...and science be damned.

Science?

You know, that thing that Galileo and Darwin did. And that the democratic process and the Church doesn't.

Darwinism isn't science, just politics, as was Galileo's little problem.

It isn't surprising that she has bought into the line that evolution (which of course means natural selection) has been completely proven and is now incontrovertible, but I've been struck recently by how many like her rant on about how evolution is as basic to a core education as the times tables. They seem to fear the kids will be practicing voodoo or some such thing without it. I can't imagine they would feel the same way about relativity or chaos theory or lots of others. I guess they've learned from the Church that it's important to get 'em while they're young.

Darwinism isn't science, just politics

By the same measure, this isn't a blog, it's a castration complex.

Speaking as someone with a biology degree (albeit a small and unimpressive one), the last person who wants to be arguing about what is and isn't science is someone referring to themselves as "Social Scientist."

Complex? How else can you hit the high notes?

Well, Timothy, I don't see how a biology degree qualifies one to judge based on names alone. Perhaps you should cite the real source: your mystical powers.

Anyone who's been to college can judge the value of social science.

Anyone who's been to college can judge the value of social science.

Since I'm actually still in college myself, I'll cut the niceties and pronounce social science "craptacular." Like P.J. O'Rourke has said (paraphrased): "People do stuff. We don't know why. Test on Monday."

SS:

"And that the democratic process and the Church doesn't."

Ecrasez les infames, yes?

I must admit that it was John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids and The Chrysalids that ruined Darwin's appeal for me.

I do not believe, however, that the Dodo is truly extinct. It has evolved.

Matt:

But there'd be no Division 1 sports without social science guts for the atheletes.

Name: Social Scientist
Email Address:
URL:

Comments:

Huh. What about economics? Doesn't the fact that social science can be used to facilitate the world's most popular religion mean anything? Oh, ye of little faith.

Oh, and Matt, we actually do know a lot about why people do stuff. Maybe you'll find out in the advanced courses.

SS:

Economics is utter quackery. It's all just a gloss on Adam Smith.

OJ:

True enough. As a rabid college football fan, I give thanks.

SS:

Oh? Remember all the ruckus caused by Judith Rich Harris' book a few years ago? Social science can't even definitively tell us whether parents control how their kids turn out -- this after literally billions of test cases down the millenia.

I tend to except economics from this blanket indictment, but even two Nobel laureates like Samuelson and Friedman reached completely different conclusions about the effectiveness of the planned economy based on the same data.

Trying to learn about the Scopes Trial by watching Inherit the Wind is like trying to learn about Judaism by reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Remember Prof. Stephen Jay Gould? "Apostle of Evolution" before he died of cancer in 2002? He said pretty much the same thing in several of his essays for Natural History. I learned the story behind the "Scopes Monkey Trial" from several of his essays.

The fight remains one between the majority of Americans and intellectual elites who are trying to impose by judicial fiat what they can not earn in the democratic process.

And that was also one of the conclusions of Gould's essays on the subject.

Economics isn't a social science, it's history with math. Or, put another way, it's market research gussied up to look academic.

Ken:

Gould was forced to turn against Darwinism when he realized it justified genocide.

Economics is utter quackery.

Is everything to emerge since the Middle Ages quackery?

Economics isn't a social science, it's history with math.

I didn't realize historians were in the business of making verifiable predictions.

SS:

Since 1776.

oj--

Well, of course things were better when the Deists were in charge.

Deists were never in charge of anything. But once Smith wrote Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations and economics got the same grounding that politics and religion already had there was nothing left to say.