Re: population and praxis (and something different)

I don't think that either side has much new to add to the debate over sociobiology, still not defined clearly by its apparent "somewhat" supporters. I'm sure the debate will come up again in the future, and maybe that's okay, but for now, most of the major positions have been stated pretty clearly.

I do want to emphasize that the "open minded" position on ANY question is also a position, and does not automatically occupy a place of privilege ahead of the more "definite" positions. For example, the position that says that so-called "black" people are on average 10% biologically less intelligent than so-called "white" people is just as "dogmatic" as the position that says it is 20% or the position that says that "black" people and "white" people are biologically indistinguishable in matters of so-called "intelligence." The "ten percent" position might claim that it is open minded, but what makes a position "dogmatic" is the unwillingness to consider alternative evidence.

If the alternative evidence HAS been considered and HAS BEEN REJECTED, then it might be more appropriate to say that the other position is "WRONG" if you believe that it is wrong. Otherwise, the "anti-dogmatic" position could be accused of dogmatically rejecting the "definite" or "extreme" or "one-sided" position into an infinite regress. I would argue, for the sake of argument in this example, but not to start another substantive debate, that the 10% position is a "racist" position, just as the 20% position is, and furthermore, that someone who says, "Well, the question is still undecided -- MAYBE black people are 20% dumber than whites" -- that such a position is also a racist position.

This isn't about Hutchinson and Autsin. I'm sure there are many others on this list who have students claiming that supporters of the general theory of plant/animal/human evolution are "dogmatic" because they are unwilling to consider the possibility that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. But their "open-mindedness" still grants legitimacy to the fundamentalist Christian position, clearly a dogmatic position. The best answer to any question is based on the data, not on the personality or credentials of the debaters. I didn't read much worthwhile biological "evidence" on WSN in defense of E.O.Wilson, Dawkins, Lorentz, Fox, Tiger or others who might be called "sociobiologists". Again, it is up to the defenders of sociobiology to be specific about what types of behaviors they believe are significantly determined by biology, and offer biological evidence to back that up. The data is primary, of course. Of course. But it is appropriate to call into question the legitimacy of some data, and that's where it might be appropriate to bring in issues of ideology and bias while discussing the substantive questions

Alan Spector

P.S. -- on another note: this was mentioned months ago, but it bears mentioning again. There is a useful Website for analysis of international issues. I don't agree with all of it, but it is provocative. Check out:

Re: population and praxis (and something different)

by Alan Spector

06 June 2000 21:51 UTC