[lbo-talk] There He Goes Again (Was Re: Diet Pills = Gay Babies . . . Not!)

[ravi]

andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 
> The proposition "homosexuality is biologically
> determined" is nonsense -- from a biological point of
> view, it is like saying "Colorless green ideas sleep
> furiously." I have explained this before. You can also
> find explanations in Gould's The Mismeasure of Man
> among other places. 
> 
> Very briefly once again: there is no natural property,
> homosexuality or eye color, that is always manifested
> rigidly in the same way regardless of initial
> conditions and environmental circumstances. All
> biological (and other) dispositional properties are
> propensities to manifest some trait in some defined
> set of circumstances. 
> 
> Therefore, every trait is both biologically and
> environmentally determined. You can't even ask how
> much of each. <...> The answer
> to the question: is it Nature Or Nuture? is _always_
> Both. 
> 
> I don't know why this elementary and obvious point
> about biology and philosophy of science is so hard to
> get through to people, even to leftists.
>

jks,

wouldn't you say that you are stopping a bit short? everything you write
above is true, but it is also true that gould/lewontin/hubbard/rose have
their ideological positions (which coincide with mine!) as do those
scientists they disagree with (wilson/dawkins/pinker/smith). both
parties, when not sparring, will readily admit the accuracy of what you
say above. what still remains however is this: insofar as a genic
variation represents a tendency or propensity for a trait, a person
possessing that variation can be said to have a biological
predisposition to exhibit that trait.

while it is difficult (impossible according to you) to measure the
contributions of genes and environment, at the least one can make
extrapolations on what traits (eye colour, sickle cell anaemia) can and
cannot manifest in a person given a particular genic make-up.

if the debate is to be grounded on biological issues (the "naturalistic
fallacy") then the above restated point (determined -> predisposed)
stays relevant to the debate. as you, me, and others have pointed out
multiple times, the key would be to avoid the naturalistic fallacy.

	--ravi