Biology and the Social Sciences

Abstract

For every discipline in its early stages of development there exists an antidisci pline. For many-body physics, particle physics; for chemistry, many-body physics; for molecular biology, chemistry; for cellular biology, molecular biol ogy; and so forth. With the word antidiscipline I wish to emphasize the special adversary relation that exists initially between the studies of adjacent levels of organization. This relationship is also creative, and with the passage of a great deal of time it becomes fully complementary. In this article I will argue that has now moved close enough to the sciences to become their antidiscipline. Hitherto has affected the sciences largely through technological manifestations such as the benefits of medicine, the mixed blessings of genetics, and the specter of population growth. Although of great practical importance, these matters are wholly trivial with reference to the conceptual foundation of the sciences. The conven tional academic treatments of ''social biology and social issues of biology present some formidable intellectual challenges, but they are not concerned with the core of theory. Many scholars judge this core to be the deep structure of human nature, an essentially biological phenomenon that is also the primary focus of the humanities. If it is true that is the antidiscipline of the sciences, the past failure of the sciences to develop a common body of theory is under standable. The reason is that the relevant branches of biology?neurobiology and sociobiology?are only now becoming mature enough to attain a juncture with the sciences. Although it would be premature to say that can revolutionize the sciences, at least to the extent that chemistry has revolu tionized biology, it would be equally premature to say that it cannot. This proposition is well worth examining. To that end I will first describe precedents from the history of biology, then turn to some developments within the individual sciences that suggest a growing susceptibility to biological explanation. Finally, acknowledging my obligation as a student of the antidisci pline, I will attempt to define the obviously strong limitations of biological re ductionism.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.