Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] Lewontin and Gould object Was: Re: Course Book Awards




On 2012, Apr 12, , at 06:47, John Denker wrote:


There is a list of "books you don't want to be without" at
http://www.av8n.com/physics/books.htm


12. Edward O. Wilson
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis



While the term "sociobiology" can be traced to the 1940s, the concept didn't gain major recognition until 1975 with the publication of Edward O. Wilson's book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. The new field quickly became the subject of heated controversy. Criticism, most notably made by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centered on sociobiology's contention that genes play an ultimate role in human behavior and that traits such as aggressiveness can be explained by biology rather than a person's social environment. Sociobiologists generally responded to the criticism by pointing to the complex relationship between nature and nurture. In response to some of the potentially fractious implications sociobiology had for human biodiversity, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides founded the field of evolutionary psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology



bc notes Lewontin and Wilson are (were) hall mates at Harvard. ("... a few doors down the hall ..." according to a Lewontin lecture.)



"• The scientific response included several of Wilson's colleagues at Harvard, such as Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, who were strongly opposed to his ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson




Many critics draw an intellectual link between sociobiology and biological determinism, the belief that most human differences can be traced to specific genes rather than differences in culture or social environments. Critics also see parallels between sociobiology and biological determinism as a philosophy underlying the social Darwinian and eugenics movements of the early 20th century, and controversies in the history of intelligence testing. Steven Pinker argues that critics have been overly swayed by politics and a "fear" of biological determinism.[10] However, all these critics have claimed that sociobiology fails on scientific grounds, independent of their political critiques. In particular, Lewontin, Rose & Kamin drew a detailed distinction between the politics and history of an idea and its scientific validity,[11] as has Stephen Jay Gould.[12]
Wilson and his supporters counter the intellectual link by denying that Wilson had a political agenda, still less a right-wing one. They pointed out that Wilson had personally adopted a number of liberal political stances and had attracted progressive sympathy for his outspoken environmentalism. They argued that as scientists they had a duty to uncover the truth whether that was politically correct or not. They argued that sociobiology does not necessarily lead to any particular political ideology, as many critics implied. Many subsequent sociobiologists, including Robert Wright, Anne Campbell, Frans de Waal and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, have used sociobiology to argue quite separate points. Noam Chomsky came to the defense of sociobiology's methodology, noting that it was the same methodology he used in his work on linguistics. However, he roundly criticized the sociobiologists' actual conclusions about humans as lacking substance. He also noted that the anarchist Peter Kropotkin had made similar arguments in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, although focusing more on altruism than aggression, suggesting that anarchist societies were feasible because of an innate human tendency to cooperate.[13]
Wilson's claims that he had never meant to imply what ought to be, only what is the case are supported by his writings, which are descriptive, not prescriptive. However, some critics have argued that the language of sociobiology sometimes slips from "is" to "ought",[11] leading sociobiologists to make arguments against social reform on the basis that socially progressive societies are at odds with our innermost nature.[citation needed] Views such as this, however, are often criticized as examples of the naturalistic fallacy, when reasoning jumps from descriptions about what is to prescriptions about what ought to be. (A common example is the justification of militarism if scientific evidence showed warfare was part of human nature.) It has also been argued that opposition to stances considered anti-social, such as ethnic nepotism, are based on moralassumptions, not bioscientific assumptions, meaning that it is not vulnerable to being disproved by bioscientific advances.[10]:145 The history of this debate, and others related to it, are covered in detail by Cronin (1992), Segerstråle (2000), Alcock (2001),[14][15][16] and most recently by Griffith (2011).[17]
[edit]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology#Criticism



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l