Some days I just want to scream. For years I believed what the textbooks and teachers told me about the history of science, taking in their arguments from authority, but when I started to look into the same events myself I found they were much more complex than I had previously known. I cherish the new knowledge I have gained, but it comes with a price. When someone spews out a bit of textbook cardboard, I cringe as if fingernails were being drawn across a chalkboard.
Today's tidbit was that Charles Darwin could never account for apparently maladaptive characteristics displayed by animals, i.e. the peacock's tail. Nevermind that he wrote The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; according to my instructor Darwin never tackled the question of sexual selection. (For reactions to The Descent of Man, see this post.)
Scientific celebrities suffer from a unique problem. They are highly recognizable, but few people seem to have read their work. This can happen to researchers working now and in the past, but it is particularly frustrating in the case of Darwin. (The only scientist I can immediately think of who is more well-known but less understood is Albert Einstein.) Darwin's work is often regarded as a measuring stick for what we know now, and many of us are compelled to tip-our-hat to him when discussing evolution, but very few people seem to understand much about him. Even Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most prominent modern-day spokesman for evolution, made a number of errors when talking about Darwin's life & work just a few months ago.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all this is that the complex details of Darwin's life are not secrets. Quite the contrary; there are, if anything, too many biographies of him! Particularly in recent years, Desmond & Moore's Darwin: Life of a Tormented Evolutionist and Browne's two-volume biography (Voyaging and The Power of Place) have provided easily-accessible and thorough understandings of who Darwin was and what he did. Yet few seem to have truly absorbed the information in those books. It is easier to repeat old stories or to make statements out of ignorance.
This all leads into the bigger question of just how seriously scientists take the historians of science. I would like to think that scientists would care deeply about the history of their own discipline, particularly since many like to tell stories of the great founders of particular disciplines, yet false stories continue on. Perhaps a lack of time, relative obscurity of some historical work, and a love for compelling tales contribute to this problem, but it can be a bit maddening when figures as well-documented as Darwin as discussed.
As we approach the "Year of Evolution," I have two fears (or rather, one with two parts). The first is that On the Origin of Species will overshadow all that we have learned since 1859. What we know about evolution now must be addressed. The second is that the Darwin that is discussed during all the "celebrations" is not Darwin as he was, but as we have made him to be. I hope that my fears are unfounded.
- Log in to post comments
I was fortunate to have a graduate level history of science course from a real scholar. So I have been interested, and see the understanding of history of science as important. Many of my colleagues have little interest in the history of science. In part, I think, due to the huge mental effort one has to make these days just to keep up in one's field. The same holds true of the philosophy of science. A large number of scientists have never heard of Popper or Kuhn, much less the earlier thinkers.
Ever wonder why a PhD tends to be so narrow? This is why scientists tend to not know much about the original work of Darwin. They are overwhelmed with the immense quantities of research after Darwin's publications, and well after Darwin's death. A good book for a cursory understanding of biological history, however, is "This is Biology" by Mayr. Most PhD candidates focus so much on current knowledge and understanding that the historical knowledge becomes almost mythic. For this reason, I found myself at odds with one of my professors who insisted Darwin did not talk about the mutations and selection of captive pigeons in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and only when I brought the book to them (a copy my grandfather received as a young boy) did they accept my statement. I do not think every biologist should read his works, however, as I find the advances made since have expanded far beyond what his original theory could have. In the same light, when studying the history of biology, one should at least know what the works of at least the most notable individuals said. And for the record, I know who Kuhn and Popper are, although I do not agree with Kuhn on the idea of "scientific revolutions." I also take issue with Popper on a number of issues, but they still had something of value to say.
Re: "The only scientist I can immediately think of who is more well-known but less understood is Albert Einstein." In terms of amount of b.s. taking off from wild misinterpretations of the actual work, Kurt Gödel is right up there!
--
Re: Jim Thomerson's comment on Popper and Kuhn: My impression is that when an actual scientist has occasion to refer to a philosopher of science (this happens more often in "Nature" than in "Science," and is particularly noticeable in arguments conducted through letters to the editor), it always seems to be Popper. As if there is an impression in the community that Popper said the last word in the philosophy of science, and we can all go about our business citing his authority when issues come up.
I'm teaching a seminar in the biology department this semester on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution, and I'm having real trouble getting out of the 19th century. I've become entranced with it. And it appears that the students are interested, too, thank IPU.
...according to my instructor Darwin never tackled the question of sexual selection.
That's insane. Darwin originated the idea of sexual selection, and explicated it in some detail! It wasn't his fault that other biologists discounted it for many years.
...Your instructor is a pillock.
--On another note, check your gmail.com account. Has a book offer....