Genetic determinism

[Ibn Khaldoun]

 

[bhamgeezer]

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I'm not being subtle!

 

[Caecilian]

I'm not being subtle!

You're not making much sense either.

Phrenology and genetic determinism are not the same!

Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

Check out this link for a classic paper against the genetic determinist position.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

They're both crude materialism, founded on similar ground philisophically, assumptions about inheritance (with the same predictable uses), and just as naive in many ways. Instead of compartments in the brain for 'sex', 'work ethic', 'map reading' etc. we get genes instead.

Thanks for that paper, though.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I like materialism great philosophical idea, nothing to do with genetic determinism

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I don't dismiss materialism, just some forms of it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can you give a concrete problem where this is relevant?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Social behaviour. Competition vs. cooperation. The problem isn't so much the veracity of material claims, such as a particular gene existing, as the assumption that the idea of competition pre-exists society. They even have to make genes to do the mediating for them, such is their reductionism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You won't find any geneticist who doesn't see the expression of a gene as the nurture of nature – development through time of the particular genetic makeup. It's a non-problem.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I don't see the issue, last time I checked genetic determinism wasn't too popular, or even concievable...

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

You won't find any geneticist who doesn't see the expression of a gene as the nurture of nature – development through time of the particular genetic makeup. It's a non-problem.

That nuanced huh?

The problem, again, is the same assumption.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What assumption?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The point of departure is the reflexivity of the thing. Nature is never going to fit into some scheme, intuitively pleasing, or even simple to understand to us.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like I said, a non-problem. You're just descending into talking bollocks.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Until they have worked out it, there is a real problem.

Intelligence as well.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's just random words now.

 

[Caecilian]

You won't find any geneticist who doesn't see the expression of a gene as the nurture of nature – development through time of the particular genetic makeup. It's a non-problem.

Actually, it is a problem. There is still a widespread assumption that 'genes' somehow prefigure phenotypical form- a kind of preformationism if you like.

The whole concept of 'genes' is in any case very philosophically problematic. There are at least two distinct uses of the term- the 'classical' genes of Population Biology on one hand, and chunks of DNA on the other.

The kind of genetic determinism espoused by Dawkins and Dennett ('genes as algorithms') generally conflates the two concepts.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It's just random words now.

So they've worked this all out then? There are no disputes, or impasses?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is still a widespread assumption that 'genes' somehow prefigure phenotypical form- a kind of preformationism if you like.

What does that mean?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So they've worked this all out then? There are no disputes, or impasses?

Worked all what out? I don't think you've worked out what you mean yet. I'd concentrate on that for now.

 

[bhamgeezer]

What assumption?

LBJ don't you see what you are doing! By accepting the genes play any role in determining the development of an individual you are trapping yourself inside a political control paradigm. A consequent of your dogmatic ideology is that we must accept the reduction of the individual to level of physical automata leading to a collective devaluation of worth at a social level. This allows the right to propagate the belief that humanity is naturally inclined to conflict helping them to maintain their capitalist values and vicariously maintain political support for their organisations.

Down with the evil materialist, determinist, reductionist, essentialist, anglo-american, capitalist agenda!111

Your scientific epistemology is no match for my hermeneutic approach!!11

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, well I'll leave you all to it. Let me know when you come up with a real problem.

 

[Caecilian]

What does that mean?

Explanation for Preformationism here. Wikipedia isn't always reliable, but this article looks okay.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

By accepting the genes play any role in determining the development of an individual

Which I am denying of course.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Explanation for Preformationism here. Wikipedia isn't always reliable, but this article looks okay.

Of historical interest only, as the article itself says:

The historical ideas of preformationism and epigenesis, and the rivalry between them, are obviated by our contemporary understanding of the genetic code and its molecular basis together with developmental biology and epigenetics.

As I said at the start, a non-problem.

 

[bhamgeezer]

Which I am denying of course.

Really?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It's a truism, but it can be taken to mean a lot of things, can't it? It's amazing what nonsense can be gotten away with under that pretext.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In order to formulate a philosophy of science, it is first necessary to understand the scientific method. Go away and study some science, because at the moment, what you say is utterly worthless.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It's not just knowledge within the field itself but the way it gets appropriated too.