David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science in Context 23 (1):121 (2010)
An old aphorism claims that “The person who defines the terms of the debate can win it.” This paper argues that the debate between evolutionary psychologists and cultural anthropologists over the biological explanation of human behavior is framed by a larger definitional dispute over the question, “What is culture?” Both disciplines attempt to define “culture” to build their disciplines, but were engaged in different kinds of arguments by definition. Definitional arguments often take one of two forms. A real definition takes the form “What is X?” In this view, we should use the word “X” in a particular way because that is what X really is. The other form of definitional argument, pragmatic definition, takes the form, “How should we use the term X?” In this view, an arguer puts for reasons for using the term “X” in a particular way. Evolutionary psychologists are engaged in argument by real definition. In their “manifesto” for evolutionary psychology, Tooby and Cosmides argue that the explanations of social or cultural behavior in the social sciences are “incoherent” because they attempt to explain such behavior “psychological phenomena without describing or even mentioning the evolved mechanisms their theories would require to be complete or coherent”. Because humans are biological creatures, cultural explanations must include biology because culture really is biological. Hence, biology is a necessary part of explanations of human culture. Cultural anthropologists engaged in argument by persuasive definition. A close examination of Kroeber’s writings reveals, however, that he readily acknowledged that humans were biological and culture rested on a biological foundation. He argued that we should treat culture as autonomous in our explanatory schemes because that would bring benefits to the biological sciences as well as the human sciences. In his writings, Kroeber reveals himself as a staunch Darwinian who argues for the autonomy of cultural anthropology on pragmatic, not on ontological grounds. Hence, the historical caricature of his work by evolutionary psychology fails
|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
Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides & John Tooby (eds.) (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press.
Ian Hacking (1999). The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press.
John Dupré (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1963). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Clement Levallois (2011). Why Were Biological Analogies in Economics “A Bad Thing”? Edith Penrose's Battles Against Social Darwinism and McCarthyism. Science in Context 24 (4):465-485.
Similar books and articles
Marko Barendregt & René Van Hezewijk (2005). Adaptive and Genomic Explanations of Human Behaviour: Might Evolutionary Psychology Contribute to Behavioural Genomics? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):57-78.
Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee & Marcus W. Feldman (2000). Niche Construction, Biological Evolution, and Cultural Change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):131-146.
Dr Liane M. Gabora (forthcoming). The Fate of Evolutionary Archaeology: Survival or Extinction? Philosophical Explorations.
Russell Powell (2012). The Future of Human Evolution. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (1):145-175.
Jean Lachapelle (2000). Cultural Evolution, Reductionism in the Social Sciences, and Explanatory Pluralism. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (3):331-361.
Stephen M. Downes (2014). Evolutionary Psychology, Adaptation and Design. In P. Huneman & M. Silberstein (eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Springer. pp. 659-673.
Dan Sperber, Why a Deep Understanding of Cultural Evolution is Incompatible with Shallow Psychology.
Riccardo Viale, D. Andler & Lawrence A. Hirschfeld (eds.) (2006). Biological and Cultural Bases of Human Inference. Lawerence Erlbaum.
Alex Mesoudi, Andrew Whiten & Kevin N. Laland (2006). Towards a Unified Science of Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):329-347.
Bart Voorzanger (1987). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology VIII. Biology and Culture. Acta Biotheoretica 36 (1):23-34.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #165,810 of 1,924,735 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #417,923 of 1,924,735 )
How can I increase my downloads?