The only animals you'll usually find in municipal swimming pool are humans. It's the end of the year, though, and Maplewood, Missouri is one of many communities that invites dogs into the pool before draining the water. Out of curiosity, I visited Maplewood's pool today and saw numerous dogs anxious…
As I mentioned in two previous posts (here and here), I recently had the opportunity to attend several of the sessions of the “Future Directions in Genetic Studies” workshop at Washington University in St. Louis. One of the speakers was Carl Craver of Washington University. Craver's talk was titled, "The…
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently had the opportunity to attend some of the sessions of the “Future Directions in Genetic Studies” workshop at Washington University in St. Louis. One of the talks was by Paul Griffiths, a Philosophy professor from Sydney, Australia, who discussed “The Distinction between Innate and Acquired Characteristics.”
Griffiths’ talk focused on the troubled use of the word “innate.” Also troubled are various synonyms of “innate,” including “instinctual,” and “human nature.” These terms all seem to engender confusion more than anything else, because there is a wide variety of potential meanings to these terms. Can’t we all agree on what it means to be “innate,” so that we can understand each other when we use that word? As you see from this post, Griffiths is not optimistic.
Griffiths spent the first part of his lecture unpacking quite a bit of history of the biology of behavior. Many prominent scientists weighed on the use of the term “innate” during the 20th century. They include a staunch critic of behaviorism, Zing yang Kuo, “a terrific writer,” whose 1920 article, entitled “How are our Instincts acquired?” Griffiths highly recommended (I can’t find that article, but here is another of Kuo’s articles). Griffiths also mentioned the “instinct theorists,” including William McDougall (Griffiths commented that many of these theorists were actually dualists). Another of the instinct theorists was Niko Tinbergen, who argued that there is something about animal instincts that cannot be reduced.
Konrad Lorenz was …
Can one gene make a difference? Absolutely. One case in point is Tay-Sachs Disease, a physical condition where the central nervous system begins to degenerate in a four to six month old child who, until the onset of the disease, appeared normal. Individuals with Tay-Sachs disease have two copies of a genetic mutation, one copy inherited from each parent. In a carrier of Tay-Sachs, only one gene is different when compared to non-carriers. That’s how important one gene can be. When we’re talking about complex behaviors, though, can the “cause” really boil down to one gene? It’s unlikely.
I recently had the opportunity to attend several sessions of the “Future Directions in Genetic Studies” workshop at Washington University in St. Louis. On Friday, I attended a lively seminar led by Gar Allen, who teaches biology at Washington University. His talk was entitled “What’s Wrong with ‘The Gene for . . .’? Problems with Human Behavior Genetics and How to Combat Them.”
Allen opened his talk by asserting that claims about the genetic basis for complex human behaviors and traits are “notoriously difficult to investigate and replicate.” There is a long and troubled history of claims that genes are the cause of various conditions. For instance, in 1969, Arthur Jensen became the center of a storm when he wrote that Caucasians were more intelligent than African-Americans, suggesting that there was a genetic basis for this difference. Jensen’s position has been heavily criticized by numerous scientists on numerous …
There was to have been a broadcast debate today between a Creationist and a Biologist. Ray Comfort (of the Banana Proves Creationism fame) against PZ Myers (a.k.a Pharyngula). But the station wimped out, and broadcast Comfort in relative quiet comfort today, and will allow Myers to respond tomorrow morning (Weds.…