LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  May 2004

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE May 2004

Subject:

Re: Seeking Input for Sociobiology Article

From:

Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 15 May 2004 00:53:29 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (176 lines)

Samuel,

Welcome to the list.

You ask what motivates sociobiologists. In addition to possible
ideological or monetary motives, there is the simple notion that  one
can achieve scientific success with a new paradigm (Kuhn) or research
program (Lakatos) or  system of 'alliances" (Latour) that provides a
framework for making many quasi-testable claims. The simplicity of the
"hunter-gatherers on the African savanna" scenario is well suited to
draw in followers with its seeming clarity and obviousness, and the goal
of any scientist  (as such) is to draw in followers.

To defeat sociobiology, i would guess, requires not merely refuting
their claims, but demonstrating the existence of another research
program that can yield more promising results coherently and thus can
attract adherents. Presumably this would be a theory of cultural change
and plasticity.

Also, you mention the brain plasticity argument, citing Pinker. I
haven't read that particular work by Pinker, but it seems to me that a
number of theorists of the brain, such as Gerald Edelman, emphasize
brain plasticity in a way that probably excludes some sociobiological
ideas.

Good luck with your work.


--
Best,
Michael

Michael H. Goldhaber

[log in to unmask]
http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/


Samuel Waite wrote:

> Hello everyone.  I'm new to the list.
>
> I'm working on an article intended to introduce young
> progressive activists to the history of (to varying
> degrees) biological determinist ideologies (especially
> in the U.S.), including sociobiology, evolutionary
> psychology, and racist and sexist science.  The SftP
> archives have been of great use to me in this task.
> I'd now like to ask for some input from list
> members...
>
> The history of scientific racism, eugenics, etc. in
> the earlier part of the last century has been gone
> over in many other places before.  I'm more concerned
> with such movements from around the 1960s to the
> present.
>
> The sociobiology wars, as I've come to understand
> them, could, I think, be summarized as lines from a
> play:
>
> E. O. Wilson:  Because genes make the brain, and the
> brain is the mind, then our basic desires, emotions,
> etc., and by extension, our society, are shaped by
> evolutionary forces.  Thus, women are predisposed to
> be congnitively and behaviorally different from ne in
> a manner different from men; and so feminism is
> hopeless.  Further, humans may be inherently racist,
> aggressive, etc.; and the welfare state may have a
> deleterious effect.
>
> Gould, Lewontin, etc.:  Your pronouncements are overly
> informed by the dominant ideology.  In this way,
> they're dangerous in the same way that racist
> pseudoscience is dangerous.  Further, they'd
> scientificially dubious:  what about spandrels and
> neutral traits?  Further, you seem ignorant of
> history, ethnography, and archaeology.  And besides,
> you misunderstand the relationship between genotype
> and phenotype.
>
> Wilson, Dawkins, Barash, etc.:  You're Communists!
>
> It's an oversimplification, of course.  But it's much
> closer to the truth, I think, than the mythical
> history of the wars we usually hear:  Wilson declares
> the sacred Truth of Objective Science, and lefty
> scientists respond with strawman arguments.
>
> The following are some of the arguments I've
> encountered against sociobiology.  As I'm no
> scientist, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me
> if I misunderstand any of them.  I'll also raise some
> of the objections put forth by sociobiology's
> proponents, where applicable (to which I'd appreciate
> some responses):
>
> 1. Problems of interpretation and methodology.
> Scientific observations, hypotheses, experiments, and
> conclusions are frequently products are colored by
> personal bias and the dominant ideology.  One
> objection made to this point is that opponents of
> sociobiology also have their (left-wing) biases.
>
> 2. Just-so stories.  This one's pretty
> self-explanatory.  Of course, one objection that could
> be made is that it's easy to evade by labeling
> something just as well backed up as any
> paleontological or archeological theory or hypothesis
> a just-so story.
>
> 3. Spandrels.  Some traits are not adaptations, but
> byproducts of adaptations -- the human chin, for
> example.  An organ as complex as the human brain could
> have many spandrels, thus allowing for maladaptive
> behavior.
>
> 4. Some traits are not adaptations developed to fit
> the environment of past foraging societies, but in
> fact are leftovers from forms from even longer ago.
>
> 5. The inadequacy of kin selection as an explatory
> principle (argued by Sahlins).
>
> 6. The (at least partial) autonomy of the cultural vis
> a vis the biological (also argued by Sahlins).
>
> 7. The misunderstanding of the relationship between
> genotype and phenotype.
>
> And more recently:
>
> 8. Gene shortage.  The human genome contains only
> about 30,000 genes, far less than the 100,000+ that
> was previously predicted.  These aren't nearly enough
> to account for all the varieties of human behavior.
> Paul Ehrlich has been the foremost proponent of this
> argument (indeed, I can't find anyone else who makes
> it).  It's been addressed in Pinker's book and in the
> Evolutionary Psychology FAQ.  I lack the scientific
> knowledge to address the validity of these arguments.
>
> 9. Neural plasticity.  Again, I don't really know
> enough to address this one.  I haven't seen this
> argument outside of Pinker's book.
>
> Anyone have anything to add?
>
> I'd also like to ask:  if the sociobiologists are
> wrong, what do you think motivates them to continue
> making such grandiose claims about human nature?
> Money?  Politics?  Sincere belief?
>
> Finally, some questions about race.  That "race" as it
> is traditionally defined is not really a useful
> category is, I think, beyond dispute.  That said,
> there are certainly difference between populations.
>
> But the question arises:  if 85 percent of human
> variation can be found in any local population, what
> about the other 15 percent?  Assuming the human genome
> contains 30,000 genes, and humans generally are 99.4
> percent the same, that leaves around 300 genes that
> are found in different proportions in different
> populations.  It's been said that physical apperance
> only accounts for about a dozen genes -- so what about
> the other 288?  Couldn't they account for cognitive
> and/or behavioral differences?  (Please note that I
> don't actually buy this argument.  I'm just looking
> for a counter-argument.)
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
> http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager