I owe Chris an apology in relation to my previous posting (3 April). In response to his writing that Darwin had called his submitted *Origin* a "mere 'abstract'" I replied as if this was in relation to the well-known description by Darwin of Wallace's paper sent to him in 1958 as virtually an abstract of his sketch for a book written in the previous decade. Mea culpa. My only (admittedly feeble!) excuse is that, having responded to his first paragraph on the main point at issue it was getting late and I hastily skimmed the second paragraph and mistakenly connected Chris's "abstract" comment to the Wallace paper on which he made comments at the beginning of the said paragraph. All I can do is make amends by responding now to what Chris actually wrote!
>And, let us not forget, it is most assuredly NOT the case that Darwin >eventually published only when he thought he had collected enough >material. He published because his priority in the matter was threatened >by Alfred Russel Wallace's paper (which Wallace unknowingly sent to Darwin >before publishing it). Darwin's friends -- Hooker and Lyell -- hastily >arranged that Wallace's paper be read along with a couple of old >unpublished peices of Darwin's, at the same session of the same conference >in 1858 (without Wallace's knowledge). _Origin_ was hastily compiled >immediately afterwards in order to solidify Darwin's claim to priority, >and Darwin was so unhappy with it -- so fearful of the possible response >-- that he referred to it as a mere "abstract" of his theory. Had it been >up to Darwin alone, he would have waited much longer to publish. I already responded to the first part of the paragraph in my previous posting yesterday, so it's the last part to which I direct my comments here (last five lines). At the time that the Darwin family was recuperating on the Isle of Wight after the death of baby Charles in 1958, Hooker was pressing him for what Janet Browne describes as "a proper scientific paper on natural selection", and when Darwin returned to Downe he forced himself to begin writing again. Not knowing what form this work would eventually take, he called it an abstract. Within a short time he was feverishly writing and the work became a full-scale book the following year. Nevertheless, compared with what he had intended to eventually publish, it was relatively short. Desmond and Moore write that "he boiled down *Natural Selection* to its core theory in 155,000 words". So in Darwin's eyes it remained an abstract. But Chris wants to make more of this. He writes that "so fearful of the possible response" was Darwin that "he referred to it as a mere 'abstract' of his theory." Now it is indisputable that Darwin feared adverse criticism of his book. Don't most of us? When I publish my trivial articles I freely admit I fear criticism that might show that I blundered here, failed to cover such-and-such there, and so on. How much more this would have been the case for the sensitive Darwin when he was putting out to the world his momentous theory of the mechanism of evolutionary change in the middle of the nineteenth century. So what does this prove? Certainly not the two assertions (i) and (ii) made by Chris that I challenged in my previous posting. Taking up points made by Chris I didn't have time to deal with: In response to my asking "And what evidence is there that such controversy would have 'threatened' the Wedgwood China business?" Chris responded > What sort of evidence do you want? A specific entry in Darwin's journal > that he's not publishing because he's afraid that his wife's family > business might be affected? What I want is some evidence that this was actually a fear of Darwin's! No amount of generalization about the social circumstances in 1844 or other socio-political affairs cited by Chris (e.g., what the Chartists were doing at such-and-such a time) demonstrates that they were a factor in Darwin's reluctance to publish during the 1840s. And nor do allusions to other individuals in very different circumstances, from which we are supposed to make inferences about Darwin's behaviour which have no *documented* support. Chris writes: >I don't have time right now to go look all this stuff up, but it is all >very well known and documented in history of science circles. Yes, I know that Chris's general position on this issue (not necessarily the very *specific* assertions he made on which I challenged him for evidence) is that of most science studies sociologists and historians. And this is hardly surprising, as such people take as a basic tenet that one looks for explanations in such circumstances not in the science but in socio-political factors. Take Steve Fuller, for instance, someone whose views Chris once commended to us on the Popper/Kuhn disputes on scientific method. (And, incidentally, for his socio-political account Fuller presented Popper as a "socialist" despite the fact that at the very period in question he dedicated his *Conjectures and Refutations* to F. A. Hayek, the arch-exponent of free-market economics!) Fuller writes of his fundamental position on scientific endeavours: "At any point in its history, science could have gone in many directions. The few paths actually taken have been due to ambient political, economic and cultural factors." http://members.tripod.com/~ScienceWars/indoo.html Notice anything missing? Yes, the science! What Fuller looks for to understand scientific development are "ambient political, economic and cultural factors". And of course he always, but always, finds them. As Popper famously wrote, if you look for 'confirmations' in such circumstances you will almost invariably 'find' them. So when Chris tells me on the general point at issue re Darwin that "it is all very well known and documented in history of science circles", I remain unimpressed. What is "well known" to science studies sociologists and historians isn't necessarily true. There is a considerable amount of evidence in own Darwin's words in letters that he was, from his first beginnings of putting together a work on his theory of evolutionary change through to the 1850s, deeply concerned that for such a controversial theory he needed to provide a mass of evidence, and to cover every objection. There is no evidence beyond inference for the socio-political theses on Darwin's reluctance to publish (e.g. political currents such as the Chartist movement, etc, to which Chris alluded). Desmond and Moore's biography is full of such material, and with many a truncated quotation on which they put their own spin, they purport to show the influence on Darwin on various political movements and events. But what they don't (and can't) do is demonstrate directly from, e.g., Darwin's letters that these political events were a factor in Darwin's reluctance to publish before he had made his case for the mechanism of evolutionary change as fool-proof as he possibly could. Darwin was tucked away in Downe and utterly immersed in his scientific work and his family. To my knowledge, nowhere in his letters can be found indications of concern about the political movements and events in the 1840s. But for those who start with the premise we must look to socio-political affairs for an explanation, then it *must* be so. And if there is no actual documentable evidence for this, then it is 'demonstrated' by indirect inference. And that's all there is to support Chris's contentions that purportedly provide the major reason for Darwin's reluctance to publish his theory for many years, for which I requested direct evidence, and which I repeat here: > Public controversy threatened not only his own > rather comfy social position, but also the commericial empire of > his wife's family, the Wedgewood China buisness. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esterson.org/ ----------------------------------------------------- Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:24:37 -0400 Author: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Evolution in the news > Responding to my writing that > > [Darwin] knew that if he were to carry even a goodly proportion > > of the scientific world he would need a mass of evidence to support > > his theory of the mechanism of evolutionary change, and he set > > out to provide this with extraordinary persistence and thoroughness > > Chris wrote: > >Yes, but it was not only the reaction of the scientific community that > >worried him. Public controversy threatened not only his own rather comfy > > social position, but also the commericial empire of his wife's family, > >the Wedgewood China buisness. > > I then asked, *very specifically*, what evidence Chris had that Darwin was > reluctant to go into print with his theory because an adverse response > would have > (i) threatened his "comfy social position", and > (ii) threatened the Wedgwood China family business. > Chris's remarks in response about the well-known adverse critical response > to the anonymously-published best-selling book *Vestiges of the Natural > History of Creation* (which is what the Browne reference Chris gave is all > about see his complete posting copied below) shows why Darwin was > concerned to make sure everything was tied up as completely as he could > make it before publishing, i.e., he was concerned about the critical > response to what he knew would be a highly controversial theory. (Although > *Vestiges* promoted the idea of evolution, Darwin was highly critical of > its numerous erroneous facts and unsupported assertions, which only made > him the more determined to make his case as airtight as possible. He > thought that, in spite of its considerable popularity among the wider > public, *Vestiges* had done a disservice to the cause of evolutionary > theory because it was so scientifically deficient.) The other people Chris > wrote about (again, see his complete posting below) had professional > positions. But nothing he wrote