4 ms·

> isn't that actually quite a strong argument for "biological determinism" Good question! You should go read some philosophy of biology, if you are interested

by ehudla 11y ago

> isn't that actually quite a strong argument for "biological determinism" Good question! You should go read some philosophy of biology, if you are interested in these issues, there's ton of stuff about this debate. The issue, as you are right to sense, isn't about "biological" determinism; rather it is about whether genes are special or unique compared to other cues that affect the development of the organism (such as gravity). It's a complicated issue, with various implications. I actually don't think Levins is particularly important for this debate, by the way. A little bit about it can be gleaned from this description: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inheritance-systems/#MonHolMulSysVie http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inheritance-systems/#MonHo...

lambdaphagy 11y ago
> You should go read some philosophy of biology I mean... I have. The thing is that the issue really is "biological determinism" for Mehta: it's even one of the most frequent bigrams in the piece, between "of science" and "Levins was". But for Mehta, "biological determinism’s intellectual foundation [is] the reductionist fallacy that it is possible to detach genes from environment." If Mehta thinks that any of Levins's opponents agreed with that (or any working biologist, for that matter), then he's using the word "detach" in a very curious way without warning. And again, the only example given would actually seem to imply that genes are more powerful than fundamental physical forces in their effect on phenotype, which doesn't sound to me like such a ringing endorsement of the role of environment. If I'm this confused as a scientist with training in philosophy, I can only imagine how other readers are coping.
- ehudla 11y ago
  Transcend the piece. Go read more nuanced accounts in the scholarly literature. It might still be confusing, since the issues become rather subtle when you delve in, but it will be rewarding I hope.

by ehudla 11y ago

lambdaphagy 11y ago

> You should go read some philosophy of biology I mean... I have. The thing is that the issue really is "biological determinism" for Mehta: it's even one of the most frequent bigrams in the piece, between "of science" and "Levins was". But for Mehta, "biological determinism’s intellectual foundation [is] the reductionist fallacy that it is possible to detach genes from environment." If Mehta thinks that any of Levins's opponents agreed with that (or any working biologist, for that matter), then he's using the word "detach" in a very curious way without warning. And again, the only example given would actually seem to imply that genes are more powerful than fundamental physical forces in their effect on phenotype, which doesn't sound to me like such a ringing endorsement of the role of environment. If I'm this confused as a scientist with training in philosophy, I can only imagine how other readers are coping.

ehudla 11y ago
Transcend the piece. Go read more nuanced accounts in the scholarly literature. It might still be confusing, since the issues become rather subtle when you delve in, but it will be rewarding I hope.