Re: rounding up posses

On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> You don't need to round up a bigger posse to bring me to justice, you've
> already got me outnumbered.  I'm the one who needs a posse!

Oh well, these things tend to happen when one cavalierly and sneeringly
sets out to stir up trouble and sets the pot a-boiling...

Seriously, though, before this really does turn into what we used to call
a session of "criticism and self-criticism", I'd like to suggest a couple
of questions which would, if addressed, move this discussion forward, for
once.

1) What specific findings in the realm of human genetics are people who
call themselves sociobiologists responsible for (some posters have
virtually equated sociobiology with genetics, others have made the
opposite claim that it's nothing more than a logical exercise)?

2) Which sociobiologists define their work as the study of the interaction
of human, social and material agency? (I know Wilson speaks of the
interaction of genetics and the environment, but his program of
consilience explicitly advocates material reductionism and an absorption
of the social and human sciences by the hard sciences).

3) Since the intentions (including political intentions) of researchers
are often obviated in the course of scientific practice, can we find any
examples of this happening in sociobiology? If so, this would go a long
way in establishing it scientific claims. 

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu