Louis, much of sociobiology is applied to the social insects and not to humans. It is only controversial when applied to humans.
(1) It deals with history and society, not only the animal world, from which
> it generalizes about human affairs -- in the most reductionistic fashion.
> (2) It is NOT scientific, but speculative and idealistic in a perverse way.
> It's generalizations are all over-generalizations, not circumscribed by
> 'evidence'.
>
You haven't read my posts. I don't know who you are applying to. It is rather annoying Louis. As I have said sociobiology works quite well when applied to the social insects, simply because there are many species to compare across many ecological niches. I am not sure that you know very much about sociobiology. I don't understand who you are replying to.
(3) It attaches itself to 'quantum chemistry' and other 'hard' sciences in
> order to validate the most ideologically naive/ regressive postulates
> imaginable. What sociobiology has to do with chemistry (quantum or just
> plain ordinary) is beyond me.
>
You simply haven't read my posts. I only brought up quantum chemistry as an example of a narrow science, narrowly applied. There is no "deterministic" assumption or "reductionist" assumption behind the theory of quantum chemistry, for example. Why should you assume there is one behind sociobiolgy or any other theory based on biology or evolution or genetics. Those who conclude that there is are wrong.
(4) all science IS deterministic, which is not to say that either
> sociobiology or evolutionary psychology are scientific.
>
Again you have not read my posts. All scientific explanations, theories, models, provide narrow views of the world where somehow we can predict or "show cause". This does not make science either deterministic or reductionist. Why talk about sociobiology at all when you don't seem to have read much about it? Miles in another post pointed to Hrdy's work. She did great work on primate infanticide. It is scientific and even theoretical. A good example of sociobiology. There are some aspects of sociobiology that have been used for ideological purposes just as evolutionary theory has been used for ideological purposes. The Newton's theories in their time were used for ideological purposes and probably to a greater extent than sociobiology. So what? It doesn't make it any less of a good and valuable scientific theory. When applied to social insects, mammalian infanticide, etc. sociobiology is a very valuable theory. I have several books I am my shelves on army ants, bees, etc. that I can point to, where this is true. It makes me feel like I am speaking to a person who simply denies evolution for religious reasons to hear a person dismiss sociobiology for ideological reasons.
Given my previous statements on the narrowness of sociobiology I simply don't understand the controversy here.
Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060531/9c1df2da/attachment.htm>