Nature, nurture, and politics

Neven SESARDIC

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Political imputations in science are notoriously a tricky business. I addressed this issue in the context of the nature–nurture debate in the penultimate chapter of my book Making Sense of Heritability (Cambridge U. P. 2005). Although the book mainly dealt with the logic of how one should think about heritability of psychological differences, it also discussed the role of politics in our efforts to understand the dynamics of that controversy. I first argued that if a scholar publicly defends a certain view (say, hereditarianism) in the debate about IQ, race and genetics this fact alone cannot justify attributing a political motivation to that person. But then later I suggested that the pressure of political correctness could explain some peculiarities of the contemporary controversy about the heritability of group differences in IQ. Several reviewers of my book raised a tu quoque objection. Am I not doing here the same thing that I condemn others for?
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)433-436
Number of pages4
JournalBiology and Philosophy
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2010

Fingerprint

politics
Politics
heritability
Psychology
Pressure
Nature-nurture
Heritability

Cite this

SESARDIC, Neven. / Nature, nurture, and politics. In: Biology and Philosophy. 2010 ; Vol. 25, No. 3. pp. 433-436.
@article{c69b1221a6734403a81cd1a5b8366fc1,
title = "Nature, nurture, and politics",
abstract = "Political imputations in science are notoriously a tricky business. I addressed this issue in the context of the nature–nurture debate in the penultimate chapter of my book Making Sense of Heritability (Cambridge U. P. 2005). Although the book mainly dealt with the logic of how one should think about heritability of psychological differences, it also discussed the role of politics in our efforts to understand the dynamics of that controversy. I first argued that if a scholar publicly defends a certain view (say, hereditarianism) in the debate about IQ, race and genetics this fact alone cannot justify attributing a political motivation to that person. But then later I suggested that the pressure of political correctness could explain some peculiarities of the contemporary controversy about the heritability of group differences in IQ. Several reviewers of my book raised a tu quoque objection. Am I not doing here the same thing that I condemn others for?",
author = "Neven SESARDIC",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10539-009-9159-9",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "433--436",
journal = "Biology and Philosophy",
issn = "0169-3867",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

Nature, nurture, and politics. / SESARDIC, Neven.

In: Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.06.2010, p. 433-436.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nature, nurture, and politics

AU - SESARDIC, Neven

PY - 2010/6/1

Y1 - 2010/6/1

N2 - Political imputations in science are notoriously a tricky business. I addressed this issue in the context of the nature–nurture debate in the penultimate chapter of my book Making Sense of Heritability (Cambridge U. P. 2005). Although the book mainly dealt with the logic of how one should think about heritability of psychological differences, it also discussed the role of politics in our efforts to understand the dynamics of that controversy. I first argued that if a scholar publicly defends a certain view (say, hereditarianism) in the debate about IQ, race and genetics this fact alone cannot justify attributing a political motivation to that person. But then later I suggested that the pressure of political correctness could explain some peculiarities of the contemporary controversy about the heritability of group differences in IQ. Several reviewers of my book raised a tu quoque objection. Am I not doing here the same thing that I condemn others for?

AB - Political imputations in science are notoriously a tricky business. I addressed this issue in the context of the nature–nurture debate in the penultimate chapter of my book Making Sense of Heritability (Cambridge U. P. 2005). Although the book mainly dealt with the logic of how one should think about heritability of psychological differences, it also discussed the role of politics in our efforts to understand the dynamics of that controversy. I first argued that if a scholar publicly defends a certain view (say, hereditarianism) in the debate about IQ, race and genetics this fact alone cannot justify attributing a political motivation to that person. But then later I suggested that the pressure of political correctness could explain some peculiarities of the contemporary controversy about the heritability of group differences in IQ. Several reviewers of my book raised a tu quoque objection. Am I not doing here the same thing that I condemn others for?

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2341

U2 - 10.1007/s10539-009-9159-9

DO - 10.1007/s10539-009-9159-9

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 25

SP - 433

EP - 436

JO - Biology and Philosophy

JF - Biology and Philosophy

SN - 0169-3867

IS - 3

ER -