Natural selection vs Survival of the fittest
Darwin vs Spencer
AKA: The misunderstanding and deliberate misinterpretation of science
It always starts with a ‘fatherly’ gesture of making it simple for the uneducated/unintelligent like myself (courtesy of aspacia).
This is a perfect example of how an economist created a phrase seemingly fit the scientific idea
just to twist it out of it’s meaning and use it as proof to his preconceptions.
Two quick examples:
“Survival of the fittest a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. “ Wiki
Natural selection has nothing to do with predominance. It is based on adaptability to changing environment.
“Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power,
joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever.” Spencer
This phrase is as unscientific as it possibly can be. If I want to follow in his style I would say: What a load of crap.
- deliberate confusion of ‘fittest’ with ‘militant type’
- use of a statistical theory to explain individual behavior
- use of a biological theory to explain social behavior
The otherwise unsupported claim of ‘higher social ranks’ and ‘natural obedience’ is now supported by Darwin!?