The Critical Rationalist Vol. 01 No. 04 ISSN: 1393-3809 31-Dec-1996
5.1.1 On "survival"
5 The Status of Organismic Darwinism
My dear Darwin,--I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of numbers of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, the self-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself, and your mode of illustrating it, however clear and beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalist public ... I wish, therefore, to suggest to you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (if not now too late), and also in any future editions of the `Origin', and I think it may be done without difficulty and very effectually by adopting Spencer's term (which he generally uses in preference to Natural Selection), viz. `Survival of the Fittest'.Wallace (1866)
[Quoted by Dawkins (1982), pp. 179-180]
(46) I believe that the charge of tautology leveled against Organismic Darwinism is quite mistaken. However, contrary to, for example, Dawkins (1982, pp. 180-181), I also consider that the confusion is deep seated and subtle. In particular, I believe that there are (at least) three quite different kinds of misconception involved.
(47) There are a number of more or less authoritative replies to the tautology charge already available in the literature (some of which I shall comment upon below); but these have, in general, only recognised one or another of the various possible misconceptions. I am not aware of any previous discussion which has clearly distinguished all three kinds of misconception which I identify here. I suggest that this may explain why this debate has sometimes appeared interminable: the participants have frequently been talking at cross purposes. In itself, this would justify the somewhat lengthy discussion given here; but the discussion is also justifiable in its own terms for it illuminates some quite important aspects of Darwinian theory which might not otherwise be explicitly dealt with.
(48) The discussion will (not surprisingly) be quite complex and potentially confusing. Therefore let me outline the general structure in advance.
(49) The arguments all revolve around Spencer's
unfortunate phrase "the survival of the
fittest". I shall initially show how the phrase can
be interpreted as an (approximately) correct,
non-tautologous, (albeit partial) statement of
--which is, presumably, the interpretation
Spencer intended. The first misconception which I
consider is such that the phrase is still
"correctly" interpreted, but, in a certain
peculiar and austere sense, is labeled as tautologous
anyway. Under the second misconception, there
are two distinct ways in which the phrase can more or
less correctly be interpreted as a definition
of "fitness"; both of these interpretations
are, of course, tautologous, but they are not
statements of and do not impinge upon its
status. Under the third (and final) misconception,
there is an interpretation of the phrase which is not
strictly tautologous, but is not equivalent to
(and is, in fact, mistaken). This last error
does involve an element of circular reasoning, and
might therefore be still said to "smack" of
tautology; in many ways it is the most pernicious
misconception of all.
(50) In presenting this analysis I do not claim that my taxonomy is complete or unique. In practice, various combinations and permutations of the errors identified below may well be simultaneously present in any single author's treatment; and, of course, there may be new errors which I am unwittingly originating, in carrying out this very analysis.
5.1.1 On "survival"
5 The Status of Organismic Darwinism
The Critical Rationalist Vol. 01 No. 04 ISSN: 1393-3809 31-Dec-1996
Copyright © 1996 All Rights Reserved.
TCR Issue Timestamp: Tue Dec 31 17:37:08 GMT 1996