The Critical Rationalist Vol. 01 No. 04 ISSN: 1393-3809 31-Dec-1996
2 Immutability and Common Descent
Contents
(1) The claim that Darwinism is tautological is an extremely hardy weed. It seems to sprout again, at irregular, but fairly frequent, intervals; this, despite even the most seemingly severe of critical commentary and dismissal (see, for example, Dawkins 1982, pp. 180-181, for a list).
(2) It is of course, a fundamentally Popperian notion that we are all fallible, and mistakes will occur, and to that extent perhaps we should not be surprised that the mistake of regarding Darwinism as tautological should recur from time to time. Nonetheless, I suggest that there is at least a prima facie case for thinking that the issue must go a little deeper in this particular case. The very resilience of the doctrine suggests that it can hardly be trivially, or manifestly mistaken. Furthermore, those who have propounded this doctrine at various times seem, at the very least, to be otherwise sensible and intelligent people. I may mention Popper, of course, but he himself has pointed out that he was influenced in this by a number of other distinguished authorities (Popper 1978, p. 144).
(3) My problem then is to at least explain the obstinate durability of the thesis of Darwinian tautology; and perhaps, having explained and understood this phenomenon, to mount a definitive critical attack on the thesis.
(4) Thus, my objective here is not to persuade you that the tautological view of Darwinism is mistaken--though, if you are in doubt, that would be a beneficial side effect. Rather, my objective is to convince you that this thesis of Darwinian tautology is not trivially mistaken. That, in fact, the thesis exists in a remarkable variety of similar looking, but fundamentally distinct, forms. As it happens, these diverse forms require quite distinct criticisms; criticism that is effective against one may be irrelevant to others. My theory, if it might be dignified with that term, is that it is this very diversity that explains the historical difficulty of mounting a (single) decisive criticism; for in the face of each such individual challenge the doctrine can simply mutate into, or be displaced by, one of its alternative forms that is resistant to that specific criticism.
(5) In short, what I propose to present here is the analog of a "broad spectrum antibiotic", which will attempt to attack the thesis of Darwinian tautology--and some closely related theses--in as many of their variant forms as I possibly can. I will not pretend to you that this attempt at exhaustive criticism can possibly be stimulating or fascinating in itself; it is a tale of minute, intricate, and very confusing detail. Nor can I even hope to definitively or permanently dispatch these theses--as Popper has emphasised, even our criticisms are forever tentative and subject to correction. Nonetheless, I will beg your indulgence for inflicting this essay upon you, in the hope that by presenting the issues and arguments as clearly and consistently as possible, I might at least offer the next generation of would-be Darwinian tautologists a clear target to practise against.
2 Immutability and Common Descent
Contents
The Critical Rationalist Vol. 01 No. 04 ISSN: 1393-3809 31-Dec-1996
Copyright © 1996 All Rights Reserved.
TCR Issue Timestamp: Tue Dec 31 17:37:08 GMT 1996