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

[lweiger at umich.edu]

Right.  I think when people say something like "homsexuality is genetic" (to say
it's biological really is trivial nonsense--as living beings, _all_ of our
traits are biological), they generally mean that _if_ one has the "gay
gene(s)," _then_ one will become a homosexual in most all "normal"
environments.  Justin, Miles, and I have discussed this point before.  I ended
up conceding that people are probably a bit more confused than I'd thought, but
I still think the confusion is pretty superficial.

-- Luke

Quoting ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org>:


> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>