[lbo-talk] Why think sociobiologically (at least sometimes)

[ravi]

On 06/02/05 11:21, Carrol Cox wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>>  
>> sociobiology is not the only biological explanation. i (among others)
>> have provided links to various critiques *within biology* (by
>> biologists) of the "explanations" of sociobiology. the first part of
>> your post is valid. the second part is mere flamebait.
> 
> This has always been my understanding of sociobiology -- independently
> of whether it is good or bad social analysis, it is bad biology, and
> like other forms of bad science is a barrier rather than an aid to
> understanding the biological grounding of human behavior.
> 

i wouldn't go that far. for some problems, as jks points out,
sociobiology offers the best answer, even if partial, available thus
far. the radical functionalism/adaptationism of [what seems to be] most
sociobiologists betrays an ideological commitment that is more dangerous
than any feel-good commitments of nurture theorists.

dobzhansky's 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution' carried too far...

	--ravi