Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
>
> This is a sociobiological hypothesis.
No it isn't. It has nothing to do with sociobiology. It's merely part of evolutionary theory. There is no reason to give it the label of "sociobiological research program" except to link it to those aspects of sociobiology which both you and Justin agree are vulgar sociobiology. And what you name the legitimate aspects or instances of it are in fact wrongly named, and named only in order to give popular cachet to the ugly andunscientific aspects of it.
I think both you and Justin are backing into word magic.
That "socio" has useful reference only to the social science called sociology, which is a discipline in the study of human social relations. (It would even be misleading to substitute "homo sapiens" for "human" in the preceding sentence.) "Sociobiology" has no more to do with biology (including the useful parts misnamed sociobiology) than astrology has to do with astronomy. If some astrologists began to make useful astronomical discoveries (as they did in the past) they would no longer be practicing astrology, they would be practicing astronomy. In so far as a sociobiologist makes useful discoveries he/she is no longer practicing sociobiology but is merely another evolutionary biologist. The label (and the label "evolutionary psychology") is by definition a pseudo-science which attempts to reduce all human social and psychological traits to mechanical effects of human evolution. Attempts to stretech these labels to cover legitimate scientific results serve merely to give credence to the pseudo-scientific practioners of this pseudo-discipline.
Carrol