It seems to me that applying biological reasoning to social/political questions is a good, even necessary, thing-- within limit. The problem with taking a primarily biological approach to political questions is that such reasoning will always be biased towards simpler, monocausal explanations (and therefore, towards genetics over environment, because understanding the environmental effects on humans is much harder than discovering how their genes effect them.), ala Crick.

i'm having a hard time parsing your comment because it seems too general. what is a 'biological approach to political questions' after all? in my experience talking to biologists or graduate students in biology or undergraduates who are advanced in their biological thinking almost none of them with an evolutionary orientation has not considered eugenical models. i know this because i attempt to probe this out of curiosity. there's no way you can think and breath evolution without allowing this enter in your mind IMO.

in any case, neither crick nor hamilton seem to my knowledge to be very philosphical, or give due considerations toward the rarity of their psychological and social predispositions. my assessment of crick is pure supposition based on a small sample of comments i've seen him make and passing statements i've seen in his scientifically oriented exposition (e.g., 'the astonishing hypothesis'), but i've read the first 2 volumes of hamilton's collection of papers with their biographic notes, and he was a man of child-like naivete. their utilitarian calculations are crude, and ironically for biologists they don't (i think) take into account the practical moral instincts which are overwhelmingly powerful in most human beings in all circumstances and situations (despite hamilton's lack of illusions about the goodness of nature nature in the generality, he seemed to me to lack specific subtly in regards to exactly how devilish h. sapiens can be).

as for the relationship between genes and environment, i assume crick understood the concept of heritability. the key are issues of the components of variation. hamilton did lean too heavily on the ground which he was familiar with (again, judging by his own comments), genetics. but that's certainly true of social scientists as well in regards to their particular field. but in the defense of crick & hamilton i would contend that the null hypothesis should not be that it is environment unless proven otherwise in regards to all behavior, and more strongly that not all behavioral variation is simply due to variation in exogenous inputs. using this null is a i think a recipe for bad social engineering.

i'm having a hard time parsing your comment because it seems too general. what is a 'biological approach to political questions' after all?

By "a biological approach to political questions" I'm referring to forming political views based primarily on biology as opposed to history (this is the one that seems safest to go by) and political philosophy and economics.

When I look at the history of science and the scientific method I see the same thing you say in your review of the Geography of Thought: "The European tendency to be dogmatic about rational points and attack and tear down contradictions until a coherent model emerges is much more fruitful in the context of scientific progress-Europeans have made many mistakes (phlogistan? ether?), but for every hundred errors one discovers a gem of truth"

What it comes down to for me is: Should we be making changes to our political order that affect the well-being of millions of people because of theories that have been produced by a method that *eventually* reaches the truth but in the mean time misses the mark dozens of times?

The answer to that question should of course be yes in many instances... but in cases where millions of people would be harmed if the theory at hand isn't true, I think it shouldn't be involved in policy discussions. To stay on topic, I would say that group IQ differences should be taken into account when considering certain policies, because even the most limited reading of them introduces significant implications. But should their causes and malleability be taken into account? I would say no, not until the alternatives have been ruled out. I would say we're not at that point yet.

But I worry that many scientists like Crick would just go with what they see as the most supported hypothesis and say it should be the basis of public policy.

but in the defense of crick & hamilton i would contend that the null hypothesis should not be that it is environment unless proven otherwise in regards to all behavior, and more strongly that not all behavioral variation is simply due to variation in exogenous inputs. using this null is a i think a recipe for bad social engineering.

I've never thought about this particular question... but off the top of my head I'd say that if the relevant science is not very strong (like 99% likely/accurate) we should go with the policy that would least harm people if the science went contrary to the decision. this is why i'd say we have to assume global warming is primarily anthropogenic when we make our policies, even though I'm only about 80-90% sure of the science behind that view. as for questions where human biology was the field of the relevant question(s), this would in most cases favor assuming genetics, but in other cases it wouldn't (such as eugenics).

By "a biological approach to political questions" I'm referring to forming political views based primarily on biology as opposed to history (this is the one that seems safest to go by) and political philosophy and economics.

the norms don't derive from biology usually though (at least proximately). biology is usually a means. e.g., hamilton wanted infanticide to prevent suffering through genetic disease, etc.

