Re: sociobiology thread, reply to Boris

On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Mark Douglas Whitaker wrote:

> Boris:
> 
> >Fair enough.  Since we all agree that human behavior, including
> >sociability, has a biological basis (as well as others), it would indeed
> >be chauvinistic of us not to make room for methodologies that differ from
> >our own. 
> 
>         I would like to interject something I feel is crucially important,
> before we go on. The models you are proposing are undevelopmental, and
> static. "human behavior has a biological basis (as well as others)." It's 
>a
> linguistic difficulty that I feel sets up poor modelling of the social (or
> biological world) which, as even Wilson describes is 'natural HISTORY.' As
> empirical subsections of historical studies--biology or sociology--we 
>should
> construct models that are emergent in their analysis, instead of
> philosophically static. It's much closer to the empirical world observable
> to discuss them in this way, and let's us avoid setting up 'the influence 
>of
> biology' as some sort of timeless experience or simply as a mental 
>category.
> Models matter in how we approach and gather data, so this is rather 
>important.

I agree in principle, though I should add that the only models I have
"proposed" are those which already exist as institutionalized disciplines,
i.e. empirically.  They may be reformed or ignored, but that doesn't make
them any less real.  They may also be static or dynamic, but I'm not about
to take responsibility for that.   

> > "Taxonomy and ecology,
> >however, have been reshaped entirely during the past forty years by
> >integration into neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory - the 'Modern
> >Synthesis', as it is often called - in which each phenomenon is weighed
> >for its adaptive significance and then related to the basic principles of
> >population genetics.  It may not be too much to say that sociology and 
>the
> >other social sciences, as well as the humanities, are the last branches 
>of
> >biology waiting to be included in the 'Modern Synthesis'".
> >
> 
>         Does he go into detail on why he packs sociology entirely into
> biology? I find this proposition dubious. The last person to argue this
> rather organic social sense of the social world was Comte (d. 1857), 
>though
> Durkeim wanted as separate social science he still was rather organic in 
>his
> conceptions of the social world. Still, the point is that biologizing
> 'society' was last seen in Comte. 

I think he is saying that because we are animals, there is no reason to
expect that our societies and culture are caused by any forces other than
those that are responsible for evolution.

>         Saying that biology 'is an actor' is a narrativization 
>proposition,
> a linguistic proposition of 'first movers'; when, if you take natural
> selection seriously as a process, everything is reactive and nothing can 
>be
> considered as analytically separate as a 'cause.' 'Cause/effect' in my
> opinion is a purely human social category, a a highly political one at 
>that
> since it poses objective information frames that have social effects on
> mobilization of groups or externalization of groups, or even can FOUND
> particularl groups if the narrativization is widely enough believed
[...]
>         Back to the point:  This [biology as a philosohpical first mover] 
>is
> why I find Wilson's ideas difficult to take seriously. He's turning 
>biology
> into a philosophy--a philosophy that satisfies rather human and social
> (instead of biological) desires for intellectual order and explanations,
> rather than sticking to empirical phenomena. Here, notice I find myself
> DEFENDING PHYSCIAL SCIENCE against Wilson's philosophizing.

I think these are all central points which need to be addressed in
relation to _Consilience_, but given how long these posts are getting, I
think I will do so separately.

> >Now we are at the crux of the problem.  This approach, for which social
> >scientists et al. want to leave room in the study of human sociability
> >apparently bears no such illusions about them.  Like the natural
> >historians of the past, the best among them can prepare for a future of
> >being museum curators, journalists and producers of family programming on
> >TV, and as for the rest, well... 
> 
>         I lost him here. I am missing the tacit argument he is making 
>here.
> What is it? What is the 'them' referred to, above? "Them" is mentioned
> twice, in the same sense or is the referent switched?  To what does "this
> approach" refer?

This is me talking, not Wilson.  The "them" I'm referring to are the
big-hearted social scientists who want to be inclusive.  Given the fact
that Wilson considers that contemporary social science has no theory
around which to structure scientific analysis, and the fact that he claims
biological research is has advanced enough to in essence transcend their
taxonomic and "thick description" approach.  I am making an analogy
between what happened to zoologists and botanists after they were
displaced by biology and what will happen to social scientists in Wilson's
world.  The "them" is the same in both instances.

> >"self knowledge is constrained and shaped by the emotional control 
>centers
> >in the hypothalamus and limbic system of the brain.  These centers flood
> >our consciousness with all the emotions - hate, love, fear, and others -
> >that are consulted by ethical philosophers who wish to intuit the
> >standards of good and evil.  What, we are then compelled to ask, made the
> >hypothalamus and the limbic system?  These evolved by natural selection.
> >That simple biological statement must be pursued to explain ethics and
> >ethical philosophers, if not epistemology and epistemologists, at all
> >depths" (p.3)
> 
>         There is a large 'leap of faith' between that question mark and 
>the
> subsequent statement: "These evolved by natural selection." That is a
> philosophical proposition, instead of (by his own stress on empirical 
>work)
> something easily demonstratable causally. 
>         If by natural selection we mean strictly biological inputs, I 
>would
> disagree. If by natural selection we mean by interactions between social
> situations, environmental situations, and biological situations, sure 
[...]

I agree with the first statement, though the second is more difficult to
parse.  Wilson, like most biologists claims that when he is talking about
natural selection he means the latter.  In practice, I think he does allow
genetics to overdetermine what you call social and environmental
situations (e.g. his emphasis on male dominance). 
I also do not think he would accept the idea of "situations", biological
or otherwise, because, as he argues in _Consilience_, he thinks there is
only physics (in the Greek sense - the study of Nature).   

> >"scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that
> >the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of
> >the philosophers and biologized" (p.287)

>         This is an interesting claim and rationalization for more 
>'autonomy'
> regarding the expansion of the empirical basis of the science of
> biology--into sociology.  Interesting, because Wilson's desire to create
> 'unideological' social science information based on presumably 'empirical
> information' is very much at the core of the work of Elias--though Elias
> claims the flag for sociology instead of biology (without denying the
> interpenetrations).

I do not understand what is unideological about insisting that the search
for knowledge has only one method, nor do I understand what Wilson means
by "temporarily removed".. Is he planning on giving it back?  To whom?

>          While I have some disagreement myself with Elias, I would be glad
> to pass you a draft copy of a text summary of Elias's theory of the 
>sciences
> in general as well as his theory of the social sciences, their
> legitimations, their justifications, etc. - if you are interested. 

Yes, send it along, but after the New Year (or Y2K) would be better. 

> >I find it hard not to interpret these statements as anything other than
> >patronizing to the inexact branches of knowledge and dismissive of their
> >methodologies.  Wilson supports his claims by reference to the history of
> >science, but his reading of it is highly tendentious. . . .
> 
> > Historically, it has been
> >the disciplines outside the natural sciences which have had to fight
> >for the privilege of constructing methodologies which constitute
> >"alternative" perspectives, not the other way around, and they have had 
>to
> >do it under conditions where critiques of the natural sciences'
> >exclusivist claims to the Truth have been purposely interpreted as 
> >dismissals of all of the latter's research. 
> 
>         Yes, you would be interested in at least knowing of Elias's theory
> of the sciences in general.  I was unaware that Wilson had offered one. 
>Does
> he write about it anywhere else except in Sociobiology? Is that was his
> Consilience text does in more elaborate detail? Make a biologically and
> natural science inclusion for the social sciences? I ask for information. 

As to the question whether Wilson has a theory of scientific development,
no I do not think he does, he simply makes an assumption that all
knowledge develops from mythological explanation to taxonomy to positive
science.  _Consilience_ elaborates on this, but not to the point of
actually having a theory (one gets the sense form reading it that if it
weren't for those nasty characters Rousseau and Goethe, consilience would
have taken place a long time ago).  Given what he says in the final
chapter, I'm not sure he even convinced himself.

{...]

> And there is only one person I know interested in
> theorizing the interpenetrations of social science and physcial
> sciences--Stephen Bunker

Is he the one going to Binghamton next year?

>          I'm very surprised (and depressed) that Wilson seems more and 
>more
> to be a representative of the 'vulgar biologism' that he is made out to 
>be,
> particularly based on the sense in which you have discussed 
>_Consilience_.  
>         However, where in Sociobiology is his quote about the importance 
>of
> environment AND what he calls 'genetics.?'  You have left that out. Has he
> changed his mind by _Consilience_?

I think _Consilience_ is probably milder on the issue because it is not as
in-depth and intended for a mass audience.  Ultimately, I think talking
about interactions makes little difference if you believe, as Wilson does,
that an exact science of politics and economics are possible.

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu