Social Darwinism

[Jeremy]

I suppose that it is time for me step into the fire myself, and test the theories I hold to be true against public scorn and criticism. I would consider my self a Social Darwinist, in the sense that a significant part of human intelligence and personality is genetic rather than environmental, and that these genetic differences translate into observable differences in the social, economic, and political arena.

This thread was spurred by JustGeoff, when he made the following remarks in the Darwinian Archaeology / Cultural Evolution thread.

Quote:

The explanation is that human beings have the capacity for co-creational free will. I am denying hard determinism and compatibilism and I am therefore rejecting purely darwinian explanations of human behaviour as being invalid (and dangerous) biological determinism. A similar theoretical mentality lay behind the idealogy of the nazis, for example.

Quote:

Social Darwinism was, of course, an unmitigated disaster. Therefore one cannot claim that Darwinism has a track record of being successfully applied outside its original home.

I would like to start off by asking, Geoff, why do you think that Social Darwinism and biological determinism are dangerous failures? And, please, don't try to allude to "Social Darwinism=Nazism, Nazism=Bad, Social Darwinism= Bad", because you as well as I know that that is a logical fallacy.

[CrossHair]

Social Darwinism is not something that can be forced. Even when what is thought to be harmless introductions of non-indigionous animal species are introduced into environments for a specific purpose, they usually have unexpected harmful concequences.

[Jeremy]

Quote:

Social Darwinism is not something that can be forced. Even when what is thought to be harmless introductions of non-indigionous animal species are introduced into environments for a specific purpose, they usually have unexpected harmful concequences.

Thank you for reminding me that I need to clarify the point of this thread.

When I say that I am a Social Darwinist, do not ready any politcal or policy posistions into it. I only mean what I stated above.

EDIT: To get the inevitable out the way, I do not advocate active eugenics.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I would consider my self a Social Darwinist, in the sense that a significant part of human intelligence and personality is genetic rather than environmental, and that these genetic differences translate into observable differences in the social, economic, and political arena.

That's not social Darwinism, is it? Social Darwinism is when you apply "survival of the fittest" to social interactions. I don't believe there is any assumption that genetics plays a necessary role. After all, the idea came from Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.

~~ Paul

[Jeremy]

Quote:

That's not social Darwinism, is it? Social Darwinism is when you apply "survival of the fittest" to social interactions. I don't believe there is any assumption that genetics plays a necessary role. After all, the idea came from Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.

You may be correct, Paul. Social Darwinism is a very ill-defined idea in the first place, and the reason I use the label for my beliefs is because that is what they have been criticized as being. However, I think I fail to see your distinction. Perhaps you would see me as more of a Social Darwinist if I added that due to the heritable nature of genes, there is actually some substance to class differences? All though, please do not presuppose my political policy on these matters.

[Bikewer]

It may have been 10 years ago or more when the big flap over Social Darwinism or Genetic determinism or whatever flared up.
I remember reading a polemic of sorts called "Not In Our Genes", which was a collection of writings by the "anti" crowd. I recall thinking at the time that the arguments were almost all political rather than scientific in nature, and that there were constant references to Eugenics and Nazism and so forth.

Even Stephen Jay Gould contributed an essay, although his was pretty mild. My memory may be foggy, but the tone of his essay was to the effect that the answer to the "nature or nurture" question was effectively "yes".

[Jeremy]

Quote:

It may have been 10 years ago or more when the big flap over Social Darwinism or Genetic determinism or whatever flared up.
I remember reading a polemic of sorts called "Not In Our Genes", which was a collection of writings by the "anti" crowd. I recall thinking at the time that the arguments were almost all political rather than scientific in nature, and that there were constant references to Eugenics and Nazism and so forth.

Even Stephen Jay Gould contributed an essay, although his was pretty mild. My memory may be foggy, but the tone of his essay was to the effect that the answer to the "nature or nurture" question was effectively "yes".

A big problem in this field is emotional responses, and not only on the side of the anti crowd. Whenever someone objects to Social Darwinism on moral or political grounds, rather than on scientific ones, the Darwinists automatically call Moralistic fallacy. That is not to say that it is not a proper grievance, it is, but the Social Darwinists generally follow that with the statement (implicit or implied) "The only objection to Social Darwinism is a fallacy, therefor Social Darwinism must be correct". I have to strive not to do it myself.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I would like to start off by asking, Geoff, why do you think that Social Darwinism and biological determinism are dangerous failures?

I think they fail only in the sense that they can only ever provide partial answers, but that those answers are widely understood as complete. It is a debate about the limits of science, and about the relationships between science and other areas of knowledge. My target in this case, as it has been in all the previous threads I've started round here recently, is the misapplication of science, or the claim of scientific authority where none is warranted. In other words, the validity of the theoretical results of social darwinism rest on assumptions which I do not accept, and I therefore do not accept the theoretical results. I view social darwinism as a failure for the same reason I view behaviourism to be a failure. It is an attempt to get the facts to conform to ones epistemelogical position. Social darwinism starts by assuming it is possible to provide full explanations of human culture and behaviour using Darwinistic theories. I am objecting to the validity of making this assumption without it being supported. I view it as dangerous because it leads to things like Dawkins' theory of the origin of religion - which I see as fundamentally mistaken and wrong-headed. My position on this, in common with my metaphysical position and my position on theism/atheism is an attempt to be neutral. I am trying to keep both sides honest, or at least to provide a hybrid position which attempts to balance both sides. If I think that either science or religion steps outside its valid domain of operations in a particular way, I will challenge it. In this case I am challenging a misapplication of science. I am just as likely to challenge a misapplication/misinterpretation of religious mythology.

[Jeremy]

Quote:

If I think that either science or religion steps outside its valid domain of operations in a particular way, I will challenge it. In this case I am challenging a misapplication of science. I am just as likely to challenge a misapplication/misinterpretation of religious mythology.

I suppose that this is where we fundamentally differ, Geoff. I find it logically compelling that if you are going to accept certain facts and methods in one area, that these processes should therefore be applicable, at least in abstract, to all other areas. Prior to becoming a materialist atheist, I was a fundamentalist Christian. If one accepts a holy book to be infallible in one area, it must be so in all. When the evidence turned, however, and it became apparent to me that said holy book was not applicable in all areas, it made logical sense for me to assume that it was all false. No evidence has yet convinced me that science can not explain everything, and considering that we know that it explains many things, I feel it is safe to assume that it can or will explain everything.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I suppose that this is where we fundamentally differ, Geoff. I find it logically compelling that if you are going to accept certain facts and methods in one area, that these processes should therefore be applicable, at least in abstract, to all other areas.

Really? One methodology for everything? I find that a very odd position to defend.

Quote:

Prior to becoming a materialist atheist, I was a fundamentalist Christian. If one accepts a holy book to be infallible in one area, it must be so in all.

So why have you replaced the holy book of Christianity with another holy book? Why not ditch the whole idea of having a holy book at all? Your mistake was not your Christianity, it was your fundamentalism.

Quote:

When the evidence turned, however, and it became apparent to me that said holy book was not applicable in all areas, it made logical sense for me to assume that it was all false.

This either/or fallacy is very common on this board. It is responsible for a great deal of misunderstandings in my threads, because people always assume that in attacking one side of the either/or I must be promoting the other - and this is usually not the case.

Quote:

No evidence has yet convinced me that science can not explain everything, and considering that we know that it explains many things, I feel it is safe to assume that it can or will explain everything.

That is a dangerous assumption, IMO. Take that path and you end up thinking like Dawkins.

[Jeremy]

Quote:

That is a dangerous assumption, IMO. Take that path and you end up thinking like Dawkins.

And what is wrong with Dawkins?

I have a question for you, Geoff. What is the line that divides religion and science? It was once considered that the origin of the earth was within the realms of religion, but now it is widely held as a scientific question. Human origins are a subject which has similarly changed paradigm. You now insist that human conciousness, morality, and culture are inexplainable by science. How are these subjects any different than those of origins and evolution?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

And what is wrong with Dawkins?

He's got blinkers on. Tunnel vision. It's just another sort of fundamentalism - a deep irony to which he is completely oblivious.

Quote:

I have a question for you, Geoff. What is the line that divides religion and science?

That all depends on how you define science, and that is another great big can of worms.

Quote:

It was once considered that the origin of the earth was within the realms of religion, but now it is widely held as a scientific question. Human origins are a subject which has similarly changed paradigm. You now insist that human conciousness, morality, and culture are inexplainable by science. How are these subjects any different than those of origins and evolution?

Because there are philosophical problems with the former cases and no philosophical problems with the latter ones. Science only answers empirical questions. Consciousness, morality and many aspects of human culture/behaviour cannot be given 100% empirical answers. Philosophy and religion must defer to science only in cases where empirical research can conceivably (or has already) provide(d) an answer. Science must defer to philosophy/religion where no empirical answer is possible.

[Jeremy]

Quote:

He's got blinkers on. Tunnel vision. It's just another sort of fundamentalism - a deep irony to which he is completely oblivious.

No such irony appears when you see that he is not attacking philosophical fundamentalism, but an incorrect empirical answer often held fundamentally.

Quote:

Because there are philosophical problems with the former cases and no philosophical problems with the latter ones. Science only answers empirical questions. Consciousness, morality and many aspects of human culture/behaviour cannot be given 100% empirical answers.

I honestly did not understand that. Please, explain to me what these philosophical problems are, and why they apply differently to the separate subjects. You seem to be saying that empiricism can not answer those problems because empiricism can not answer those questions.

[UndercoverElephant]

Jeremy,

The philosophy of science (i.e. the questions about what science actually is, how it provides justifiable grounds for belief, what are it's limits, how it relates to other disciplines, etc....) is my primary area of interest within philosophy. The 20th century was a bad time for the philosophy of science. Between them, Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend pretty much destoyed any idea that science is what most scientists think it is. It is not a method, that is for sure. Neither is it properly integrated. Neither is it always incremental. Neither is it dependent on falsification. Neither is it's course solely determined by non-subjective factors. Yet scientists often believe it is all of these things. The best way to define what science is is to describe it as a sort of mindset - a set of ideals which one attempts to satisfy on an ad-hoc basis. These ideals call for objectivity, repeatability (verifiability) and various other things. But there are certain areas of investigation where these ideals are difficult or impossible to achieve. This is where the problems start because some scientists have a tendency to attempt to apply the scientific ideals where they simply cannot be applied. The result is varying levels of absurdity, from claiming that all human altruism is ultimately governed by self-interest to claiming that minds don't exist to claiming religion is nothing but a parasitic "meme".

Quote:

Patriotism is not enough. But neither is anything else. Science is not enough, religion is not enough, art is not enough, politics and economics are not enough, nor is love, nor is duty, nor is action however disinterested, nor, however sublime, is contemplation. Nothing short of everything will really do.

(From "the old Raja's notes on what's what" in "Island", which was Aldous Huxley's last novel and IMO the greatest piece of philosophical fiction ever written.)

Geoff

[Jeremy]

Quote:

But there are certain areas of investigation where these ideals are difficult or impossible to achieve. This is where the problems start because some scientists have a tendency to attempt to apply the scientific ideals where they simply cannot be applied. The result is varying levels of absurdity, from claiming that all human altruism is ultimately governed by self-interest to claiming that minds don't exist to claiming religion is nothing but a parasitic "meme".

If you could, please explain to me why these things are unable to be questioned by science.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

If you could, please explain to me why these things are unable to be questioned by science.

I just explained why science is nothing more than a set of ideals. What those ideals have in common is (attempted) objectivity. In one way or another, something which is trying to be scientific is something which is trying to be objective. However, there is one major problem with this. That problem is that we are existentially trapped in a subjective world. We can never totally eliminate subjectivity. The things which are not appropriate for scientific answers are therefore the things which are most closely associated with things which are inherently and unavoidably subjective. The more subjective something is, the harder it is to apply the scientific principles. It is for this reason that the gold-standard science is physics. As you move away from physics, there are a ring of lesser "human sciences" such as pyschology, sociology, economics (to a certain extent), anthroplogy. These human sciences aim at objectivity but run into problems where their subject matter starts becoming more subjective. Beyond these disciplines are things like metaphysics, which tries to explain the subjective/objective distinction itself. At the outer limits, farthest away from physics, are the things which are most closely associated with subjectivity - questions about consciousness, religion, being, the meaning of life, ethics, morality etc.... When science tries to explain religion it is trying to apply objective principles to something which can only be properly understood by taking inherently subjective things into account. Does that answer your question?

[Jeremy]

I am not sure that I understand what you mean by inherently subjective. Yes, the perception of a chair is not a chair, and while it does take some faith to assume that our perceptions accurately portray the chair as it is, but from that assumption logically extends science.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

No such irony appears when you see that he is not attacking philosophical fundamentalism, but an incorrect empirical answer often held fundamentally.

He starts by doing what you describe, but he doesn't know when to stop.

Quote:

I honestly did not understand that. Please, explain to me what these philosophical problems are, and why they apply differently to the separate subjects. You seem to be saying that empiricism can not answer those problems because empiricism can not answer those questions.

That is correct. In fact empiricism, taken to it's extreme, ultimately leads to Berkeleyan idealism. Berkeley was an empiricist. I reject both empiricism and foundationalism. I do not believe there can be any one foundation for knowledge, of any sort. Instead, you must construct multiple entry-points, multiple temporary foundations but no absolute foundations. You then justify your belief by trying to find a way to coherently combine the information provided from the multiple foundations. No holy books.

[Jeremy]

Quote:

He starts by doing what you describe, but he doesn't know when to stop.

Care to offer an example?

Quote:

That is correct.

A bit of an explanation may help.

[Jeremy]

Do you usually build on your arguments with a consecutive series of edits? Give me a seccond while I clarify my position based on the new things you have posted

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I am not sure that I understand what you mean by inherently subjective. Yes, the perception of a chair is not a chair, and while it does take some faith to assume that our perceptions accurately portray the chair as it is, but from that assumption logically extends science.

I totally disagree with your conception of what science is. I think you have confused science with realism.

Scientism subsumes scientific materialism which subsumes scientific realism which subsumes science. Some people confuse all four of them, but they are not the same.

Science is a set of ideals.

Scientific realism is science combined with a metaphysical assertion that the objects of perception have an existence external to our perception of them.

Scientific materialism is scientific realism combined with the claim that the only thing which exists are material things, which leads to some problems.

Scientism is Scientific materialism taken to its fundamentalist extreme, and claims that science is the only valid source of knowledge about the world and humanity's place in nature.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Do you usually build on your arguments with a consecutive series of edits? Give me a seccond while I clarify my position based on the new things you have posted

Sorry. I am going to bed now. Take your time. I'm just trying to make what I am saying clearer.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

When I say that I am a Social Darwinist, do not ready any politcal or policy posistions into it. I only mean what I stated above.

I think that's part of the issue. Social Darwinism is generally regarded as being a specific political/policy stance, not an epistemological or scientific one.

Saying "I am a Social Darwinist, but do not read any political positions into that" is rather like saying "I am a Monarchist, but please do not read any political positions into that."

I'm not sure exactly what you are, but most people wouldn't call it a Social Darwinist.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I think that's part of the issue. Social Darwinism is generally regarded as being a specific political/policy stance, not an epistemological or scientific one.

Saying "I am a Social Darwinist, but do not read any political positions into that" is rather like saying "I am a Monarchist, but please do not read any political positions into that."

I'm not sure exactly what you are, but most people wouldn't call it a Social Darwinist.

He's a eugenecist/dysgenecist, depending on approach. Social Darwinism usually refers to the half-humourous belief that we don't have to worry about stupid people breeding, because they'll do something so stupid they will be unable to have children. Thus, the "Darwin Awards".

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by blutoski

He's a eugenecist/dysgenecist, depending on approach. Social Darwinism usually refers to the half-humourous belief that we don't have to worry about stupid people breeding, because they'll do something so stupid they will be unable to have children. Thus, the "Darwin Awards".

I'm amending this, based on reading above postings. My opinion, after years of reviewing the debate, is that debate remains legitemate. We don't have enough information about intelligence to be confident about proportional inheritence.

Regarding Gould: he wrote more than an essay. He wrote a book called "Mismeasure of Man," and revised it a few years later to incorporate a response to "Bell Curve." His answer is: we don't know enough right now, and the science is heavily contaminated by political belief.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I suppose that it is time for me step into the fire myself, and test the theories I hold to be true against public scorn and criticism. I would consider my self a Social Darwinist, in the sense that a significant part of human intelligence and personality is genetic rather than environmental, and that these genetic differences translate into observable differences in the social, economic, and political arena.

This thread was spurred by JustGeoff, when he made the following remarks in the Darwinian Archaeology / Cultural Evolution thread.




