Biology and Society (Re: [lbo-talk] Ward Churchill responds to U. of Colorado investigation]

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Mon May 29 19:13:56 PDT 2006


At around 28/5/06 4:08 am, Angelus Novus wrote:
>
> All good points that you make here. The contemporary
> leftist aversion to evolutionary and biological
> explanations for human behavior, is, as Steven Pinker
> points out in his useful _The Blank Slate_, a result
> of the fact that many leftists are unable to separate
> "is" from "ought." Just because something is
> "natural" does not mean that it is socially desirable.
>
> I wish more lefties would take up the call in Pinker's
> book to integrate the insights of evolutionary
> psychology into progressive politics. Refusal to do
> so just allows the Right-wingers to benefit precisely
> from the above-mentioned is/ought fallacy, with
> specious comparisons between the competition of the
> "free market" (a socially constructed institution if
> ever there was one) and the process of natural
> selection.
>
> I
> just think many leftists need to pull their heads out
> of their asses and stop merely relying on "correct"
> scientists like Steven Rose or Richard Lewontin to
> counter the claims of evolutionary psychology, as if
> natural science is about the search for the correct
> "line." Critiques of science as a social institution
> are valid, but that doesn't address the claims of
> empirical research.

Ah ok, the fact/value thing respun recently as the is/ought thing. Pinker of course constructs a complex strawman of behaviourists and so on to prop up his spin on Chomskian nativism (or whatever of the available terms you use) or language organ stuff. As I pointed out last year (or was that further back?) the kindest treatment of this comes from Jerry Fodor in the LRB. Its a worthy read that I highly recommend.

So you are indulging in quite a bit of hand-waving, no? On the one hand you have legitimate biologists/scientists like Lewontin and Rose presenting an argument against EP, reductionism, Sociobiology etc. In places, IIRC (but can find exact references if necessary), they go to some length to mention and (attempt to) demonstrate that their argument is a scientific one. You also have Sober and Wilson providing models and empirical examples in favour of more extensive (and explanatory) models of selection. We also have Phillip Kitcher's review of the entire business in "Vaulting Ambition" (blurbed by none other than Maynard Smith). Then there are controversies surrounding ethology vs behavioural/comparative psychology, and the devastating critiques of Tinbergen's inheritors, well documented in Patrick Bateson's "Taking the stink out of instinct".

On the other hand we have your claims that leftists have their heads in their asses, etc. So why not go ahead and tell us what line you have read and how your knowledge of empirical research actually substantiates your claim?

BTW, at the risk of resurrecting the ghost of Singers past, the man (Singer) published an interesting book recently regarding how the left can reclaim Darwin. A better guide, I would argue, for leftists, than an American Enterprise Institute speaker (Pinker) and Summers apologist.

--ravi

-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list