Re: Biological Reductionism/Ideology

OK, we've established the familiar circular pattern (which is what I
was afraid of, but the Gould piece was worth posting regardless).  Richard
will continue to insist that science (including genetics) is reductionist
- we abstract from reality, formulate theoretical models, and then test
them in the lab; anyone who does not accept this is blindly ignoring
reality.  I see little point in perpetuating this circular discussion.  
For those interested in a different (non-modern) view of how
scientific knowledge is produced, though, I recommend
checking out Latour's _Pandora's Hope_, Pickering's _Mangle of Practice_
and Knorr-Cetina's _Epistemological Cultures_ (this has a chapter specially
devoted to molecular biology).  All three are critical of the
identification of science with theoretical models, and prefer to
conceptualize it in terms of a practice that brings together the agency
of the researcher with that of the materials she studies.   


On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> Boris-
> 
> If human beings can be genetically engineered, that  might lead to all
> sorts of outcomes, come beneficial and some nearly unimaginably
> detrimental, but the technological capacity to do that engineering would
> in fact vindicate the scientific possibilities inherent in a [biological
> reductionist/sociobiological/insert your preferred term here] research
> program, quite apart from the uses that technology is put to, according to
> the ideology of the user.  Ipso facto, "biological reductionism" is not
> just ideology.  I can't make the point any clearer.  (Come to my
> assistance, list members, if you can see a better way to state this!)
> 
> If this point is still not clear, then once and for all I will cease and
> desist, forced to conclude that Derrida was right about free-floating
> signifiers.
> 
> RH
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu