4 ms·
No. It's not about whether there was "a lot" more. It's about how much it can add on top of "nature vs. nurture" to explain common social phenomena. It is very
by educationdata 7y ago
No. It's not about whether there was "a lot" more. It's about how much it can add on top of "nature vs. nurture" to explain common social phenomena. It is very possible the new knowledge can be 100 times more complicated, but it only adds 1% more explanation power to everyday phenomena.
Take physics as an example, quantum physics has "a lot" more than classical physics, but no physicists will discard classical physics as being no longer valid, or no longer useful for explaining everyday physical world, or you should always use quantum physics in engineering, etc.
- aluren 7y agoExplaining common social phenomena with modern human genomics isn't a thing period. If you'd attempted to introduce some sociobiology talking points in a typical genomics conference you'd be laughed out of the room. (That's assuming the organizers would even consider your abstract for a talk in the first place.) No one really discusses 'nature vs nurture' anymore outside of a few circles that somehow still haven't gotten the memo. It's just not relevant anymore to modern fields.
- educationdata 7y agoSo what? Civial engineers don't use cutting edge physics, but the construction they designed won't collapse bc of that.