Darwin the Scandalist

"The influence of Darwin's theory can partially be explained by the fact that at its time scientific debate reached wide audiences. The main explanation however, lies in a human factor: in the uproar caused by consciousness that all people are not descendants of Adam, but rather of a monkey." - Norman Davies

That's probably very true and certainly quite incredible. Just consider the implications of the sentences above: one of the most influential theories in modern science (the most influential one according to "Scientific American") gained it's popularity because it caused a stir, a sensation, a scandal... It wasn't even that revolutionary. Most people forget that Darwin was not the author of the theory of evolution, he just added the factor of natural selection as it's driving source. Many people before him talked of progressive evolutionary change, but it was Darwin who challenged the religious fundamentalists' version of Genesis and thus became incredibly well known and forever remembered by history.

This is an interesting event in history and in philosophy of science. Many philosophers since Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" try to explain what influences and drives scientific discovery, but I'm not sure if their theories can adequately deal with the evolutionary revolution of Darwin. This is not an event that can be explained by logic, because it has to refer to the human emotions involved. It is rather a field for psychologists and sociologists.

One thing is certain: Darwin caused a revolution not because he challenged contemporary science, but because he disputed popular religious views. Religion is not scientific and religious beliefs are not subject to the same tests as scientific theories, but many young scientists know how much emotion and heated debate can be generated by (mis)applying scientific verification to religious scripture.

It's interesting to ask why that is. Why are we so fascinated by that which causes a scandal? Why do we get so excited when someone says or does something which goes against the rules? Answering this question would not only help us understand the reasons for Darwin's huge influence on the 20th century, but also let us understand things much closer: popularity of gossip magazines, why the TV news always looks like it does, etc.

Perhaps this scandal-curiosity is a fundamental human trait? Or perhaps it can be broken down and explained by something else... I am no psychologist, but it seems to me that if this field is ever to become scientific, it needs to identify the 'forces', which it deals with. In physics the forces are well defined: electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces; and all physical theories always base on them, which makes the science understandable and invalid theories easily identifiable.

I'm not trying to say that psychology and physics are comparable, but in this particular respect the former could try to follow the latter. As it is now, it seems that every psychologist school identifies one fundamental human trait as the fundamental driving force and tries to explain everything by it. Is that possible? Of course it is, everything can be explained by "need for happiness", but we have to ask ourselves whether such an over-simplified model is very useful...

Endlessly musing... Perhaps this scandal-curiosity is a fundamental human trait? Or perhaps it can be broken down and explained by something else... I am no psychologist, but it seems to me that if this field is ever to become scientific, it needs to identify the 'forces', which it deals with. In physics the forces are well defined: electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces; and all physical theories always base on them, which makes the science understandable and invalid theories easily identifiable.

I'm not trying to say that psychology and physics are comparable, but in this particular respect the former could try to follow the latter. As it is now, it seems that every psychologist school identifies one fundamental human trait as the fundamental driving force and tries to explain everything by it. Is that possible? Of course it is, everything can be explained by "need for happiness", but we have to ask ourselves whether such an over-simplified model is very useful...

Endlessly musing...