I would phrase it as being trained to appreciate all approaches to social scientific
research - in this case, not dismissing genetics and neuroscience as a bunch of crap. I find it hard to believe that the material composition of our neurosystems has no effects on our behavior and thoughts. It is like saying that your metabolism has no effect on your body mass index, all that is a learned or 'socially constructed."
The fact that a bunch of quacks tried to answer neurological questions using paper and pencil tests does not mean that this line of inquiry is invalid.
I would also add that neurological does not mean genetic. Our neourosystems are shaped by our life experiences and out thoughts, especially in the formative years - so environmental and biological influences are not mutually exclusive, but often reinforcing each other.
As far as your functionalist argument is concerned - on one level it is true by definition. If there are rule, there must be transgressions - for without transgressions the concept of rules would be meaningless. This is rather trivial and does not explain anything.
A more interesting question is what exactly becomes a transgression and why i.e. by what process and social forces. The rich sociological tradition does a nice job describing what is a transgression and what is not in a particular context, and sometimes explains the "whys" - so obviously I am not dismissing that research - albeit sociology of deviance is not the area of my primary professional interest (I TA'd a criminology class while in graduate school), so you have to excuse me my lack of familiarity with the literature.
However, as we all know the line between explanation and excuse is very thin - and often what looks like a scientific explanation is a veiled attempt to excuse or evoke pity. To use a blunt example, it is one thing to point out to childhood experiences to explain why a guy beats his wife - and I would certainly appreciate that explanation (if valid) to understand that behavior. However, I would not appreciate if the very same explanation was used by his attorney to portray him as a "victim". It would not certainly sway me if I were on a jury.
I used to be impressed by various anthropologies of the "harmless people" casting rosy images of "noble savages" disguised as objective description i.e. science - with the hidden intent to moralize the reader. But then I felt being cheated and started disliking them. It is not that changed my view about the moral message itself - advocating tolerance and open mindedness toward cultures different than out own.
But then somewhere a line has been crossed and the genre started to be used as an excuse of the inexcusable. Not long ago, we had a discussion on this list on vaginal mutilation as a form of a different cultural heritage. What's next, Jew-gassing as cultural custom in Nazi Germany? Most people would recognize it as what it is - nihilistic bullshit. But that begs the question, where the line that separates that from a thick description with moralizing overtones. What distinguishes culturalist exoneration vaginal mutilation in Africa from a "thick descriptions" with moralizing overtones exonerating petty thugs and delinquents in the US?
That is perhaps why I do not fall for this functionalist trap - the fact that it exists it does not mean it is "functional" in any way or that it serves any purpose at all.
Sorry for overposting.
Wojtek