 |
| Galton figured out for Scotland Yard how to organize fingerprints |
Darwin's half-cousin Francis Galton, who extended Darwin's work in a remarkable variety of ways, including developing key elements of statistical theory, was born 13 years and 4 days later on February 16, 1822.
While Darwin's image is increasingly sacrosanct, Galton is increasingly demonized as the scapegoat to carry all the sins associated with Darwinism.
In reality, neither man was a saint nor a devil. They are far more similar than different, both admirable representatives of Victorian Liberal culture.
So, I'll be raising a toast on Saturday to Sir Francis.
Posts
21 comments:
While Darwin's image is increasingly sacrosanct, Galton is increasingly demonized as the scapegoat to carry all the sins associated with Darwinism
This may be true among well-educated leftists or the scientifically literate (and politically correct), but is not at all so among the masses. Evolution-denying evangelical Christians (among whom I live and attend church, though I disagree with their view on this subject) detest Darwin and have never heard of Galton.
Funny thing that neither the ignorant creationists nor the snarling atheists will acknowledge is that Darwin himself (who was agnostic because of some tragic experiences in his early life, not because of his famous scientific research) never claimed that Christian faith was incompatible with his theory of natural selection. One of his earliest admirers and defenders was the devout Christian botanist Asa Gray.
They were both following in the steps of Herb Spencer anyhow
They found some kid w/ a "161 IQ" northeast of London. After college she wants to do stage musicals, apparently
I'll raise one right now!
"... International Darwin Day in order to stick it to Creationists."
Actually it was probably to stick it to Christians in general.
"... International Darwin Day in order to stick it to Creationists."
Actually it was probably to stick it to Christians in general.
"Funny thing that neither the ignorant creationists nor the snarling atheists will acknowledge is that Darwin himself (who was agnostic because of some tragic experiences in his early life, not because of his famous scientific research) never claimed that Christian faith was incompatible with his theory of natural selection. One of his earliest admirers and defenders was the devout Christian botanist Asa Gray."
-Lemaitre, a Belgian Priest came up with the big bang theory.
I am as atheist as they come but gosh, what's up with the militant atheism during the past decade? The war on theism is completely ridiculous. The only explanation for it that makes sense is that its real target is not religion but, rather, religious (white bible worshipers).
Me, I'll be toasting Lincoln. The ape that could.
There is tremendous irony in celebrating Darwin day to annoy Christians. Darwin loves Christians far more than he loves his disciples, for they have a much greater TFR. I bet he really loves Young Earth Creationists too, for my guess is their TFR is yet higher still.
How about celebrating International Galton Day by buying the Galton Inequality Symbol bumper sticker?
Aye, to Galton. And Gauss, for whom the bell tolled on February 23, 1855.
Hmm, February as Mathematics History month? Well anyway, Steve, if by chance you find yourself in Portlandia this weekend, all prime numbered rounds are my treat! ;-)
Darwin is like the Bible; more revered than read.
heh. i like the "etc." in the picture: Francis Galton, F.R.S., etc. (i.e. and a whole lot of other awards/degrees). (^_^)
The 161 IQ kid story here.
Read the comments. Generally its depressing dimness on display.
"Actually it was probably to stick it to Christians in general."
Hence the metal 'Darwin' car badge, a parody of the Christian fish badge. The fish has grown legs ...
http://www.darwinfish.co.uk/darwinfish.html
The funny thing is that the kind of person with that on the car will run a mile from the implications of evolutionary theory. Too many hate facts.
Creationists are usually pretty quick to condemn Darwin and the theory of evolution as racist.
Creationists are usually pretty quick to condemn Darwin and the theory of evolution as racist.
They breath the same cultural air as the rest of the population. They know being labeled a racist is the quickest route to oblivion for someone's ideas in modern society. So what better way to destroy evolution than to imply that Darwin is one, just like Spencer and Galton, who if they are mentioned at all it is only to be demonized. They get a lot of their ideas from left wing biologists like Lewontin and Gould who get them riled up to attack evolution as "unscientific" in nowheresville regarding HS textbooks. This then allows the MSM to portray the anti-evolution crowd as a bunch of gun toting Bible Belt conservatives and let's Ivy League profs who hate the political implications of evolution off the hook. It's a very successful ploy that almost always works. However, every time they dip into that well, the lefty biologists elevate Darwin a little bit more. Over time that kills their attempts to modify or replace Darwinism because the media has so associated any criticism of it with hillbillies trying to push creationism in schools.
To paraphrase Robin Hanson, Darwinism isn't about biology.
All kinds of politicized science issues are used as banners to signal what side you're on. And so many people whose knowledge of evolution or vaccine safety or hbd stops with vaguely remembered high school biology express firm opinions on those issues, many people who could never make it through the first year weed out courses in a decent engineering program "know" all kinds of things about nuclear safety or the viability of solar power, etc. The sorts of people who attack IQ because they read a debunking of it by Steven J Gould are the smart, informed ones--they have at least read one book on the thing they're expressing firm opinions about. The great majority never have, and all too many of those who have were given the one book they read from ideological allies, with the book chosen or written specifically to fit their ideological stance. (What fraction of the people who started talking about Ayn Rand and the Austrian economists in the wake of the Tra Party movement have ever gotten through a book by Rand or Hayek, say. (Let alone Rothbard or, for God's sake, one of those tomes by von Mises?) How many people who proudly quote Krugman could explain even in general outline a Keynesian sort of view of macroecnomics?)
Using expressed beliefs about real stuff as an ideological banner is fine, unless you actually need to make decisions that matter based on those beliefs. Then, you find yourself refusing to vaccinate your kids because you don't like big pharmaceutical companies or enjoy reading about conspiracy theories. And the measles virus is supremely indifferent to the reason your kids don't have antibodies that will neutralize it.
Steve,
Have you seen Andrew Gellman's comment on Ron Unz' college admission statistics?
Note: High-quality public argument about the details of Unz' study, even if they refute his conclusions end the end, is a win. This kind of discussion is actively suppressed in the prestige media, and is shut down where possible by the gatekeepers we've put in charge of what information gets spread around. Whether Unz is right or wrong about Jewish and Asian and other ethnic groups' enrollment to top colleges and other top-level intellectual achievements, smart people worth listening to are having the discussion about these issues, in the open. Another part of the wall around noticing and discussing these topics is falling down.
Let's think through how to count different ethnicities' admissions and acheivements. Let's work out how to treat fractional Jewish and Asian ancestry in these discussions, and how to get better estimates. Let's get better answers to the questions Unz tried to answer. I don't know what the real answer to those question is--Gellman's post raises some big questions about how much we can learn from Unz' numbers--but getting correct answers to those questions and having that discussion in the open is way more important than whose team wins. When we can have an open, informed discussion on college admissions, we have a lot better chance of getting to smarter policies.
Happy Galton Day!
-meh
Post a Comment