3 ms·

The debate around Wilson's ideas is not new, nor is it one of scientists on one side vs "do-gooders" on the other. E.O. Wilson was accused of lending support to

by pron 5y ago

The debate around Wilson's ideas is not new, nor is it one of scientists on one side vs "do-gooders" on the other. E.O. Wilson was accused of lending support to scientific racism since the seventies, including by fellow distinguished scientists and Wilson't colleagues at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/wilson-naturalist.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/s...

slibhb 5y ago
Gould and Lewontin weren't debating. They were engaging in academic politics. Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. To argue against an idea, demonstrate why it's wrong or offer a better alternative. "That's racist" is neither a scientific argument nor a serious one.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. Since racism is itself not a scientific concept, arguments about this sort of thing are inherently never going to be scientific, but rather always political/philosophical. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Gould, Lewontin (or Wilson) engaging in such debates, which are as at least as important (and possibly more directly impactful) than the scientific ones. Political/philosophical debates do not involve questions of demonstrable "right" or "wrong", but rather are a stage for beliefs about the world and different notions of utility. You don't settle them by "demonstrating why it's wrong", or by "offering a better idea".
  - slibhb 5y ago
    I agree with you. But if this isn't a scientific debate, why would it matter that Gould et al are "distinguished scientists at Harvard"? Shouldn't they separate their political-philosophical-religious views from their work as scientists? It isn't fruitful when one side is arguing science and the other is arguing politics.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Being able to state with some level of authority that current science does or does not support some claim can be useful even in the context of a non-scientific debate.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > academic politics You see, Wilson, like Gallant in Highlights magazine cartoons, was someone who looked at the evidence, and used logic and the scientific method to lead him to his conclusions. He only sought the truth. Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. Gould and Lewontin were like Goofus. They were just engaging in academic politics. Easy case to win when one side is all science and logic and the other is "political". Not sure why everyone hasn't come around.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    > Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. You've been asked several times to provide a quote from Wilson's published works where he said this, both in this thread and previous ones. So far you have not. I think you should either provide such a quote or retract this claim.
- pron 5y ago
  That's not quite right. The problem with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology etc. is that it's either barely scientific to begin with, or has a scientific basis that is then prone to very unscientific extrapolations. I.e. some stages in the argument and or presentation are not scientifically established, and because they might lend support to scientific racism, people must be careful in presenting them or be partly responsible for how what they're saying is used. The criticism was levelled at Wilson's popular books, that made, according to other scientists, various leaps that weren't quite scientifically established.
nkurz 5y ago
If anyone is interested in a book length treatment covering the controversy surrounding Wilson's Sociobiology, I can highly recommend a book that came out in 2000: "Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond", by Ullica Segerstrale. It's out-of-print, and never was very popular, but it's one of my favorite things to have ever read. Here's an overview: When Edward O. Wilson published Sociobiology, it generated a firestorm of criticism, mostly focused on the book's final chapter, in which Wilson applied lessons learned from animal behavior to human society. In Defenders of the Truth, Ullica Segerstrale takes a hard look at the sociobiology controversy, sorting through a hornet's nest of claims and counterclaims, moral concerns, metaphysical beliefs, political convictions, strawmen, red herrings, and much juicy gossip. The result is a fascinating look at the world of modern science. Segerstrale has interviewed all the major participants, including such eminent scientists as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard C. Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, Nobel Laureates Peter Medawar and Salvador Luria, and of course Edward Wilson. She reveals that most of the criticism of Wilson was unfair, but argues that it was not politically motivated. Instead, she sees the conflict over sociobiology as a drawn-out battle about the nature of "good science" and the social responsibility of the scientist. Behind the often nasty attacks were the very different approaches to science taken by naturalists (such as Wilson) and experimentalists (such as Lewontin), between the "planters" and the "weeders." The protagonists were all defenders of the truth, Segerstrale concludes, it was just that everyone's truth was different. It's available in some university libraries, used from Amazon for about $60, or as a PDF from here: https://b-ok.cc/book/2325442/6946b3 https://b-ok.cc/book/2325442/6946b3.
l-_l-_l-_lo_ol 5y ago
Let it be known Lewontin was a Marxist and as such abhorred nature over nurture. A blank slate is essential to Marxist philosophy.