I would like to start off by asking, Geoff, why do you think that Social Darwinism and biological determinism are dangerous failures? And, please, don't try to allude to "Social Darwinism=Nazism, Nazism=Bad, Social Darwinism= Bad", because you as well as I know that that is a logical fallacy.

When you level the playing field and generate equal education, access to health care, destroy back room deals , nepotism, the 'good-old boy' network, legacy admissions, insider trading and plain old favoritism, then we can begin to argue about the premise that intelligence is biologicaly based.

First question, what kind of intelligence, the kind designed in someone's mind called IQ, that has low correlation to anything meaningful?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

You may be correct, Paul. Social Darwinism is a very ill-defined idea in the first place, and the reason I use the label for my beliefs is because that is what they have been criticized as being. However, I think I fail to see your distinction. Perhaps you would see me as more of a Social Darwinist if I added that due to the heritable nature of genes, there is actually some substance to class differences? All though, please do not presuppose my political policy on these matters.

The problem with social darwinism is it states that the those who are in power should remain in power because they are in power, so Kink Lois the XIV was justified in spending the french income on Versailles because he was the king and obviously the better person.

The problem with this premise is that it does ignore the other things that go into power. Mainly that many people in power are there solely because they are related to people in power, for example.

GWB, goes to a prominent school, avoids active duty in Vietnam and makes a forutune on a sports team. How much of that was because of his inate intelligence, and how much was from his privilege and family presitige. Should he be allowed to dominate other males in society because of the advantage that society gave him?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

A big problem in this field is emotional responses, and not only on the side of the anti crowd. Whenever someone objects to Social Darwinism on moral or political grounds, rather than on scientific ones, the Darwinists automatically call Moralistic fallacy. That is not to say that it is not a proper grievance, it is, but the Social Darwinists generally follow that with the statement (implicit or implied) "The only objection to Social Darwinism is a fallacy, therefor Social Darwinism must be correct". I have to strive not to do it myself.

Even alleged scientific texts like the Bell Curve make huge bling assertions that there is a genetic variable to social calss. For example, they state that when adjusted for socio economic status (SES) that there is still a significant variation between the IQ scores of 'whites' and 'blacks'.

Hidden assumptions:
1. That just because SES is equal between the two groups there is an equal opportunity for individuals to have access to resources.
- So the fact that predominately black schools are underfunded in comparison to predominately white schools is ignored.
-The fact that rural whites in central Illinois who live below the poverty line are more likely to access benefits compared to urban blacks who live below the poverty line in uyrban areas.

2. The blatant and unproved assertion that IQ tests actualy are not culturaly biased.

When these assumptions are addressed and controlled for then there premise may be valid.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I suppose that this is where we fundamentally differ, Geoff. I find it logically compelling that if you are going to accept certain facts and methods in one area, that these processes should therefore be applicable, at least in abstract, to all other areas.

Yet in social science you must still control the variables and confoundind factors that might obscure the data.

Otherwise you get things like the 'white man's burden' and colonialism. They are very good examples of social darwinism in practice.

As a theorhetical premise it is totaly valid, but when you look at the way that human beings actualy breed you will note that it is often not based upon who is intelligent but who has access to resources, who looks attractive and who has power. Besides the 'beer goggle' phenomena.

But on a theorhetical basis social darwinism is just another theory and very valid. As a potential theory.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

As you move away from physics, there are a ring of lesser "human sciences" such as pyschology, sociology, economics (to a certain extent), anthroplogy. These human sciences aim at objectivity but run into problems where their subject matter starts becoming more subjective.

That just shows that you are biased against social science, it is still science, every thing that you discuss can and should be controlled for.

remeber there is bad science and test bias every where, even in your beloved 'real science'. I will assume that your follish statements are based upon ignorance rather than prejudice.

The scientifc method applies to all science, not to the good or bad practioners of that method.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That just shows that you are biased against social science, it is still science, every thing that you discuss can and should be controlled for.

One cannot be 100% objective when dealing with human subjectivity. I am not biased against these sciences, I am just claiming that science has fuzzy borders. The only truly "hard" sciences are physics and chemistry. There are also disciplines for which it is not easy to state whether they are truly scientific or not. If you wish to challenge this assertion then you will have to provide a definition of what science is which isn't the same as the one I have given in this thread. And you've got no chance of succeeding in doing so, because any more precise definition of science can be shown to be incoherent very easily indeed.

