Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate
Segerstrale has interviewed all the major participants, including such eminent scientists as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard C. Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, Nobel Laureates Peter Medawar and Salvador Luria, and of course Edward Wilson. She reveals that most of the criticism of Wilson was unfair, but argues that it was not politically motivated. Instead, she sees the conflict over sociobiology as a drawn-out battle about the nature of "good science" and the social responsibility of the scientist. Behind the often nasty attacks were the very different approaches to science taken by naturalists (such as Wilson) and experimentalists (such as Lewontin), between the "planters" and the "weeders." The protagonists were all defenders of the truth, Segerstrale concludes, it was just that everyone's truth was different.
Defenders of the Truth touches on grand themes such as the unity of knowledge, human nature, and free will and determinism, and it shows how the sociobiology controversy can shed light on the more recent debates over the Human Genome Project and The Bell Curve. It will appeal to all readers of Edward O. Wilson or Stephen Jay Gould and all those who enjoy a behind-the-scenes peek at modern science.
- ISBN-100192862154
- ISBN-13978-0192862150
- PublisherOxford University Press
- Publication dateMay 31, 2001
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions7.4 x 1.3 x 4.8 inches
- Print length504 pages
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Customers who bought this item also bought
Editorial Reviews
Review
Book Description
About the Author
From The Washington Post
Product details
- Publisher : Oxford University Press (May 31, 2001)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 504 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0192862154
- ISBN-13 : 978-0192862150
- Item Weight : 1.18 pounds
- Dimensions : 7.4 x 1.3 x 4.8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,978,004 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #664 in Physical Anthropology (Books)
- #1,731 in Anthropology (Books)
- #6,060 in Evolution (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on May 1, 2003This is a lovely book - for a certain type of person. First of all, you must care about the long-running nature/nurture controversy that swirled around the publication, in 1975, of E.O. Wilson's book Sociobiology. Also, ideally, you have long sympathized with Wilson as against his main critics, Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould. That is, you must have long felt that Wilson's assertions in that book and later ones about the heritability of cultural and mental traits in humans were reasonable-perhaps wrong in some details, but certainly interesting, and good starting points. Finally, you should find it intriguing that these three biologists were all at Harvard, and had offices in the same building.
I fit the bill. In 1979 I read Michael Ruse's book "Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense?" (Sense, he concluded.) I had no sympathy for using Marxism to critique work in science or anyplace else, which is where Lewontin and (less-blatantly) Gould were coming from. Moreover, there was something so right about the idea that humans have predilections that work themselves out in culture, and so exciting about the prospects for this kind of self-knowledge, that I felt the critics of the sort of research that Wilson was proposing were spoilsports, indeed.
But the time was not right. The critics got the best of things early on, and the name "sociobiology" acquired such a stigma that those who wished to do research (and get funded) in genetic influences on the human mind were advised to tread lightly and call their work something else. But things changed. What emerged in the 1990's was something called "evolutionary psychology", a new name for bad old "sociobiology", now respectable and in tune with current public attitudes, which have made a massive shift to a gene-centered view of - well, of just about everything.
Have I just given away the game? Perhaps, but you will have to take my word for it that this book is fun to read - if you enjoy the thrust and parry of ideas and the clash of egos. And, of course, scientists' pettiness and careerism is more entertaining than their usual posturing on pedestals engraved with "The Noble Search for Truth".
In 1980 and 1981 a young (I assume) Ullica got interviews with the main protagonists in the debates - Wilson, Lewontin, Levins, and others in America, plus various of the British contingent as well, such as Dawkins and Maynard Smith. Her area of study was the sociology of science, and she did some shaking and baking early on, using her material for contingent articles. But she kept a weather eye on how things were going in what was really a clash that exposed cultural fault lines in evolutionary biologists who were, fundamentally, on the same side. (Creationists they were not. Some of them might want to refine Darwin, but certainly none of them wanted to reject him!)
Now is a good time to sum up the course this debate has taken over the last quarter-century. The original political rationale seems quaint, and the focus has shifted to concern about how genetics and environment interact - it being more or less agreed that both are crucial. (Thus, an Hegelian synthesis of the dialectical process!) If you wish to know the history and drama of issues such as genes vs. environment, kin selection, group selection, the place of moral responsibility in a world of genetic "determinism", then this is the place to come. These and other issues are explored in a quietly comprehensive way. The personalities also come out, and the whole has the feel of a story, which of course it is, to its main players. And to you, too, if you take it up.
- Reviewed in the United States on December 20, 2001My mentor Bill Drury once said that "real scientific controversies never get resolved, the participants simply get old and die, and the rest of us wonder what the fuss was all about". This may be the case in the "sociobiology wars" certainly the tone of many reviewers here is that Segerstrale has written an epitaph for the debate, but one can't help wondering -especially given the increasingly shrill claims of the "evolutionary psychologists" if what we have in DEFENDERS OF TRUTH isn't more of a cautionary tale of the effects of hubris. In any case Segerstrale has done us all an enormous service with this highly readable look behind the scenes at one of the most violent arguments in biology in the 20th Century. Perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of the book is the personal glimpses that we get of the primary players, but Segerstrale doesn't scrimp on the science within the battle or the contexts within which it is played out. I have found a great deal of useful lecture material for a number of courses here and I also find the book a valuable debunker of many of the legends that have grown up over the years. I also find Segerstrale's discussion of the essential unity of Wilson's work quite compelling -the outer shell changes, the fundamental core hasn't. My only quibble would be in terms of the conclusion "It ain't over till it's over..."
- Reviewed in the United States on November 26, 2010This is a difficult book to rate because it has many virtues and as many faults. It is an extremely useful historical account of the Sociobiology debates and their context in the Science Wars. The book is 400 pages worth of detail on the writings, conferences, behind the scenes maneuvering; much of which the author was personal witness to. As such it is an invaluable source of information, as well as an extremely thorough bibliography of important writings on the subject. The author is a good writer and though a sociologist has at least some science background (though not in biology) so is able to delve into some of the technical issues on the subject.
On the negative side: the journalistic account of the affair is useful, but when the author tries to do academic sociological and philosophical theorizing about it, things go downhill. Do we really need such concepts as "parallel meaning universes," "optimization strategies," "alternative critical conceptions," "coupled reasoning," or the strange distinction between scientific "planters" and "weeders"? The author's obsession with categorizing and dichotomizing leads to polarizing the debate even more than it already is. It really seems unlikely that the whole dispute can be explained in terms of two philosophical schools, "metaphysicians" versus "logicians." It is also troubling that the author repeatedly purports to resolve these biological disputes and tell us which side is right on particular questions, despite the fact that the author is not a biologist. Apparently she thinks the disputes are merely sociological not biological, so that a sociologist can decide them.
Even worse, the author has decided in advance that one side is right and the other not only wrong but entirely ideologically motivated. The sociobiologists are portrayed as serious scientific inquirers after truth, whose only fault is their naivete in that they did not foresee the vicious, politically motivated attacks by their critics. In her portrayal, the biologists who criticize sociobiology are all dogmatic Marxists who will not tolerate any departure from correct political doctrine. Not only that they are nasty, mean-spirited, and unfair. At the end, she declares that the sociobiologists are the "winners" of the debate, "without a doubt" and have been "vindicated" from all the "unfair" accusations.
Needless to say this is a wholly inaccurate characterization. Both sides bear some blame for their unfairness, and both sides involve well-meaning scientific inquiries after the truth. The author seems unable to grasp the possibility that people might in genuine good faith be worried about the moral and political misuses of sociobiology, or that there might be a genuine scientific dispute here. And as a result she neglects the non-political criticisms of sociobiology that critique much of it on purely scientific grounds, for example as being speculative and based on flimsy evidence. Thus Kitcher's important critique Vaulting Ambition is barely mentioned, probably because Kitcher has no discernible political agenda; his serious criticism of SB is dismissed as being merely "hard-nosed" (whatever that means). The author seems to have a preconception that the critics of SB must be motivated by deeper, political reasons and cannot be engaged in objective science. Nor is it clear by any means who has won the debate. Some sociobiologists do very good work, but much of it is mere speculation dressed up as science. The debate is not over by any means, despite what the author believes.
ADDENDUM: One factual correction to make. On p. 23, the author describes the infamous ice water incident as involving a "pitcher" of ice water being thrown over E.O. Wilson. But as Stephen Jay Gould relates in The Hedgehog, The Fox & The Magister's Pox, this reflects the later embellishment and exaggeration of the incident. In fact, it was a small cup, not a pitcher full of water. A minor difference, perhaps, but one should also avoid exaggerating the martyrdom of Wilson (will we next hear that he was waterboarded?)
Top reviews from other countries
- Luc REYNAERTReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 19, 2010
5.0 out of 5 stars Science and ideology
By dissecting painstakingly the sociobiology wars, Ullica Segerstråle exposes fundamental discussions about the nature of and the relationship between science, society, morality and politics.
The violent clash of egos revealed the deep chasm between the British and US scientific community. While in Great-Britain (R. Dawkins) science was considered as an autonomous activity (only the facts), the US scientists had a scientific-cum-moral agenda (no barrier between facts and values). This agenda set the ideologues (R. Lewontin, S. Gould) against the biologists-adaptionists (E.O. Wilson).
Sociobiology
Sociobiology is the systematic study of the biological basis of social behavior and the organization of societies in all kind of organisms. It considers that human sex role divisions, aggressiveness, moral concerns or religious beliefs can be linked to man's evolutionary heritage and underlying genetic disposition.
Aim of the biologists-adaptionists
E.O. Wilson's main aim was to force the social sciences to take biology seriously. He wanted to provide a genetically accurate and fair code of natural ethics for man, thereby showing that Christian theologians should not impose arbitrary moral codes which could generate unnecessary human suffering.
Vision of the ideologues
For the ideologues, scientific and political questions were inextricably linked. For them, sociobiologists tried to demonstrate that nature optimizes and that they thereby defended a social statu-quo: what exists is adaptive, what is adaptive is good, therefore what exists is good. The social inequalities, like race, gender, ethnicity, class, status, wealth, power, domination, are then seen as reflections of a natural order.
Richard Dawkins
Towering above the verbal wrestlers, Richard Dawkins stated rightly that values cannot be derived from nature. There is a fundamental distinction between science (how the world is) and politics (how the world ought to be).
The Lyssenko affair demonstrated clearly what happens when scientific objectivity is abandoned.
R. Dawkins rightly insulted the postmodernists as hypocrites for their vision of science (it represents only one way of knowing among others) and rightly attacked viruses of the mind, like religion, which had (and has) the ambition to explain the same things as science.
For a devastating verdict on postmodernism see G.G. Preparata.
(Science and politics)
Contrary to what S.A. Luria pretends, science is very important for politicians. It permitted them to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The more man knows how the world works, the more he can take action to improve life for everyone. As the great American scientist G.C. Williams stated: `natural selection, albeit stupid, is a story of unending arms races, slaughter and suffering. It is a law of nature and its immorality has to be accepted and, at least, to be thought about. `
While the extremely detailed scientific arms wrestling in this book will mostly appeal to scientists, I nevertheless recommend it highly to all those who want to understand the (scientific) world we live in.
- Lieven PauwelsReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 14, 2024
5.0 out of 5 stars excellent
High quality- book in very good shape, arrived just in time.
- F HenwoodReviewed in the United Kingdom on August 16, 2014
4.0 out of 5 stars The sociobiology dispute as opera
Back in 1975 a Harvard University biologist called E O Wilson published Sociobiology: the New Synthesis. Its last chapter posited that much of human behaviour may be influenced by genetics - perhaps more so than culture. Many left-leaning academics took offence and a twenty-five year academic spat broke out.
What this book does is to give an even-handed account of the sociobiology wars as it played out in both Britain and the United States from 1975 to the end of the 20th Century. The book is the product of 25 years research, based on close observation of the dispute as it ebbed and flowed, and meeting the principal protagonists of what she rightly describes as an `opera'.
It is very difficult to discern where the author herself stands in all this, which is reassuring; it gives one the impression that one is reading a balanced, non-partisan account. It elucidates what the parties to the dispute thought were at stake. Some of this seemed quite obscure - like whether the gene is the unit of selection. Wilson's opponents thought of themselves as `firefighters' extinguishing the wildfires of bad science. Their opponents in turn saw them as political police, suppressors of intellectual freedom.
This is a book with many shades of grey. Some radical scientists like Noam Chomsky accept an innatist basis for human nature - and refused to be co-opted into joining the opposition to Wilson and sociobiology generally. What it does not discuss is whether any of this had any impact on the public generally. Did Leowontin's apprehensions about the supposed misuse of sociobiology have any empirical support? But this would have made for a longer book. The aim of the book is to explain what the actors in this drama were thinking, what they thought they were doing, and what they thought their opponents were doing. This the book does very well.
But does any of this still matter? The war seems to have petered out now. There is greater acceptance that perhaps much of human behaviour is influenced - if not necessarily rigidly determined - by genes. The debate on the relationship between nature and nurture seems less polarised than it once was (evolutionary biology seems to me to looking in the right place when it examines the physical properties of the human brain for the origins of our sense of morality and so on. After all, where else are we supposed to look?). So why is this of any interest?
The answer is that the author shows that both camps were animated by moral values and differing conceptions of how science should be done and what it should be for - to change the world or merely to describe it? Science certainly generates plenty of facts. But facts alone never speak for themselves. They are interpreted. One can practise the scientific method impeccably but still come into conflict with other practitioners of integrity who are guided by different moral and political values - and draw different conclusions. All the protagonists in the sociobiology debate accepted evolution as a fact, and rejected a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena. But agreeing on such fundamentals did not guarantee immunisation from controversy.
It is often said that one cannot derive values from facts. That is probably true - but scientists' researches are often shaped by their own values which they bring into the lab, as this book dramtically shows. This is still of relevance to scientific practice today.
- Lana GermanovaReviewed in the United Kingdom on November 7, 2015
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Thank you