[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

It seems strange to me that people would feel the need to say that scientists are people. People can be amazing bastards. My defense of science is not based upon it being pure or perfect, it is, like democracy, the least *bad* tool we have for understanding the natural world. It works, *well enough*, over time that it is useful in general. But that does not make it pure.

Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot.

Actually I have to strenuously disagree with your characterization of sociobiology and looking for genetic influences on behavior. Sociobiology does not imply there is nothing we can do to help who we are or what we can and cannot change. Actually, explanations based upon culture are just as deterministic--in fact in many ways more so--than any reasonable sociobiological explanation of that same fact. Look at some of the discussions around race that happen here and you will see determinism at work--we live in a majority white culture, whites have traditionally benefited from race-based constructions in that culture, whites have white privilege, therefore whites will defend white privilege even unconsciously. That is as deterministic as it gets and I have not mentioned genes at all. I actually take a sociobiological view of racism that it is a special case of xenophobia and that xenophobia was adaptive at some point but is maladaptive now. So my construction is not 'humans are xenophobic and therefore we can do nothing about racism'. Rather it is 'humans are xenophobic, racism is just a special case of xenophobia, therefore we are going to have to work hard as both individuals and as a civilization to give racism no haven or quarter in our lives, in our laws, or in our institutions. It will be hard work because we are fighting a somewhat uphill battle but it is doable.'

Also, I will give an example of a gene for behavior--most of us speak one or more languages. Your genes built a brain that is hungry to learn language and boots up the language learning systems in the first year. It then sponges language up for the next 15 - 20 years. After which it becomes a bit more difficult to learn a new language--but not impossible. That is *entirely* genetic. The fact that I speak English is an artifact of culture, the fact that I speak ANY language is an artifact of genes.

If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse."

This is two different things. The statement that members of some group X is a moral statement and has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is genetic or not. I understand why people in the gay community want their to be a genetic basis for homosexuality but it does not buy us what many people think it does. Being black is as genetic as something can be--in fact it is entirely genetic, no cultural experience gave me a black phenotype. Yet, for all but the last half-century blacks were treated, in the West at least, as barely human. In fact, when we were treated as barely human that was an *improvement*! Being Catholic is as non-genetic as something exists and yet we protect Catholics from discrimination. The basis for not discriminating against blacks or against Catholics is predicated on something completely separate from the question of why there are blacks or Catholics.

And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

Again, I think that there's a mixup between explanation and excusing. I want to understand *why* xenophobia happens and it is not just a product of Western culture nor is it a product of white people. If there are multiple lives and you can swing it, go to Japan as either a Korean or a black person. You will be treated to a full measure of xenophobia. That deserves explanation for why it is so widespread. Religion is another behavior I think is biological--not what specific religion someone practices but that religion is practiced in all cultures so far. EVERYONE honors their dead. EVERYONE has a set of stories about how to live. I would call religion species typical behavior. It would be absolutely remarkable if there were a species typical behavior that did not have a genetic component to it. Again, that does not mean that people can't help but be religious, it does mean that it might take a little more work to maintain a naturalistic worldview since our brains seem to favor a supernatural worldview. Again, not deterministic but influential.

Cheers
Aj