Quote:

remeber there is bad science and test bias every where, even in your beloved 'real science'. I will assume that your follish statements are based upon ignorance rather than prejudice.

Perhaps they might be based on having a more comprehensive knowledge of the philosphy of science than you do?

Go on....define "science" for me.

Quote:

The scientifc method applies to all science, not to the good or bad practioners of that method.

You reckon science is a method, do you?

Ever heard of Paul Feyerabend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

I am getting quite bored of being called ignorant by people who do not actually know what they are talking about.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

One cannot be 100% objective when dealing with human subjectivity. I am not biased against these sciences, I am just claiming that science has fuzzy borders. The only truly "hard" sciences are physics and chemistry. There are also disciplines for which it is not easy to state whether they are truly scientific or not. If you wish to challenge this assertion then you will have to provide a definition of what science is which isn't the same as the one I have given in this thread. And you've got no chance of succeeding in doing so, because any more precise definition of science can be shown to be incoherent very easily indeed.

You don't understand how to apply science to social sciences then, which was my assertion, if you reference your earlier statement then you might see why I have responded to to you. Good science is good science, regardless of wether it is social science or hard science. There is much good social science and there is plenty of bad social science. The same is true of all branches of science. the application of science is what it is.

Good social science tries to discuss the uncertanties of the data and the collection of the data, as in any science.

Your a priori argument shows that you are ASSUMING things that you have no real knowledge of.

Quote:

Perhaps they might be based on having a more comprehensive knowledge of the philosphy of science than you do?

So you can't back up your statements, what makes you think that social science is not science. Personal belief and philosophy or evidence?

Quote:

Go on....define "science" for me.

I have an easier task, with an objective outcome, prove that social science does not use the same methods and techniques as 'hard' science.

That was seemingly your bold and unsupported assertion, so see if you can prove it.

I think that you are avoiding the issue, to wit, you state that you believe social science is not science. Please demonstrate that the social sciences do not use the ideas and criteria of science to study human behavior.

To state that the method is flawed from the start is an error of logic. You should show that social science does not use the ideas and techniques of science to explore human nature.

Certainty is not the issue. Science is a human practise.

Quote:

You reckon science is a method, do you?

Ever heard of Paul Feyerabend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

Now you argue from authority as to what words mean?

Prove that social science is not sceince.

Quote:

I am getting quite bored of being called ignorant by people who do not actually know what they are talking about.

And I get tired of people who have never worked in social science saying that it is not science. :P
So prove you statements and enlighten me as to how you are not ignorant of social science.

Should be easy to do!



edited to remove the usual spelling errors

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I suppose that it is time for me step into the fire myself, and test the theories I hold to be true against public scorn and criticism. I would consider my self a Social Darwinist, in the sense that a significant part of human intelligence and personality is genetic rather than environmental, and that these genetic differences translate into observable differences in the social, economic, and political arena.

I think the problem with holding such views is that there isn't any data that directly supports them and there are too many counter-examples to make them completely valid.

It would be absurd to argue that genetics do not play any role in determining the state of an adult human -- we know they do for sure.

But I think it is also a mistake to interpret the existing data as suggesting that genetics play such a large role. I can find hundreds of fallacies with the correlation = causation approach used in such books as "the Bell Curve". There are just too many unknowns going on here for anyone to make statistically sound inferences in these areas.

Furthermore, the difference between the state of the human mind at birth and adulthood is orders of magnitude greater than in animals, throwing out any inductive arguments completely. Quite simply, genetics probably influence one's ability to learn, but in no way influences what is learned.

[Jeremy]

I must start be apologizing for my extended absence from this thread. A vacation over the memorial day weekend left me in no mood to philosophize or debate science.

Dancing David and Rocketdodger,

What would be your answer to twin and adoption studies? Such studies suggest that IQ and personality are about 70% and 50% genetic, respectively. (Rushton, 28) IQ generally correlates with income and social standing. While adoption has a significant effect on IQ measured in childhood (being that high status/IQ individuals are generally adopters, and low status/IQ children the adoptees), the genetic component becomes more pronounced. (Ruston, 30)

Data cited from Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, by J. Philippe Rushton.

