Re: last questions on sociobiology

On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

>1) Do you reject the Darwinian theory of evolution as a valid guide for
>empirical research?

Mutation and natural selection explain much biological diversity. Human
selection also explains diversity (and the increasing lack of it);
population structure explains group variation.

By "Darwinian" I am assuming you do not mean specifically Darwin (since
Darwin had some pretty crackpot ideas, such as his view that Africans were
inferior to Europeans). Rather I take you to mean the general modern
biological evolutionary approach based on mutation and selection.

>2) Do you reject the premise that Homo sapiens is a biological species,
>and therefore subject in principle to explanation using the same
>empirical research guided by evolutionary theory as that applied to
>other species?

I stated on this list a few days ago that Homo sapiens are a biological
species. On Thursday 9th, December 1999, I wrote: "I don't know anybody
foolish enough to argue that homo sapiens are not animals." Certainly I
don't include myself among the foolish. "What aspects of the behavior of
any animal are biological must be shown empirically and theoretically," I
wrote, "not assumed as reasonable." I was attacking the view that it is
reasonable to assume that collective behavior is both social and
biological. Rather, I believe these are empirical questions. Then I stated
that "rejecting sociobiology is not the same as rejecting the evolutionary
framework since sociobiology is inconsistent with the logic of modern
biological evolution and genetics." 

As noted, the physical characteristics of the species are in part the
result of natural selection. I say in part because while climatic and
geographical variation in the presence of selected physical traits result
from natural selection, population structure has also played a role in
human variation (such as migration patterns and sexual selection). There
is plenty of evidence supporting these claims. I don't believe you
disagree with these claims, anyway. 

However, there is no evidence supporting claims that the sociocultural
configurations of historical systems are the result of genetic expression.
In other words, the ideas that people hate other people, that men dominate
women, or Europeans are more advanced because their heads are bigger, are
hogwash. It must be shown theoretically and empirically that the social
behavior of human beings stems from their genetic constitutions, i.e.,
that Homo sapiens have instincts. This has not ever been demonstrated. I
remain open to evidence, but I have to say, after decades of utter
failure, I have zero confidence evidence will be forthcoming.

>If so, isn't your position just a left-humanist version of "scientific
>creationism"?

No.

>If not, then I seriously haven't the foggiest notion as to why you and
>others so adamantly refuse to accept that sociobiological research is a
>valid part of the attempt to understand the world (other than the
>Durkheimian explanation I have already proposed, and I wasn't being
>facetious).  

When you said that we were talking past each other you were only half
right.

Respectfully,
Andrew Austin