What it comes down to for me is: Should we be making changes to our political order that affect the well-being of millions of people because of theories that have been produced by a method that *eventually* reaches the truth but in the mean time misses the mark dozens of times?


doesn't exist in a vacuum. what's the likelihood of sociological or historical theories? we have to deal with a range of possibilities of less than one probability.

but off the top of my head I'd say that if the relevant science is not very strong (like 99% likely/accurate) we should go with the policy that would least harm people if the science went contrary to the decision.

can you give a specific example of what you're thinking about.

the norms don't derive from biology usually though. biology is usually a means. e.g., hamilton wanted infanticide to prevent suffering through genetic disease, etc.

In the case of the IQ controversy, biology would indeed be the basis for policies in addition to the "means" if we were to take Gottferdson or Flynn's writings as indications.

what's the likelihood of sociological or historical theories?

I agree that theories which claim to find patterns in history or society should not guide public policy. What I was saying-- and which I should've said more clearly)-- is that the facts observed by history and sociology/anthropology should be the main guide of public policy, not their theories. As far as probability, I think it's reasonable to say that the probability that Germany lost WWII is way more likely than any theory anything having to do with IQ.

can you give a specific example of what you're thinking about.

i believe i did give examples of how i would apply my view, specifically to the issues of global warming and eugenics respectively.. were these examples not satisfactory..? if so, why?

In the case of the IQ controversy, biology would indeed be the basis for policies in addition to the "means" if we were to take Gottferdson or Flynn's writings as indications.

i think it's more accurate to say that norms are filtered through a biological lens.

s that the facts observed by history and sociology/anthropology should be the main guide of public policy, not their theories.

what about facts of biology? e.g., the difference between males and females?

this is not totally clear to me: but off the top of my head I'd say that if the relevant science is not very strong (like 99% likely/accurate) we should go with the policy that would least harm people if the science went contrary to the decision. that's why i asked for more specific examples before i assume things.

i think it's more accurate to say that norms are filtered through a biological lens.

sure.

what about facts of biology? e.g., the difference between males and females?

they should be taken into account of course.. this is why our anti-rape laws are presumably built upon the premise that it's usually men doing the raping. as for most theories of gender difference, i would be very cautious about using them for making public policy at this moment in time.

..

ok, i wrote: if the relevant science is not very strong (like 99% likely/accurate) we should go with the policy that would least harm people if the science went contrary to the decision.

What I'm saying is that, in the case of a policy decision which has an outcome that hinges on the validity of a given scientific theory which has less than a 99% (yes, I pulled this number out of my ass) chance of being true, we should ask two questions:

1) If we don't act on the assumption that this theory is valid, and it turns out that it was in fact a valid theory, how much would the people of this nation suffer as a result?
2) If we do act on the assumption that this theory is valid, and it turns out that it was a false theory, how much would the people of this nation suffer as a result?

We should go with the policy decision that would harm people least if the scientific assumption behind it proved false. That's what I'm saying.

what about facts of biology? e.g., the difference between males and females?

Note that I did say earlier in this discussion: I would say that group IQ differences should be taken into account when considering certain policies, because even the most limited reading of them introduces significant implications.

So I'm always for using biological facts in our policies... it's the theories where we have to start asking questions about whether policy should be based on them.

I suspect that their moral sense was a bit deviated from the central tendency...which isn't always a bad thing so long as you don't allow them to manipulate the levers of executive power in an autocracy.

Why wouldn't that be a primary qualification for executive power?

Why wouldn't that be a primary qualification for executive power?

francis crick did propose things like mandatory death penalty at a the age of 80. to my knowledge he didn't follow this prescription himself...but it suggests some tendencies.

The power of intellectuals in forming public policy is often inverse to the degree of democracy.

We should go with the policy decision that would harm people least if the scientific assumption behind it proved false. That's what I'm saying.

ok, so why even include 1)?

or, more precisely, what would the sequence/relation of 1 & 2 be in your chain of decisions?

ok... let's say -10 = everyone dies and 10 = everyone lives a perfect life. 0 means nothing changes in how life goes for most people.

Decision 1: If science that it's based on is true, 3. If science that it's based on is false, -5.
Decision 2: If science that it's based on is true, 0. If the science behind decision 1 is false, 0.

Here I would say we should go with decision 2 unless decision 1 has a great deal of evidence and is around 99% certainty.

The reason you need to look at both decisions and ask questions about both is because you need to compare them to see which one is the risk worth taking.

Just to make clear, decision 2 in the above example represents doing nothing, while decision 1 represents making a change to policy based on a given theory.

soundz mighty close to type i & ii errors....

I think one important point is how fruitful the now nearly-universally denounced Galtonian tradition has been of great scientific discoveries.

Francis Crick, it appears, was even _named_ after Francis Galton!