> I have also read Wilson's book, but you are trying to have it both ways.
> If Wilson's book is to be a standalone entity, taken outside the context of
> the surrounding literature, then you can't claim that terms are "used" just
> because Wilson uses them. If we're going to say that the sociobiologists
> are a coherent enough group that their use of technical terms needs to be
> respected, then you can't dismiss the racists and sexists as isolated nuts.
>
I take Wilson's book as _representative_ of the _scientific_
literature. Not of dodgy anti-Semitic psuedo-science (or "the
surrounding literature" in your words).
You read Wilson's book? And what's the only stuff of any solidity in it? The evolution of social behaviour IN ANIMALS. The _science_ is limited to this stuff. The stuff on humans can only be regarded as extremely tentative. Almost nothing is established of any worth.
I've said before, there's science, and there's bullshit use of scientific terms out of context. Yes - sometimes (often?) the scientists and the shitartists are one and the same. In fact it's a good strategy - you can use your authority to put forth shite to the bamboozlement of many. But you, Daniel, are not critiquing the science - you're complaining about what is essentially a misuse of it.
Eric