EDIT: Spellcheck'd

[Jeremy]

JustGeof,

Quote:

You then justify your belief by trying to find a way to coherently combine the information provided from the multiple foundations. No holy books.

But, how do you justify the multiple foundations? I admit that there is no way for me to justify the foundation point I have chosen, but if it just a matter of arbitrary decision, then I don't feel that we will get anywhere by debating it.

Quote:

I totally disagree with your conception of what science is. I think you have confused science with realism.

No, I was saying that science is based on realism, and that it is the next logical step. I, however, still do not understand what you mean by inherently subjective.

EDIT: Spellcheck'd

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

JustGeof,

But, how do you justify the multiple foundations?

You don't need to. The system provides beliefs which are justified on the grounds that there is a coherent picture emerging from the multiple foundations. In other words, if what you build on the multiple foundations turn out to be incompatible with each other, then you know that something, somewhere, must be wrong - and if it all starts fitting together into a single coherent picture then you are justified in believing that you are correct.

Quote:

I admit that there is no way for me to justify the foundation point I have chosen.....

So my system is better. I cannot justify the foundations themselves, because this would depend on "deeper foundations" which are not available. So the only means of providing justification is by the means I have described.

Quote:

No, I was saying that science is based on realism, and that it is the next logical step. I, however, still do not understand what you mean by inherently subjective.

What red looks like to you is inherently subjective.

[Jeremy]

Quote:

So my system is better. I cannot justify the foundations themselves, because this would depend on "deeper foundations" which are not available. So the only means of providing justification is by the means I have described.

I feel that the view of the world extending from my foundations is coherent, so unless you have examples to the contrary, that puts us on the same level again.

Quote:

What red looks like to you is inherently subjective.

What looks like red to me is a combination of the physical aspects of my eyes and brain, and is theoretically, if not practically, knowable by others.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I must start be apologizing for my extended absence from this thread. A vacation over the memorial day weekend left me in no mood to philosophize or debate science.

Dancing David and Rocketdodger,

What would be your answer to twin and adoption studies? Such studies suggest that IQ and personality are about 70% and 50% genetic, respectively. (Rushton, 28) IQ generally correlates with income and social standing. While adoption has a significant effect on IQ measured in childhood (being that high status/IQ individuals are generally adopters, and low status/IQ children the adoptees), the genetic component becomes more pronounced. (Ruston, 30)

Data cited from Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, by J. Philippe Rushton.

EDIT: Spellcheck'd

I know this question was directed to another person on the list, but I'd like to respond. I used to find the twin studies very convincing, as well, but a few years ago, I spent some time reading up on the subject to write a book on Canadian eugenics programs, and my impression changed.

Specifically, there is something that gets totally ignored in twin studies: the twins shared a womb during the most important period of brain development. We know that many factors influence intelligence. Nobody would say that a twins of a parent who drank excessively during pregnancy is mentally delayed because of shared genetics.

In the case of separated twins, there is another problem: the participants in the study self-select for similarity. That is: the identical twins who are raised apart, reunite, and are not getting along do not choose to head off to Minnesota to spent lots of time together participating in studies. No attempt has been made to reconcile this statistical problem.

These remain the 'white elephants' in the genetics/intelligence living room.

These problems could be addressed with cloning studies, implanting identical clone embryos into different women, raising them without intentional similarity, and comparing them to random strangers and each other for similarities. That is to say: "In principle," since such an experiment would be quite unethical. Nevertheless, my point is that the validity of twin studies are exaggerated.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

What looks like red to me is a combination of the physical aspects of my eyes and brain, and is theoretically, if not practically, knowable by others.

How?

How could anyone ever know what red looks like to you, even theoretically?

[Jeremy]

Thank you for your reply, Blutoski. You raised many interesting points, but an easier way of determining whether the similarity between is caused by genes or shared womb conditions would be to compare the rate of similarity between normal siblings and fraternal siblings. While I don't know of any studies which show this, there is an interesting piece of data in Rushton's work.
"About 50% of identical twins with criminal records have twins with criminal records, while only about 25% of fraternal twins do." (Rushton, 29)

While we would have to know what the rate of similarity for non-twin siblings are to get a full comparison, it would seem that identical twins are more similar in this respect than fraternal ones, despite both sharing the same womb.