Skip to main content
Log in

Criticism, commitment, and the growth of human sociobiology

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The fundamental unit of assessment in the sociobiology debate is neither a field nor a theory, but a framework of group commitments. Recourse to the framework concept is motivated, in general, by post-Kuhnian philosophy of scientific change and, in particular, by the dispute between E. O. Wilson and R. C. Lewontin. The framework concept is explicated in terms of commitments about problems, domain, disciplinary relations, exemplars, and performance evaluations. One upshot is that debate over such charges as genetic determinism, reductionism, adaptationism, and the biologization of human nature has been vexed. It has lost sight of human sociobiology's central problem, namely to help show that the modern synthesis is complete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, E. et al.: 1976, ‘Sociobiology: Another Biological Determinism’, BioScience 26, 182–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barash, D.: 1979, The Whisperings Within: Evolution and the Origin of Human Nature, Penguin, Dallas Tx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, G.: 1980, ‘The Development of Sociobiology: A Biologist's Perspective’, in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg (eds.), Sociobiology: Beyond Nature-Nurture? Reports, Definitions, and Debate, Westview, Boulder, Co., pp. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, R.: 1984, Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women, Pergamon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, B.: 1985, ‘Phenotypic Platicity, Cultural Transmission, and Human Sociobiology’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H.: 1977, Perception, Theory and Commitment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L. and Maull, N.: 1977, ‘Interfield Theories’, Philosophy of Science 44, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, G.: 1978, ‘Kuhn's Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense’, Inquiry 21, 453–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, G.: 1983, ‘Recent Conceptions of Scientific Rationality’, in N. Rescher (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding: Essays on Reasoning and Rationality in Science, University Press of America, Lanham, MD., pp. 106–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer, J. H. (ed.): 1985, Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer, J. H.: 1985a, ‘Science and Sociobiology’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 217–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1985, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Il.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.): 1970, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I.: 1970a, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 91–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J.: 1984, ‘Evolutionary Perspectives on Sex Differences in the Higher Primates’, in A. S. Rossi (ed.), Gender and the Life Course, Aldine, Hawthorne, N.Y., pp. 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L.: 1981, ‘A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress’, in I. Hacking, Scientific Revolutions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leacock, E.: 1980, ‘Social Behavior, Biology and the Double Standard’, in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg, Sociobiology: Beyond Nature-Nurture? Reports, Definitions, and Debate, Westview, Boulder, Co., pp. 465–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeds, A. and Dusek, V. (eds.): 1981–82, ‘Sociobiology: The Debate Evoles’, The Philosophical Forum 2–3, i-323.

  • Lewontin, R. C.: 1976: ‘Sociobiology: A Caricature of Darwinism’, in F. Suppe and P. Asquith (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2, 22–31, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Mich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C.: 1977, ‘Biological Determinism as a Social Weapon’, in Sociobiology Study Group of Boston, Biology as a Social Weapon, Burgess, Minneapolis, MA., pp. 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C.: 1977a, ‘Caricature of Darwinism’, Nature 266, 283–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C.: 1979, ‘Sociobiology as an Adaptationist Program’, Behavioral Science 24, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C.: 1981, ‘Sleight of Hand’, The Sciences, July/August, 23–26.

  • Lumsden, C. J. and Wilson, E. O.: 1981, Genes, Mind and Culture, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsden, C. J. and Gushurst, A. C.: 1985, ‘Gene-Culture Coevolution: Humankind in the Making’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, R. D.: 1985, ‘Evolutionary Biology, Human Nature, and Knowledge’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.: 1970, ‘Normal Science and its Dangers’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A.: 1985, ‘Adaptationalist Imperatives and Panglossian Paradigms’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1979, Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense?, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerstrale, U.: 1985, ‘Colleagues in Conflict: An ‘In Vivo’ Analysis of the Sociobiology Controversy’, Biology and Philosophy 1, 53–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverberg, J.: 1980, ‘Sociobiology, the New Synthesis? An Anthropologist's Perspective’, in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg, Sociobiology: Beyond Nature-Nurture? Reports, Definitions, and Debate, Westview, Boulder, Co., pp. 25–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. W.: 1984, Reductionism and Cultural Being: A Philosophical Critique of Sociobiological Reductionism and Physicalist Scientific Unificationism, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1985, ‘Methodological Behaviorism, Evolution, and Game Theory’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.: 1985, ‘Sociobiological Explanation and the Testability of Sociobiological Theory’, in J. H. Fetzer (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O.: 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O.: 1976, ‘Academic Vigilantism and the Political Significance of Sociobiology’, BioScience 26, 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O.: 1978, On Human Nature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O.: 1978a, ‘Foreword’, in A. Caplan, The Sociobiology Debate, Harper and Row, New York, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O.: 1980, ‘A Consideration of the Genetic Foundations of Human Social Behavior’, in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg (eds.), Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?, Westview, Boulder, Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holcomb, H.R. Criticism, commitment, and the growth of human sociobiology. Biol Philos 2, 43–63 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127564

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127564

Key words

Navigation