at many levels: from bacteria which depend on the existence of biofilms to synthesize constituent proteins; to cancerous cells which employ angiogenesis in tumors; to parents who forego vaccinating their children yet benefit from herd immunity; to countries’ actions in the handling of greenhouse gases. To analyze such behavior, two independent research traditions have developed in parallel—one couched in evolutionary theory championed by behavioral ecologists, the other in the social sciences advocated by economists. This book looks for commonalities in understanding and approach, in an effort to spur research into this widespread phenomenon.


2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 567-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Beck

ArgumentFriedrich August von Hayek (1899–1992) is mainly known for his defense of free-market economics and liberalism. His views on science – more specifically on the methodological differences between the physical sciences on the one hand, and evolutionary biology and the social sciences on the other – are less well known. Yet in order to understand, and properly evaluate Hayek's political position, we must look at the theory of scientific method that underpins it. Hayek believed that a basic misunderstanding of the discipline of economics and the complex phenomena with which it deals produced misconceptions concerning its method and goals, which led in turn to the adoption of dangerous policies. The objective of this article is to trace the development of Hayek's views on the nature of economics as a scientific discipline and to examine his conclusions concerning the scope of economic prediction. In doing so, I will first show that Hayek's interest in the natural sciences (especially biology), as well as his interest in epistemology, were central to his thought, dating back to his formative years. I will then emphasize the important place of historical analysis in Hayek's reflections on methodology and examine the reasons for his strong criticism of positivism and socialism. Finally, in the third and fourth sections that constitute the bulk of this article, I will show how Hayek's understanding of the data and goal of the social sciences (which he distinguished from those of the physical sciences), culminated in an analogy that sought to establish economics and evolutionary biology as exemplary complex sciences. I will challenge Hayek's interpretation of this analogy through a comparison with Darwin's views inThe Origin of Species, and thus open a door to re-evaluating the theoretical foundations of Hayek's political claims.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Solberg Söilen

This article gathers arguments for why the social sciences should be based inevolutionary theory by showing the shortcomings of the current paradigm based on the study of physics. Two examples are used, the study of intelligence studies and geoeconomics. After a presentation of the geoeconomics literature and an explanation of what the organic view of the social sciences is, we follow the study of economics as it developed after the Second World War to see where it went wrong and why.


2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 366-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Mesoudi ◽  
Andrew Whiten ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

We are encouraged that the majority of commentators endorse our evolutionary framework for studying culture, and several suggest extensions. Here we clarify our position, dwelling on misunderstandings and requests for exposition. We reiterate that using evolutionary biology as a model for unifying the social sciences within a single synthetic framework can stimulate a more progressive and rigorous science of culture.


1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Ghiselin

He who understands baboonwould do more toward metaphysics than Locke.Charles Darwin, August 16, 1838I shall answer the commentaries by proceeding from strictly philosophical matters to biology, to psychology, and then to politics and the social sciences.


Author(s):  
Dominic D. P. Johnson

This chapter considers how and why international relations might benefit from an evolutionary approach. It explains the evolutionary biology's long history of misunderstanding and resistance in the social sciences since the “sociobiology” debate of the 1970s. It also reviews how the natural and social sciences have both moved on since the 1970s, including the promise for a future of mutual collaboration on strategic instincts. The chapter focuses on evolutionary biology to understand the origins and functions of cognitive biases and comprehend the selective pressures that shaped the brain in the first place. It addresses the question of whether psychological phenomena originate from nature or nurture.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document