Do you believe in social darwinism?

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

8 Comments

  1. The question is asked well. It includes the concept of faith. Social Darwinism, in contrast to biological, natural science darwinism, is an obsolete social doctrine requiring faith, not knowledge. Material from Wikipedia-free encyclopedia “Social Darwinism (Social Darwinism) is a set of pseudo-scientific [1] [2] theories and social practices, biologizing course and ideological movement in social thought in social thought of the late XIX-early XX centuries, which explained the structure and development of society mainly The action of the laws of wildlife [3] and suggested the application of biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the most adapted to sociology, economics and politics. Social Darwinism was largely determined by researchers of Western Europe and North America of the 1870s [4]. Social. Social. Social. Darwinism is the basis of the idea of ​​“racial struggle”, which is common in the ideology of racism – the struggle among themselves for the existence of various races, regarded as individual biological species [6] [7] [8]. Social Darwinism has lost authority as a scientific concept after the first world war and was largely discredited by the end of the second mi The vital war, both due to the connection with Nazism and because of the emerging scientific consensus, that these ideas are not scientifically substantiated [14] [15]. A number of later hypotheses that were attributed to social darwinism were usually described as such opponents; Supporters of these hypotheses did not call themselves social darwinists [16] [15]. Creationists often argue that social Darwinism is a logical consequence of “Darwinism” (the theory of natural selection in biology) [17]. According to biologists and historians, this is a type of erroneous logical argument – an appeal to nature, while in reality the theory of natural selection describes only a biological phenomenon and should not be considered as a positive phenomenon positively or urge to use it as a moral guideline in human society [18]. Although most scientists note some historical connections between the popularization of Darwin’s theory and the forms of social Darwinism, they also believe that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution. Social Darwinism is considered a pseudoscience, not based on any empirical data [1] [19] [20] [2]. “Thus, at the present stage – social Darwinism – is the subject of faith, not a scientific concept. And only people who are very distant from science, the modern level of biological and social knowledge believe in it. Therefore, answering the question asked by the author – it should be noted What they believe in such a false scientific doctrine as social Darwinism are only people prone to faith (as an uncritical way of accepting information), and insufficiently educated.

  2. Social Darwinism is a theory that applies the principles of natural selection described by Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution, to human social and economic systems. According to this theory, society and individuals are subject to the dynamics of “survival of the strongest”, in which the most powerful and successful people and groups are able to prosper and achieve success, and weaker people and groups are left behind. They say as something that we see in real world. But! Social Darwinism causes a lot of controversy and is widely criticized for biological determinism and justification of inequality and social injustice. Many scientists and researchers reject the idea that human societies can be accurately described by the principles of natural selection, and argue that social and economic systems are formed under the influence of a wide range of factors, including cultural, historical and political influences. So I do not believe In social Darwinism as the only term that can be described in society.

  3. No. This is clearly pseudoscience, if only because it is more correct to call it not “social darwinism”, but “social creationism”. For Darwinism in the name is used to give scientificness, an attempt to use authority. The theory of the evolution of Darwin is absolutely not Social Darwinism. Only the names are similar. The theory of evolution does not imply a solution who is worthy, who is better, who is stronger. This is solved by the post -fact, the view survived – it means it is worthy, strong, etc. The Galapagos at the athlete does not create unions, and do not solve “that group of the beaks is not at that angle, they are inferior, and must limit their reproduction, or we ourselves will limit them.”

  4. To believe in social darwinism, allows, or does not allow? Only a system of knowledge, as in fact, either not knowledge, namely real and effective reality, or the being of God! Actually, what forms the presentness of a person at the time of resolving this issue! After all, convinced, and so understands, not the receiving? It is extremely difficult to convince! I think it’s not entirely difficult to accept this situation.

What should the email address should look like?

Religion for the entire time of its existence caused a lot of harm, but is this harm typical or is it a foreign element for it?