Biology and Philosophy 2 (1):43-63 (1987)
AbstractThe 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.
Similar books and articles
The Sociology of Sociobiology.Ronald de Sousa - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (3):271 – 283.
Is Sociobiology a Pseudoscience?R. Paul Thompson - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:363 - 370.
Colleagues in Conflict: An 'in Vivo' Analysis of the Sociobiology Controversy. [REVIEW]Ullica Segerstrale - 1986 - Biology and Philosophy 1 (1):53-87.
The Transformation of Human Sociobiology.Philip Kitcher - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:63-74.
Marxism and Human Sociobiology: A Comparative Study From the Perspective of Modern Socialist Economic Reforms. [REVIEW]Zhang Boshu - 1987 - Biology and Philosophy 2 (4):463-474.
E. O. Wilson After Twenty Years: Is Human Sociobiology Possible?Antony Flew - 1994 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24 (3):320-335.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge University Press.
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.Edward O. Wilson - 1975 - Journal of the History of Biology 33 (3):577-584.