Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T09:30:57.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Logical Structure for Human Sociobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Steven J. C. Gaulin
Steven J. C. Gaulin*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sociobiology is a diverse field. Its ranks of practitioners and store of explanatory paradigms are growing daily. Thus it would be foolish to claim that all sociobiology is scientifically valid, or that its philosophical foundations can all be laid out in the same terms. But I can offer a logical justification for one fairly widespread brand of sociobiology. Along the way I hope to explain why some brands of sociobiology are less acceptable than others, and also where some of its detractors are seriously misinformed. I want to defend sociobiology, especially as it pertains to the human case. I will show that it is not a genetically determinist position and does not rely on a naive and outdated dichotomy between nature and nurture. Consequently, it is neither politically conservative nor socially pernicious, despite the continuing claims of its detractors (e.g., Allen et al. 1977, Kitcher 1985).

Type
Part III. Sociobiology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 75 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, L. et. al. (1977) “Sociobiology: a New Biological Determinism.” In Biology as a Social Weapon. Edited by the Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company. Pages 131-149.Google Scholar
Beckwith, J. R. and Zipser, D. (1970) The Lactose Operon. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.Google Scholar
Blaffer Hrdy, S., (1974) “Male-male Competition and Infanticide among the Langurs (Presbytis entellus) of Abu, Rajasthan.” Folia Primatologica 22: 19-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. J., Negus, N. C, Sanders, E. H. and Gardner, P. D. (1981) “Chemical Triggering of Reproduction in Microtus montanus.” Science 214: 69-70.Google Scholar
Burgess, R. L. and Conger, R. D. (1978) “Familly interactions in abusive, neglectful and normal familes.” Child Development 49:1163-1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1981) “Abuse and Neglect of Children in Evolutionary Perspective.” In Natural Selection and Social Behavior. Edited by R. Alexander and D. Tinkle. New York: Chiron Press. Pages 405-416.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1859) On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. Facsimile of the first edition, (1967) Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1984) The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Second edition. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Gil, D. G. (1970) Violence against Children. Cambrigde, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hausfater, G. and Blaffer Hrdy, S., (eds.) (1984) Infanticide. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Immelmann, K. (1963) “Drought Adaptations in Australian Desert Birds.” Proceedings of the 13th International Ornithological Congress: 649-657.Google Scholar
Johns, J. E. and Pfeifer, E. W. (1963) “Testosterone-induced incubation patches of phalarope birds.” Science 140: 1225-1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. L. (1974) Child Abuse in the Southeast. Athens, GA: Regional Institute of Social Welfare Research, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985) Vaulting Ambition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenington, S. (1981) “Child Abuse: The Limits of Sociobiology.” Ethology and Sociobiology 2:17-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1970) “The Units of Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1974) The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lightcap, J. L., Kurland, J. A. and Burgess, R. L. (1982) “Child Abuse: A Test of Some Predictions from Evolutionary Theory.” Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 61-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, G. A. and Short, R. V. (1980) “Seasonal Breeding: Nature's Contraceptive.” Recent Progress in Hormone Research 36:1-52.Google Scholar
Lumsden, C. and Wilson, E. O. (1981) Genes, Mind, and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Olive, P. J. W. (1980) “Environmental Control of Reproduction in Polychaeta: Experimental Studies of Littoral Species in Northeast England.” In Advances in Invertebrate Reproduction. Edited by Clark, W. H. and Adams, T. S. New York: Elsevier-North Holland.Google Scholar
Salmon, M. H. (1984) Logic and Critical Thinking. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.Google Scholar
Seger, J. (1976) “Models of Gene Action and the Problem of Behavior.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November, 1976, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Sugiyama, Y. (1965) “On the Social Change in Hanuman Langurs (Presbytis entellus) in their Natural Condition.” Primates 6: 381-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar