Editing Sociobiology (section)

==Reception==

[[Steven Pinker]] argues that critics have been overly swayed by politics and a fear of [[biological determinism]],{{efn |Biological determinism was a philosophy underlying the [[social Darwinism |social Darwinian]] and [[Eugenics#History |eugenics movements]] of the early 20th century, and [[History of the race and intelligence controversy |controversies in the history of intelligence testing]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Allen |first1=Garland E. |title=The Roots of Biological Determinism: review of The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould |journal=Journal of the History of Biology |date=1984 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=141–145 |jstor=4330882 |doi=10.1007/bf00397505 |pmid=11611452 |s2cid=29672121 }}</ref>}} accusing among others [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin]] of being "radical scientists", whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science,<ref>{{cite book |author=Pinker, Steven |author-link=Steven Pinker |title=The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature |publisher=Penguin Books |location=New York |year=2002 |page=149 |isbn=978-0-14-200334-3 |quote=A surprising number of intellectuals, particularly on the left, do deny that there is such a thing as inborn talent, especially intelligence. Stephen Jay Gould's 191 bestseller ''The Mismeasure of Man'' was written to debunk 'the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity ... and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness' |title-link=The Blank Slate }}</ref> while Lewontin, [[Steven Rose]] and [[Leon Kamin]], who drew a distinction between the politics and history of an idea and its scientific validity,<ref name=lrk84>{{cite book |author1=Richard Lewontin |author2=Leon Kamin |author3=Steven Rose |title=Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature |url=https://archive.org/details/notinourgenes00rich |url-access=registration |publisher=Pantheon Books |year=1984 |isbn=978-0-394-50817-7}}</ref> argue that sociobiology fails on scientific grounds. Gould grouped sociobiology with [[eugenics]], criticizing both in his book ''[[The Mismeasure of Man]]''.<ref>{{cite book |author=Gould, Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |year=1996 |title=The Mismeasure of Man |url=https://archive.org/details/mismeasureofman00goul_1 |url-access=registration |page=Introduction to the Revised Edition}}</ref> When [[Napoleon Chagnon]] scheduled sessions on sociobiology at the 1976 [[American Anthropological Association]] convention, other scholars attempted to cancel them with what Chagnon later described as "Impassioned accusations of racism, fascism and Nazism"; [[Margaret Mead]]'s support caused the sessions to occur as scheduled.<ref name="eakin20130213">{{Cite news |last=Eakin |first=Emily |date=2013-02-17 |title=Who Are the Real Savages? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/napoleon-chagnon-americas-most-controversial-anthropologist.html |access-date=2024-07-03 |work=The New York Times Magazine |pages=32 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

[[Noam Chomsky]] has expressed views on sociobiology on several occasions. During a 1976 meeting of the [[Sociobiology Study Group]], as reported by [[Ullica Segerstråle]], Chomsky argued for the importance of a sociobiologically informed notion of human nature.{{sfn |Segerstråle |2000 |p=205}} Chomsky argued that human beings are biological organisms and ought to be studied as such, with his criticism of the "[[blank slate]]" doctrine in the social sciences (which would inspire a great deal of Steven Pinker's and others' work in evolutionary psychology), in his 1975 ''[[Reflections on Language]]''.<ref>[[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky, Noam]] (1975), ''[[Reflections on Language]]'':10. New York: Pantheon Books.</ref> Chomsky further hinted at the possible reconciliation of his anarchist political views and sociobiology in a discussion of [[Peter Kropotkin]]'s ''[[Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution]]'', which focused more on altruism than aggression, suggesting that anarchist societies were feasible because of an innate human tendency to cooperate.<ref>[[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky, Noam]] (1995). [http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199505--.htm#TXT2.23 "Rollback, Part II."] ''Z Magazine'' 8 (Feb.): 20–31.</ref>

Wilson has claimed that he had never meant to imply what ''ought'' to be, only what ''is'' the case. However, some critics have argued that the language of sociobiology readily slips from "is" to "ought",<ref name=lrk84/> an instance of the [[naturalistic fallacy]]. Pinker has argued that opposition to stances considered anti-social, such as ethnic nepotism, is based on [[morality |moral]] assumptions, meaning that such opposition is not [[falsifiable]] by scientific advances.<ref name=Pinker2002>[[Steven Pinker |Pinker, Steven]] (2002). ''The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature''. New York: Viking. p. 145</ref> The history of this debate, and others related to it, are covered in detail by {{harvtxt|Cronin|1993}}, {{harvtxt|Segerstråle|2000}}, and {{harvtxt|Alcock|2001}}.