| View Blog
|
|
|
What is the "huge difference" between a scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution,
and a superstitious/mythological hypothesis? Or rather, what is the difference between
an hypothesis, and a theory? The word "hypothesis" simply means, as defined in The
American Heritage Desk Dictionary, "an explanation that accounts for a set of facts, and
that can be tested by further investigation". Does not a theory also act as an explanatory
account of the accumulation of given facts? Can't a theory, like an hypothesis, be tested
by further investigation?
Like an hypothesis, a theory is an assumption, a supposition, a proposal. The word
"hypothesis" comes from the late Latin, which took the word from the Greek language,
and it means "to propose" (hupo-, under + tithenai, to place). In other words, an
hypothesis acts as a foundational theory; an hypothesis serves as a fundamental
formulation, offered for the consideration of any who have some interest in the proposed
explanation of the facts -- for example, the fact of so much biological diversity associated
with geological, topographic, climatic, and subsistence factors.
In order to oppose the dogmatic creationists, we do not need to propose a dogmatic
evolutionism. Evolution is a theory. The word "theory" comes from the late Latin, which
took the word from the Greek language, and it means "to observe". The theory of evolution
is derived from observation. An hypothesis is also derived from observation. A theory
structures, frames, arranges, and also organizes one's observations. We form theories
from the observation of facts; and yet, theories serve to frame our observation of facts.
Even the facts are themselves an aspect of theory, an interpretation of observation. A
theory can serve to prepare and to direct our observation of things and of events, and to
discipline and to train our active attention to the world we live in and are a part of.
Pushing people out of windows does not negate the theory of gravity, and social
darwinism does not negate the theory of evolution. There are those evolutionists
who do not believe that the theory of evolution demands that we accept and enact
a social existence that is in keeping with the paradigms of biological evolution,
where there is a struggle for individual existence, and for the preservation of each
and every species, where the survival of a species demands the very process of
species adaptation, and directs the mechanism of organic evolution itself. Social
darwinism is the belief that only the strong survive, that only the proprietary classes
are to be deemed as being strong, and that only such individuals will and should
survive, succeed, and flourish. Of course, what constitutes strength to a social
darwinist is not always so much about a wealth of muscle, or a wealth of mind, but
rather, what constitutes strength is more about possessing a wealth of money.
"Every political doctrine implies a philosophy of history. In the case of Marxism, which
as a theory of society centers upon the understanding of the historical process, the
relationship becomes explicit: if the theory is adequate, its truth can and must be
demonstrated by political practice acting upon the raw material of history. Conversely,
if history does not take shape along the lines intended by political action, the theoretical
assumptions must be at fault. The 'union of theory and practice' is fundamental to
Marxism. Theorems which cannot be demonstrated in social reality have no place in it.
At the same time practice embodies the purposeful aims of men in society; hence the
material environment can be reorganized -- on condition that the historical limitations
of human freedom are properly understood. There is a realm of 'necessity', of 'musts',
chiefly represented by economics, i.e., by the 'production and reproduction of material
life'. In order to maintain life, man, whether civilized or savage, must wrestle with nature,
'and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production'.
The true realm of (personal) freedom lies outside this sphere of economic necessity and
social order, which is also the sphere of political authority, regulation., the state.
"In its essentials this outlook does not differ from the traditional liberal emphasis upon
the gradual enlargement of human freedom. It is derived from the same eighteenth
century sources, makes similar assumptions about human nature, and departs from
classical liberalism only at the point where all socialists have found it necessary to
signify dissent: in rejecting the liberal claim that private property and the market economy
embody the only possible institutional guarantees of personal freedom. On the contrary,
according to Karl Marx (and to socialists generally) the anarchy of production' needs to be
brought under purposive control if the individual is to be freed for the pursuit of 'the true
realm of freedom, which however can flourish only upon the realm of necessity as its
basis'.
"The meaning of this theme for an understanding of Marxism has recently obtained
greater emphasis. It is indeed high time for its relevance to be more generally recognized
in the English-speaking world, following the example already set in Western Europe.
We shall never begin to understand the significance of Karl Heinrich Marx for the socialist
movement generally until we free ourselves from the habit of identifying Marxism with
Leninism. There is even less excuse for paying special attention to the 'theoretical'
utterances that reach us from Peking."
-- George Lichtheim, 1958 |
|
Posted by rallen2 on 2008-03-23 13:57:40 | Rating: | Views: 25
|
| |
|
|