by pron 5y ago

slibhb 5y ago

Gould and Lewontin weren't debating. They were engaging in academic politics. Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. To argue against an idea, demonstrate why it's wrong or offer a better alternative. "That's racist" is neither a scientific argument nor a serious one.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Arguing that an idea is wrong because it "lends support to scientific racism" is unscientific. Since racism is itself not a scientific concept, arguments about this sort of thing are inherently never going to be scientific, but rather always political/philosophical. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Gould, Lewontin (or Wilson) engaging in such debates, which are as at least as important (and possibly more directly impactful) than the scientific ones. Political/philosophical debates do not involve questions of demonstrable "right" or "wrong", but rather are a stage for beliefs about the world and different notions of utility. You don't settle them by "demonstrating why it's wrong", or by "offering a better idea".
- slibhb 5y ago
  I agree with you. But if this isn't a scientific debate, why would it matter that Gould et al are "distinguished scientists at Harvard"? Shouldn't they separate their political-philosophical-religious views from their work as scientists? It isn't fruitful when one side is arguing science and the other is arguing politics.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Being able to state with some level of authority that current science does or does not support some claim can be useful even in the context of a non-scientific debate.
VictorPath 5y ago
> academic politics You see, Wilson, like Gallant in Highlights magazine cartoons, was someone who looked at the evidence, and used logic and the scientific method to lead him to his conclusions. He only sought the truth. Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. Gould and Lewontin were like Goofus. They were just engaging in academic politics. Easy case to win when one side is all science and logic and the other is "political". Not sure why everyone hasn't come around.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > Which in his case, was that the white race is superior to the black race. You've been asked several times to provide a quote from Wilson's published works where he said this, both in this thread and previous ones. So far you have not. I think you should either provide such a quote or retract this claim.
pron 5y ago
That's not quite right. The problem with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology etc. is that it's either barely scientific to begin with, or has a scientific basis that is then prone to very unscientific extrapolations. I.e. some stages in the argument and or presentation are not scientifically established, and because they might lend support to scientific racism, people must be careful in presenting them or be partly responsible for how what they're saying is used. The criticism was levelled at Wilson's popular books, that made, according to other scientists, various leaps that weren't quite scientifically established.

nkurz 5y ago

If anyone is interested in a book length treatment covering the controversy surrounding Wilson's Sociobiology, I can highly recommend a book that came out in 2000: "Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond", by Ullica Segerstrale. It's out-of-print, and never was very popular, but it's one of my favorite things to have ever read. Here's an overview: When Edward O. Wilson published Sociobiology, it generated a firestorm of criticism, mostly focused on the book's final chapter, in which Wilson applied lessons learned from animal behavior to human society. In Defenders of the Truth, Ullica Segerstrale takes a hard look at the sociobiology controversy, sorting through a hornet's nest of claims and counterclaims, moral concerns, metaphysical beliefs, political convictions, strawmen, red herrings, and much juicy gossip. The result is a fascinating look at the world of modern science. Segerstrale has interviewed all the major participants, including such eminent scientists as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard C. Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, Nobel Laureates Peter Medawar and Salvador Luria, and of course Edward Wilson. She reveals that most of the criticism of Wilson was unfair, but argues that it was not politically motivated. Instead, she sees the conflict over sociobiology as a drawn-out battle about the nature of "good science" and the social responsibility of the scientist. Behind the often nasty attacks were the very different approaches to science taken by naturalists (such as Wilson) and experimentalists (such as Lewontin), between the "planters" and the "weeders." The protagonists were all defenders of the truth, Segerstrale concludes, it was just that everyone's truth was different. It's available in some university libraries, used from Amazon for about $60, or as a PDF from here: https://b-ok.cc/book/2325442/6946b3 https://b-ok.cc/book/2325442/6946b3.

l-_l-_l-_lo_ol 5y ago

Let it be known Lewontin was a Marxist and as such abhorred nature over nurture. A blank slate is essential to Marxist philosophy.