Hale Piers J
Science, Technology & Society Program, Colby College, 8800 Mayflower Hill Waterville, Maine 04901-8888, United States.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2006;28(2):191-213.
The Irish playwright and socialist George Bernard Shaw has been of marginal concern for historians of biology because his vitalist Lamarckism has been viewed as out of step with contemporary science. However, Julian Huxley and J.B.S. Haldane were certainly of the opinion that Shaw was a man of influence in this regard and took pains to counter his views in their own attempts to engage the public in science. Previously, Shaw's colleague and friend H.G. Wells had also agued with Shaw from his own mechanistic neo-Darwinian perspective. The very public debate between Shaw and Wells, which continued to concern Huxley and Haldane, shows that public concern over the moral implications of Darwinism has a long history. Taking into account the opinions of John Maynard Smith on this matter, I suggest that a consideration of Shaw in this context can give us an understanding of the historical popularity of vitalist teleology as well as of the persistent ambivalence to the non-normative character of Darwinism.
爱尔兰剧作家兼社会主义者乔治·萧伯纳一直不太受生物学史学家的关注,因为他的活力论拉马克主义被认为与当代科学脱节。然而,朱利安·赫胥黎和J.B.S.霍尔丹确实认为萧伯纳在这方面是个有影响力的人物,并在自己试图让公众参与科学的过程中煞费苦心地反驳他的观点。此前,萧伯纳的同事兼朋友H.G.威尔斯也曾从自己机械论的新达尔文主义视角与萧伯纳争论过。萧伯纳和威尔斯之间这场备受公众关注且让赫胥黎和霍尔丹一直关心的辩论表明,公众对达尔文主义道德含义的关注由来已久。考虑到约翰·梅纳德·史密斯在这个问题上的观点,我认为在这种背景下审视萧伯纳能让我们理解活力论目的论在历史上的流行程度,以及对达尔文主义非规范性特征一直存在的矛盾态度。