provided any direct evidence that *Darwin* > was tardy about publishing his theory because he was (a) concerned that > his "comfy social position" (which was independent of outside sources and > institutions since he was a "gentleman amateur") would be "threatened", > and (b) concerned that his wifes family business would suffer. (That > Darwin was concerned about his scientific *reputation* goes without > saying, but that's not what I was questioning.) > > Of course, once Wallace had sent him the paper that contained what Darwin > thought could almost have been an abstract of his own earlier sketch for a > book the whole situation changed. How could it not have? But it seems to > me Chris has largely responded to something other than the very specific > questions I asked. (See first sentence in paragraph immediately above > relating to (i) and (ii).) > > A couple more points about Chriss second paragraph: > > >And, let us not forget, it is most assuredly NOT the case that Darwin > eventually published only when he thought he had collected enough > material. He published because his priority in the matter was threatened > by Alfred Russel Wallace's paper (which Wallace unknowingly sent to Darwin > before publishing it). Darwin's friends -- Hooker and Lyell -- hastily > arranged that Wallace's paper be read along with a couple of old > unpublished peices of Darwin's, at the same session of the same conference > in 1858 (without Wallace's knowledge). _Origin_ was hastily compiled > immediately afterwards in order to solidify Darwin's claim to priority, > and Darwin was so unhappy with it -- so fearful of the possible response > -- that he referred to it as a mere "abstract" of his theory. Had it been > up to Darwin alone, he would have waited much longer > to publish.< > > As I've said, *of course* once Darwin received Wallace's paper the > situation changed. A point about Chris's interpolation: "without Wallaces > knowledge". Sounds bad. However it looks rather different when one > appreciates that Wallace was on an island in the Dutch East Indies and > that correspondence on the issue would have taken many months. (Darwin's > letter telling Wallace what had been decided in collaboration with two > colleagues took some four months to arrive.) Also that Darwin was > distraught at the death from scarlet fever of his baby son Charles at just > the time when Lyell and Hooker were advising him on the best course of > action in relation to Wallace's paper. It was in a state of grief and > exhaustion in which, as he wrote to Hooker, he was quite prostrate and > could do nothing, that he sent them Wallace's paper, an abstract of a > letter to Asa Gray which he emphasized gave only imperfectly gave an idea > of his theory, and the sketch of a book he had written many years before > for his wife to publish should he die prematurely. > > As to Chris's writing that *Origin* was hastily compiled immediately > afterwards, Darwin's setting out to write what would become *Origin* was > at the behest of Hooker, who, once Darwin had recuperated on the Isle of > Wight, urged him to present his ideas more fully in a scientific journal. > Darwin then started working strenuously on what would become *Origin*. > > Chris writes that Darwin described Wallace's paper, by implication almost > dismissively, as a "mere 'abstract' " (the "mere" is Chris's, of course). > The context is as follows: After receiving the paper Darwin wrote in a > letter to Lyell that "If Wallace had my MS sketch written out in 1842 he > could not have made a better short abstract!", which puts a rather > different complexion on the description. Wallace himself effectively took > the same view when he compared Darwin's contribution to his own as "twenty > years is to one week". With typical generosity he wrote to Darwin: "As to > the theory of Natural Selection itself, I shall always maintain it to be > yours and yours alone... My paper would never have convinced anybody or > been noticed as more than an ingenious speculation; whereas your book has > revolutionised the study of natural history, and carried away captive the > best men of the present age." (Quotes from Sulloway, F. J. (1996), *Born > to Rebel*, pp. 246-247.) > > Incidentally, Darwin published *Origin* in late 1859. The book was a great > publishing success, but, as we all know, created tremendous public > controversy. But did this "threaten" Darwin's "comfy social position"? I > think not (which is not to say, of course, there wasn't great disputation > among his friends, colleagues and contemporaries in general). Nor, from > anything I have read in any source, did it in any way affect what Chris > described as "the commercial empire of his wife's family, the Wedgewood > China business". And nor is there the slightest evidence that Darwin > feared it might when he published his theory. