Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:19:53.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology and Ideology: The Interpenetration of Science and Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert C. Richardson
Robert C. Richardson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, University of Cincinnati
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The mutual influence of science and values in biology is exhibited in several cases from the biological literature. It is argued in a number of cases, from R. A. Fisher's argument for the optimality of a 50:50 sex ratio to A. Jensen's defense of a genetic basis for intelligence, and including work on the evolution of sexual dimorphism and muted aggression, that the credence accorded the views is disproportionate with their theoretical and empirical warrant. It is, furthermore, suggested that the proper explanation for the attraction and persistence of such views lies in their conformity with ideological norms. There is thus an important, if circumscribed, role for ideological critique in the evaluation of scientific theories; in particular, it lies in the explanation of the acceptance and persistence of scientific views, given independent grounds for questioning their justifiability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 396 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Footnotes

†

Completion of this work was made possible through the support of the National Science Foundation. I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss this project with colleagues at the Ohio State University during the spring of 1983. A particular debt is owed to John McEvoy for a number of helpful comments (some of which I have, perhaps imprudently, failed to heed), and to Robert Brandon, who forced some important clarifications in the work.

References

Allen, E., et al. (1975), “Against ‘Sociobiology’”, The New York Review of Books. Reprinted in A. Caplan (ed.). The Sociobiology Debate. New York: Harper and Row, 1978, pp. 259–64.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R., and Hamilton, W. D. (1981), “The Evolution of Cooperation”, Science 211: 1390–96. Reprinted in J. Maynard Smith (ed.). Evolution Now. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandon, R. (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. (1981), “A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory”, in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere (eds.). PSA 1980. Volume 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 427–39.Google Scholar
Burian, R. (1978), “A Methodological Critique of Sociobiology”, in A. Caplan (ed.). The Sociobiology Debate. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 376–95.Google Scholar
Burian, R. (1981), “Human Sociobiology and Genetic Determinism”, The Philosophical Forum 13: 43–66.Google Scholar
Burian, R. (1983), “Adaptation”, in M. Grene (ed.). Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chorover, S. (1979), From Genesis to Genocide. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1969), “Genetic Theories and Influences: Comments on the Value of Diversity”, Harvard Educational Review 39: 301–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of Species, First Edition. Reprinted with an introduction by Mayr, E. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Reprinted with an introduction by Bonner, J. T. and May, R. M. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
de Beer, G. (1963), Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930), The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. (1977), Ever Since Darwin. New York: W. W. Norton Co.Google Scholar
Gould, S. (1980), The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton Co.Google Scholar
Gould, S. (1981), The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton Co.Google Scholar
Gould, S., and Lewontin, R. C. (1979). “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205: 581–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. (1977), “Darwin as a Social Evolutionist”, Journal of the History of Biology 10: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, H. (1981), Darwin on Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Herbert, S. (1971), “Darwin, Malthus, and Selection”, Journal of the History of Biology 4: 209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1777), Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Reprinted from the 1777 edition and edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, A. (1969), “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?”, Harvard Educational Review 39: 1–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, A. (1970), “Race and the Genetics of Intelligence”, from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Reprinted in Ned Block and G. Dworkin (eds.). The IQ Controversy. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1970), “Race and Intelligence”, from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Reprinted in Ned Block and G. Dworkin, (eds.) The IQ Controversy. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1977), “Fitness, Survival, and Optimality”, in D. J. Horn, R. Mitchell and G. R. Stairs (eds.). Analysis of Ecological Systems. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, pp. 4–21.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1978), “Adaptation”, Scientific American 239: 212–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1979), “Sociobiology as an Adaptationist Program”, Behavioral Science 24: 5–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1982), Human Diversity. New York and San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1975), The Theory of Evolution. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1976), “Evolution and the Theory of Games”, American Scientist 64: 41–45.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978a), “Optimization Theory in Evolution”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978b), The Evolution of Sex. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S., and Beatty, J. (1979), “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”, Philosophy of Science 46: 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A., Baker, R. R., and Smith, V. G. F. (1972), “The Origin and Evolution of Gamete Dimorphism and the Male-Female Phenomenon”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 36: 529–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provine, W. (1971), The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. (1972), “Darwinism and Social Darwinism”, Journal of the History of Ideas 33: 265–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughgarden, J. (1979), Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1979), Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense? Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (forthcoming), “The Relationship Between Biology and Values: A Fresh Look”, Proceedings of the International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science for 1983.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. (1976), The Use and Abuse of Biology. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweber, S. (1980), “Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character”, Journal of the History of Biology 13: 195–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, H. (1850), Social Statics. London.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton: Monographs in Population Biology, Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, E. O. (1975), Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1976), “Academic Vigilantism and the Political Significance of Sociobiology”, Bioscience 26. Reprinted in A. Caplan (ed.). The Sociobiology Debate. New York: Harper and Row, 1978, pp. 291–303.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1969), “Malthus and the Evolutionists”, Past and Present 43: 109–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (1973), “The Historiographic and Ideological Contexts of the Nineteenth-Century Debate on Man's Place in Nature”, in Mikulas Teich and Robert Young (eds.). Changing Perspectives in the History of Science. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar