Wojtek writes that: >> we can safely dismiss all so-so biologies, eveloutionary psychologies, etc. as crap without even reading it, for the same reason we dismiss astrology, parapsychology, and metaphysics without even bothering to refute them -- because they attempt to sneak on us an impossible task of linking the material and the spiritual into a single chain of events, << I agreed with what Wojtek said about so-so biology, except for the above. Even though most or all of sociobiology seems to be utter crap, I think that it is a mistake to dismiss it (and evolutionary psychology) "without even reading it." First, some sociobiologists have responded to the criticisms (since Edward O. Wilson's SOCIOBIOLOGY, which is indeed execrable). Some of what they've produced is more sophisticated -- i.e., less reductionist -- than Wilson's work. Second, it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking, if only to respond to them. Since some people might respond by saying "maybe sexism is right," the best argument against Wilson is not that he's sexist but that his analysis involves logical, methodological, and/or empirical flaws. (Use a scientific argument to _back up_ the moral argument that he is sexist.) BTW, I think it's a good idea to argue against astrology also, in order to encourage people to be rational and to embrace a scientific attitude. Third, I've read some evolutionary psychology (a book by Simon Baron-Cohen on the issue of autism) and it wasn't all that bad. (BTW, this field was founded by philosophically- minded scholar whose name is Humphries, I believe.) The author wasn't claiming to be presenting the last word or anything as much as some new perspectives; he wasn't reductionist. He claimed that we share something with the animals, i.e., attention to the "language of the eyes" as a way of communicating with others of the species. I wouldn't say that the author was totally successful. But the idea that we share some behavior with the animals isn't totally off. Despite his (and his school's) many failings, Freud was right that we have bodies and bodily urges and that these affect our behavior and consciousness. (He was also right that there's much more than just bodily urges.) BTW, since we on the left coast recieve the NATION a week later than anyone else, I should be receiving the one with Ehrenreich's article sometime in June. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