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > > -------------------------------------- > Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:48:42 -0400 > Author: "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Evolution in the news > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --------------010104030101040206000501 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Allen Esterson wrote: > > > > >Chris Green writes re Darwin [snip]: > > > > > > > > >>Public controversy threatened not only his own > > >>rather comfy social position, but also the commericial empire of > > >>his wife's family, the Wedgewood China buisness. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Chris, what evidence do you have that this played any role in Darwin's > > >reluctance to publish his ideas until he had built a solidly-built case > > >using information concerning a wide variety of flora and fauna (much of it > > >obtained from correspondents around the world)? > > > > > I don't have time right now to go look all this stuff up, but it is all > > very well known and documented in history of science circles. You're the > > one who quoted Janet Browne's biography, however. I'd have a look at > > that, esp pp. 457-470 of vol. 1. As well, have a look at Jim Secord's > > _Victorian Sensation_ and at John Van Wyhe's recent book on phrenology > > and the impact on George Combe's life of being the leading advocate of > > the practice (and more importantly, in his _Constitution of Man_, of the > > "natural explanation" of mental phenomena). Finally, consider the > > conqesuences for John Eliotson (lost his position at UC London) for > > defending mesmerism and advocating materialism. Or the effect on Andrew > > Crosse's reputation of having found living things (tiny insects) > > apparently emerge spontaneously from an electrically-charged chemical > > solution. These were so well known at the time and so drastic in their > > results for the men involved that the burden of proof would seem to be > > on the person who DENY that they had any effect on Darwin? (They > > certainly had and effect on people such as the famed physiologist > > William Carpenter.) > > > > And, let us not forget, it is most assuredly NOT the case that Darwin > > eventually published only when he thought he had collected enough > > material. He published because his priority in the matter was threatened > > by Alfred Russel Wallace's paper (which Wallace unknowingly sent to > > Darwin before publishing it). Darwin's friends -- Hooker and Lyell -- > > hastily arranged that Wallace's paper be read along with a couple of old > > unpublished peices of Darwin's, at the same session of the same > > conference in 1858 (without Wallace's knowledge). _Origin_ was hastily > > compiled immediately afterwards in order to solidify Darwin's claim to > > priority, and Darwin was so unhappy with it -- so fearful of the > > possible response -- that he referred to it as a mere "abstract" of his > > theory. Had it been up to Darwin alone, he would have waited much longer > > to publish. > > > > >And what evidence is there that such controversy would have "threatened" > > >the Wedgwood China business? Did their sales go down after the publication > > >of *On the Origin of Species*? > > > > > > > > What sort of evidence do you want? A specific entry in Darwin's journal > > that he's not publishing because he's afraid that his wife's family > > business might be affected? It is manifestly evident that lives, > > reputations, careers and businesses were often destroyed by > > controversies of this kind. Chambers' decision to publish _Vestiges_ > > anonymously wasn't a bit of eccentric paranoia. It is clear that > > immediately after publication there were people busily seeking out the > > author of _Vestiges_ precisely in order to expose and destroy him or her > > (Ada Lovelace was suggested as a possible candidate). Darwin would have > > to have been a social idiot (which he certainly was not) to have not > > considered the effect on his family of the scandal that might well > > surround the publication of his "Big Book on Species" (as he liked to > > call it before he published). Was there an effect on the Wedgewood > > business when he finally published? Not to my knowledge, but (as you > > well know, being an Englishman) 1859 was a long time after 1844 -- the > > political climate had changed considerably. In 1859 they were on the > > verge of the Second Reform Act (1867, but first introduced by Russell in > > 1860), whereas only "radical" Chartists defended such "crazy ideas"as > > letting working class men vote back in 1844. The difference was that > > between between Peel and Disraeli (or should Gladstone really get the > > credit?). > > > > >Again, in what way could public controversy threaten Darwin's "comfy > > >social position" when he had independent means? > > > > > Note I said "social" rather than "economic." The threat was mainly to > > his reputation (which he worried over constantly) and that of his > > family. He also held public office in Down, of which he might have been > > embarassingly stripped had the controversy gotten out of hand. Note also > > that (despite his own abandonment of religious conviction) he never > > denounced the Church or its teachings publicly. Indeed, he and his > > circle (Hucley, Hooker, Lyell, and others) seem to have strategically > > constructed for him a kind of cocoon in which the others would run > > public interference (attacking his opponents) while Darwin himself could > > appear "detached" from it all (again, read Janet Browne's biography, > > though this is not an idea that is held by her alone by any means). > > > > >In fact, of course, there *was* tremendous public controversy when he > > >published *On the Origin of Species* > > > > > Although scientists like to celebrate it, the controversy surrounding > > the publication of _Origin_ was rather smaller than those surrounding > > the publications of _Constitution of Man_ and _Vestiges_ (in no small > > part because sales of _Origin_, big as they were, were dwarfed by sales > > of _Constitution_ and _Vestiges_ -- see the chart in Van Wyhe's book. > > And Darwin had a lot more "respectable" people on his side than did > > Combe or Chambers -- partly because of his obviously better evidence, > > but also because scientific (and social) progressivism was much more > > respectable by the time he published. Herbert Spencer also played a > > critical role here. Although he had been an evolutionist long before > > Darwin published, and was never much of a natural selectionist, because > > of the important *social* implications he drew from the idea of > > evolution, he ended up absorbing a lot of the criticism that might > > otherwise have been turned Darwin's way. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Christopher D. Green > > Department of Psychology > > York University > > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > > Canada > > > > 416-736-5115 ex. 66164 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > > ============================= > > > > --------------010104030101040206000501 > > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > > <html> > > <head> > > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> > > <title></title> > > </head> > > <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> > > Allen Esterson wrote:<br> > > <blockquote type="cite" > > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > > <pre wrap="">Chris Green writes re Darwin [snip]: > > </pre> > > <blockquote type="cite"> > > <pre wrap="">Public controversy threatened not only his own > > rather comfy social position, but also the commericial empire of > > his wife's family, the Wedgewood China buisness. > > </pre> > > </blockquote> > > <pre wrap=""><!----> > > Chris, what evidence do you have that this played any role in > > Darwin’s reluctance to publish his ideas until he had built a > > solidly-built case using information concerning a wide variety of flora and > > fauna (much of it obtained from correspondents around the world)?</pre> > > </blockquote> > > I don't have time right now to go look all this stuff up, but it is all > > very well known and documented in history of science circles. You're > > the one who quoted Janet Browne's biography, however. I'd have a look > > at that, esp pp. 457-470 of vol. 1. As well, have a look at Jim > > Secord's _Victorian Sensation_ and at John Van Wyhe's recent book on > > phrenology and the impact on George Combe's life of being the leading > > advocate of the practice (and more importantly, in his _Constitution of > > Man_, of the "natural explanation" of mental phenomena). Finally, > > consider the conqesuences for John Eliotson (lost his position at UC > > London) for defending mesmerism and advocating materialism. Or the > > effect on Andrew Crosse's reputation of having found living things > > (tiny insects) apparently emerge spontaneously from an > > electrically-charged chemical solution. These were so well known at the > > time and so drastic in their results for the men involved that the > > burden of proof would seem to be on the person who DENY that they had > > any effect on Darwin? (They certainly had and effect on people such as > > the famed physiologist William Carpenter.)