History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: an extended minimalist approach…a maximalist approach…

May 5th, 2017 · No Comments

Having produced a solid result with a minimalist approach we are soon on the spoor of an more systematic examination, with a maximalist approach in the background.

The latter can undermine the value of what we are doing and implies a closed theory with a causal structure that impinges on science. As we proceed we discover that is unrealistic and find an extended minimalist approach is better. we can pursue this tomorrow, to let the minimalist idea sink in. But as we examine our discovery we rapidly see the larger implications of our non-random pattern. The pieces of a puzzle start to fit, even if the total puzzle remains unsolved. The analogy is apt: we can solve locally some parts of a puzzle without completing the whole thing. In history this is related to the fact that we discover our non-random pattern only since the invention of writing and the existence of an historical record, an indication the only reason we can’t proceed is lack of data, mouthwatering. In any case detecting a non-random pattern makes us examine the data very closely indeed and we rapidly discover many more pieces to the puzzle and we are soon able to make some partial conclusions based on the meaning of what we are seeing. Consider: if the partial puzzle shows a ‘face’ or a ‘house’ we can conclude that the puzzle has meanings and isn’t a random abstract pattern, this even without the whole pattern. We will conclude this discussion later, but we can point to some tentative conclusions:

contra Popper, history has meaning
we suspect that random evolution arguments are bogus: development is non-random (the point should be screamingly obvious if we examine biological organs and their directed functions)
history appears to show a developmental sequence
we can close in on the particulars very easily in proximate antiquity, ditto but to a lesser extent for earlier antiquity.
this analysis trips the warning light: speculative…but the balance of evidence makes randomness look crackpot…
economic explanation is too reductive: the economic interpretation of history isn’t going to work
history shows meaning and thus shows the action of values in the realm of fact, a very simple, minimalist, yet overwhelming conclusion in the context of attempts at ‘science’
we cannot close on a causal theory and must remain with our ‘extended minimalist’ approach that can depict history in the context of the non-random without false efforts at theory…
we can easily update a postmarxism here to create a more useful view of history as a platform for the left…(Liberals are quite free to use it also, but as we shall see the conservative reactionary views of history are in some ways falsified…as we will see)

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment