Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Science and the Studies of Man 71
This would seem to be self-evident. But the reason is that we
readily supply the implicit premise of Mr. Carter's enthymeme, to
the effect that whatever happens must happen by natural means.
This assumption is not a scientific proposition, but a philosophical
one.
That this implicit premise is an unsupported assumption can be
noticed when we look with care at another paragraph of Mr.
Carter's article. He tells us:
We must now consider how far man's evolution since he arose from
his primate ancestors can be interpreted as governed by the same
controls as those we have seen to govern the evolution of other animals.
There can be no doubt that his evolution has been in many
ways most unusual, and it is to be expected that unusual factors may
have taken part in its control. But man is an animal, and he arose
from animals much less unusual than he himself is. Also, his genotype
is similar in its organization to those of other animals, and there
should be no great difference in type between the variations that form
the raw material of evolution in him and his animal ancestors. His
ecology, at least in the earlier stages of his evolution, must have arisen
by modification of that of the Primates from which he arose. Changes
in ecology undoubtedly occurred in the course of his evolution and
must have largely influenced its course, but he must have arisen from
a primate life, probably arboreal, very like that of many of our
modern Primates. I shall assume, for the sake of the argument, that
he early gave up his arboreal life, coming to live an omnivorous life
on the ground; that at first he lived in small groups not much larger
than the family; and that the size of his communities was enlarged
only later when he began to develop a social life. 23
What is of interest in this paragraph is the style in which it is
couched. "There can be no doubt ..." we are told, and "there
should be no great difference in type," and "he must have arisen,"
and "changes in ecology undoubtedly occurred." And finally: "I
shall assume." As, a student of philosophy, I find myself utterly
at home in this kind of reasoning, for it is the rhetoric philosophers
use when, as is so frequently the case, they want to per-