<br> > > <br> > > And, let us not forget, it is most assuredly NOT the case that Darwin > > eventually published only when he thought he had collected enough > > material. He published because his priority in the matter was > > threatened by Alfred Russel Wallace's paper (which Wallace unknowingly > > sent to Darwin before publishing it). Darwin's friends -- Hooker and > > Lyell -- hastily arranged that Wallace's paper be read along with a > > couple of old unpublished peices of Darwin's, at the same session of > > the same conference in 1858 (without Wallace's knowledge). _Origin_ was > > hastily compiled immediately afterwards in order to solidify Darwin's > > claim to priority, and Darwin was so unhappy with it -- so fearful of > > the possible response -- that he referred to it as a mere "abstract" of > > his theory. Had it been up to Darwin alone, he would have waited much > > longer to publish. <br> > > <blockquote type="cite" > > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > > <pre wrap=""> > > And what evidence is there that such controversy would have "threatened" > > the Wedgwood China business? Did their sales go down after the publication > > of *On the Origin of Species*? > > </pre> > > </blockquote> > > What sort of evidence do you want? A specific entry in Darwin's journal > > that he's not publishing because he's afraid that his wife's family > > business might be affected? It is manifestly evident that lives, > > reputations, careers and businesses were often destroyed by > > controversies of this kind. Chambers' decision to publish _Vestiges_ > > anonymously wasn't a bit of eccentric paranoia. It is clear that > > immediately after publication there were people busily seeking out the > > author of _Vestiges_ precisely in order to expose and destroy him or > > her (Ada Lovelace was suggested as a possible candidate). Darwin would > > have to have been a social idiot (which he certainly was not) to have > > not considered the effect on his family of the scandal that might well > > surround the publication of his "Big Book on Species" (as he liked to > > call it before he published). Was there an effect on the Wedgewood > > business when he finally published? Not to my knowledge, but (as you > > well know, being an Englishman) 1859 was a long time after 1844 -- the > > political climate had changed considerably. In 1859 they were on the > > verge of the Second Reform Act (1867, but first introduced by Russell > > in 1860), whereas only "radical" Chartists defended such "crazy > > ideas"as letting working class men vote back in 1844. The difference > > was that between between Peel and Disraeli (or should Gladstone really > > get the credit?). <br> > > <blockquote type="cite" > > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > > <pre wrap=""> > > Again, in what way could public controversy threaten Darwin’s "comfy > > social position" when he had independent means? </pre> > > </blockquote> > > Note I said "social" rather than "economic." The threat was mainly to > > his reputation (which he worried over constantly) and that of his > > family. He also held public office in Down, of which he might have been > > embarassingly stripped had the controversy gotten out of hand. Note > > also that (despite his own abandonment of religious conviction) he > > never denounced the Church or its teachings publicly. Indeed, he and > > his circle (Hucley, Hooker, Lyell, and others) seem to have > > strategically constructed for him a kind of cocoon in which the others > > would run public interference (attacking his opponents) while Darwin > > himself could appear "detached" from it all (again, read Janet Browne's > > biography, though this is not an idea that is held by her alone by any > > means). <br> > > <blockquote type="cite" > > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > > <pre wrap="">In fact, of course, there *was* tremendous public > > controversy when he published *On the Origin of Species*</pre> > > </blockquote> > > Although scientists like to celebrate it, the controversy surrounding > > the publication of _Origin_ was rather smaller than those surrounding > > the publications of _Constitution of Man_ and _Vestiges_ (in no small > > part because sales of _Origin_, big as they were, were dwarfed by sales > > of _Constitution_ and _Vestiges_ -- see the chart in Van Wyhe's book. > > And Darwin had a lot more "respectable" people on his side than did > > Combe or Chambers -- partly because of his obviously better evidence, > > but also because scientific (and social) progressivism was much more > > respectable by the time he published. Herbert Spencer also played a > > critical role here. Although he had been an evolutionist long before > > Darwin published, and was never much of a natural selectionist, because > > of the important *social* implications he drew from the idea of > > evolution, he ended up absorbing a lot of the criticism that might > > otherwise have been turned Darwin's way. <br> > > <br> > > Regards,<br> > > -- <br> > > Christopher D. Green<br> > > Department of Psychology<br> > > York University<br> > > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3<br> > > Canada<br> > > <br> > > 416-736-5115 ex. 66164<br> > > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]</a><br> > > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > > href="http://www.yorku.ca/christo";>http://www.yorku.ca/christo</a><br> > > ============================= > > --- <BR> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] <BR> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] </BODY> > > </html> > > > > --------------010104030101040206000501--
