Culture or Biology? If this sounds interesting, you might be confused

In Jaan Valsinger (ed.), Social Philosophy of Science for the Social Sciences. Springer. pp. 45-71 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Culture or Biology? The question can seem deep and important. Yet, I argue in this chapter, if you are enthralled by questions about our biological differences, then you are probably confused. My goal is to diagnose the confusion. In debates about the role of biology in the social world it is easy to ask the wrong questions, and it is easy to misinterpret the scientific research. We are intuitively attracted to what is called psychological essentialism, and therefore interpret what is biological as what can be traced to “essences”. On this interpretation, it would be deep and important to know what about, say, the differences between the genders is biological: it would correspond to what is essential to being a man or being a woman, and be opposed to what is a mere accidental feature that some women or some men have. Yet, the psychological essentialist understanding of ‘biological differences’ is deeply mistaken about biology. It has the wrong conception of biological kinds, of biological heritability, and of how genes and hormones work. Those who argue for an important role of ‘biology’ in the explanation of human differences often see ‘the science’ on their side. But this is false – on the interpretation of ‘biological differences’ that is most intuitive and that makes the question appear to be most interesting. Defenders of ‘biology’ often have the science against them. What is often called ‘biology’ is a myth: a myth created by an intuitive tendency that grotesquely distorts real biological research.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Devitt’s ‘Intrinsic Biological Essentialism’.Zdenka Brzović - 2018 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):307-318.
Devitt’s ‘Intrinsic Biological Essentialism’.Urška Martinc - 2018 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):307-318.
What is Wrong with Addiction.Jesse S. Summers - 2015 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 22 (1):25-40.
How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study.Karola Stotz, Paul E. Griffiths & Rob Knight - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 (4):647-673.
How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study.Karola Stotz, Paul E. Griffiths & Rob Knight - 2004 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 (4):647-673.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-22

Downloads
394 (#53,109)

6 months
117 (#38,170)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sebastian Watzl
University of Oslo

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations