Re(2): Back a bit to Bowles and Gintis

From: Martin Owen (mowen@rem.bangor.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 11 2001 - 09:38:53 PDT


xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>It would appear to me that our current view is more a response to the
>concrete aspect of scientific thought. Abstract thought is so
>individualized
>it is impossible for a large group of people to agree on the
>representation
>of of its concepts. Whether we like it or not there is a biological
>aspect
>to any theory that explains psychological processes; ontogenetically or
>phylogentically linked.
>
>With regards,
>Eric

Eric , Biology is a theory and should not be given primacy over any
approach to investigating problems.

I urge you to read Steven Rose's "Lifelines: Biology beyond determinism"
or at least the bit they give you for free on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0195120353/excerpt/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_3/102-4930787-1076163

Martin

"A big Hi to all you sentient beings out there. For the rest of you, the
trick is to bang the rocks together."
D.N.Adams (1952-2001)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:01:03 PDT