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

[andie nachgeborenen]

I don't think there's a "sociobiological school" any
more than there is  a "Marxist school" or even a
"neoclassical school" (though that is closer). There
are many people doing work in what might be broadly
called the biological ex-explantation of human
behavior, some share the most extreme reductionist
leanings you attribute to the, other the conservative
bias of ideologically justifying the social order.
These are not necessary coextensive: Dawkins I
understand to be an extreme reductionist who is pretty
left wing in his politics. Even the people doing the
worst of both work sometimes have genuinely
interesting explanatory things to say about human
behavior in evolutionary perspective, as  long as the
more extreme claims are dropped, just as one might
accept Marxist analyses while nor accepting Marxism's
claim (according to be some) to be a totalistic world
view that explains everything). And there are others
who share neither problem. Anyway, more later, jks

--- Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Justin wrote:
> > AS I have repeatedly stated in many posts on human
> > nature on sociobiology over the years, the point
> (2)
> > that Jim says I or the SBs ignore below is
> fundamental
> > to anything that counts as a coherent biological
> > explanation, including a sociobiological
> explanation....
> 
> I don't know anything about your perspective on this
> matter (since I
> haven't participated in LBO-TALK except lately and
> you never wrote on
> PEN-L on this subject as far as I remember). I
> attributed the willful
> ignorance of the effect of the whole on the parts
> [point 2] to the
> SoBs, not to you.
> 
> In no way was I trying to equate you with people
> like Arthur E.
> Gandolfi, Anna S. Gandolfi and David P. Barash
> (_Economics as an
> evolutionary science: From utility to fitness_) who
> represent the "bad
> economics" and "bad sociobiology" that Justin refers
> to.
> 
> But why do you count "sociobiological explanation"
> as a coherent
> biological explanation, since the sociobiological
> school arbitrarily
> rules out some sorts of biological explanation (such
> as sexual
> selection)? That _a priori_ blinkering of
> perspective makes coherence
> difficult.
>  
> Of course, the answer is that you define
> "sociobiology" differently
> than others do. See below.
> 
> > So: I am not a total reductionist wrt to
> sociobiology.
> > No good SB is. There is bad SB. There is bad
> > economics. That doesn't mean we damn either
> > discipline, just its bad practice.  OK? (I am
> becoming
> > annoyed, sorry, Jim.) SB is a tool. It has its
> uses.
> > It offers powerful partial explanations of various
> > important aspects of human behavior.
> 
> Look, you're the one who equated sociobiology with
> biological
> explanation _per se_ and implied that those who
> don't accept that
> package must embrace Intelligent Design or social
> determinatism.
> 
> I don't think arguments about the meaning of words
> are worth our time,
> but the usual convention is to equate "sociobiology"
> with what you
> call "bad sociobiology." This convention is not just
> on the left: the
> "bad sociobiologists" equate their view with
> "sociobiology" and also
> with Darwinism, just as the "bad economists" of the
> Chicago school
> equate what they do with "economics" (putting Keynes
> _et al_ into the
> horrible ditch of sociology).
> 
> For intellectual clarity's sake, I am going to
> continue to see
> "sociobiology" as a subset of "biological
> explanation" or "Darwinism."
> The latter includes other kinds of logic besides
> reductionism and
> dogmatic adaptationism.
> JD
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com