David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24 (3):320-335 (1994)
The second word in the subtitle of this article is crucial. For there can be no doubt but that the possibility of sociobiology below the human level has already been abundantly realized in, for instance, the main body of E. O. Wilson's enormous and encyclopedic treatise Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. What may more reasonably be doubted, and what is in fact questioned here, is whether, as Wilson and others hope and believe, there is much room, or indeed any, for a sociobiology of our own notoriously wayward and idiosyncratic species. In proposing this particular project Wilson and his colleagues have seen themselves as promoting a climactic conquest for evolutionary biology. For surely, they seem to have thought, now, more than a century after Darwin, it is high time and past time to launch the final assault upon the last citadel. But, as we shall proceed to argue, there are reasonsreasons which were available at least in outline even to Darwin himselfwhy the ideas which have been so triumphantly successful in explaining The Origin of Species cannot properly be applied to what is in truth a fundamentally different task. They cannot, that is to say, properly be transferred to explain developments either within or out of the particular problem species of which the author of that book, along with both all the authors and all the readers of all other books, have been themselves members.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael Ruse (1987). Is Sociobiology a New Paradigm? Philosophy of Science 54 (1):98-104.
Robert L. Simon (1982). The Sociobiology Muddle:On Human Nature. Edward O. Wilson; The Sociobiology Debate. Arthur L. Caplan; Human Sociobiology: A Holistic Approach. Daniel G. Freedman; Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense? Michael Ruse. [REVIEW] Ethics 92 (2):327-.
Ullica Segerstrale (1986). Colleagues in Conflict: An 'in Vivo' Analysis of the Sociobiology Controversy. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 1 (1):53-87.
Harmon R. Holcomb (1987). Criticism, Commitment, and the Growth of Human Sociobiology. Biology and Philosophy 2 (1):43-63.
Michael E. Malone (1986). From Up Here They Look Like Ants1. Inquiry 29 (1-4):407-422.
Tamas Bereczkei (1993). An Intellectual Legacy of the Past: The Reception of Sociobiology in the East-European Countries. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):399-407.
Li Jianhui & Hong Fan (2003). Science as Ideology: The Rejection and Reception of Sociobiology in China. Journal of the History of Biology 36 (3):567 - 578.
Greg Myers (1988). Every Picture Tells a Story: Illustrations in E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology. [REVIEW] Human Studies 11 (2-3):235 - 269.
Jason M. Byron (2005). Sociobiology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #64,324 of 1,679,366 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,761 of 1,679,366 )
How can I increase my downloads?