Re: EVIDENCE?="sociobiology" (whatever that is) (fwd)

Mine-

I appreciate the increasingly detailed and non-vituperative nature of your
comments.

I stand by my position, though, that the research program which seeks 
biological/genetic explanations for various sorts of human traits and
behaviors is not inherently reactionary.  

Your argumentation is that of a debater, operating on the a priori
assumption that the other side is wrong, and marshalling all evidence to
support one side, predetermined to be correct.

The Human Genome project is a good example.  I didn't say anything good
about the project.  What I did say is that many health researchers are
perfectly well-intentioned in striving to perfect types of gene therapy
that would alleviate human suffering.  They are making assumptions about
genetic causation without any malevolent intent.  So these assumptions are
therefore also not inherently evil.  It is the uses to which the research
will be put by the powerful that is the problem.  (But I'm repeating
myself.)

To a point in Andy's previous post, I believe that overwhelmingly the
research findings of sociobiology have, are, and will apply to humans as a
whole, at the species level.  If Andy thinks this is empty and
tautological because it doesn't explain variation across societies (which 
is true), so be it.  But I think it is crucial in terms of the limits of
that variation.

Which brings me back to my point that there is both a biological and
a sociological level of explanation, and not only should neither be
dismissed, but on many crucial questions, the heart of the matter may
prove to be their interaction.

RH