Abstract
The topic of my lecture deals basically with the question: How to treat scientific results? As you know, there are different ways to do this.One is the example given by Copernicus when he found that the geocentric model of universe was wrong and had to be exchanged by the heliocentric one. He decided, for whatever reason, not to get his results published during his lifetime. One can speculate about the reasons he had for this, the one given by him is: “If the great and mighty God allows such a long time to pass until a human being finds out the great design of his universe he was so great to give us, so a few years more or less will mot make a big difference.”
In this paper the word science and scientific are used in the Anglo-Saxonian meaning, i.e. natural sciences (in German: Naturwissenschaften).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Our institute has published so far on this very topic 35 papers in reviewed journals, 26 chapters in books, and four edited books. Altogether three Habilitationsschriften (D.Sc. - Thesis), eleven Ph.-D.-thesis, and thirteen Diplomarbeiten (Msc.-thesis) were conducted on this very field. The most important publications are: A. Hottermann/B. Ulrich: “Solid phase solution root interactions in soils subjected to acid deposition”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 305 (1984), pp. 353–368; D.L. Godbold, E. Fritz, A. Huttermann: “Aluminum toxicity and forest decline”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 85 (1988), pp. 3888–3892; D.L. Godbold, A. Hüttermann (Eds.): Effect of acidification on forest processes, New York (John Wiley) 1994.
A. Hotiermannb. Ulrich (1984).
The definition definition of sociobiology used in this communication means basically the ideology outlined in the following publications: E. O. WILSON: Sociobiology. The New Synthesis,Cambridge (Harvard University Press) 1975; R. DAwKINS: The Selfish Gene,Oxford (Oxford University Press) 1976 and their epigones.
The most influential publications being E. HAECKEL: Die Welträtsel, gemeinverständliche Studie über monistiche Philosophie, Leipzig (Kroner) 1899; W. BOLSCHE: Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, Berlin (Reimer) 1875.
C.f. F. ENGELS: Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft,Leipzig (Genossenschafts-Buchdruckerei) 1878, W.I. Lenin: Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus,Moskau (“Sweno”-Verlag) 1909, for the impact of these classics on the socialistic society see e.g. R. Havemann: “Die Einheitlichkeit von Natur und Gesellschaft”, in: G. Buschendorf, H. Wolfgramm, I. Radandt (Eds.): Weltall, Erde, Mensch,Leipzig (Verlag Neues Leben) 1956 (this book was given to every person in the former DDR which at the age of forteen attended the “Jugendweihe”, the socialist replacement of the religious ceremonies like Bar-Mitzva, Confirmation or First Communion)
See: Ä. BÄUMER: NS-Biologie, Stuttgart (Hirzel) 1990.
The most important publication of the philosophically based criticism of Evolutionism and Sociobiology are: P. KosLOwsKl, P. Kreuzer, R. Löw (Eds.): Evolution und Freiheit, Stuttgart (Hirzel) 1984; R. Spaemann, R. LOw, P. KosLowsKl (Eds.) Evolutionismus und Christentum, Weinheim (Acta Humaniora, VCH) 1986; P. KosLowsKI: Evolution und Gesellschaft, Tübingen (Mohr Siebeck) 1984, 2“d edition 1989; R. Löw (Ed.): Bioethik, Köln (Communio) 1990.
E. Voland (Ed.) Evolution und Anpassung, Stuttgart (Hirzel) 1993.
H. Hemminger: “Soziobiologie des Menschen — Wissenschaft oder Ideologie” (Sociobiology of Human Beings — Science or Ideology), Spektrum der Wissenschaften, 6 (1994), pp. 70–80.
E. Voland: “Kalkül der Elternliebe–ein soziobiologischer Musterfall” (Calculation of parental Love–a perfect Example for Sociobiology), Spektrum der Wissenschaften, 6 (1995), pp. 70–77.
Cf. Spektrum der Wissenschaften, 4 (1996), pp. 6–9.
D.C. Dennett: “Darwin’s dangerous idea”, The Sciences, 35/3 (1995), pp. 3440; German Translation: “Es geht auch ohne Gott”, DIE ZEIT, Nr. 8, 23. Februar 1996, S. 33.
Cf. The Sciences,35/5 (1995), pp. 6–7, 48.
R. Dawkins: “Gods Utility Function”, Scientific American,11 (1995), pp. 62–67. Preview to his book River Out of Eden.
Cf. Scientific American, 3 (1996), p. 5.
Cf. Spektrum der Wissenschaften, 12 (1995), pp. 80–88.
Cf. Spektrum der Wissenschaften (1996), pp.8–11.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hüttermann, A. (1999). What Is the Impact of a Philosophically Based Criticism of Socio-Biology on the Scientific Community?. In: Koslowski, P. (eds) Sociobiology and Bioeconomics. Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03825-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03825-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-08470-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-03825-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive