Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
However, psychology and sociology are not fundamental to biology, so explaining homosexuality from a biological point of view works just fine.
|
I follow your line of reasoning and I understand the hierarchy paradigm you're arguing but I think the issue here is that we disagree on this key assumption--my argument is that psychological and social factors are very much at play in biology, both fundamentally and as a scientific discipline; the relationship between the two is dialectical and can't really be teased apart.
I don't feel fully equipped to get into the depths of the first part of that argument on my own, but isn't it generally accepted that psychological stimuli can have imprinted effects on the body and it's development and progeny? Like I say, I'm not in depth enough in that particular realm of scientific thought to be fully comfortable getting into it with someone who clearly is, but I do know there's a school of thought that feels the superorganic model (which, if my understanding is correct, corresponds to that hierarchy you describe) is, at best, inadequate.
But there's also an epistemological effect in play, and that I do feel comfortable talking about. In a radically simple form, it's basically the idea that scientists are human and active participants in culture and therefore--because scientific data require interpretation and context to have any meaning--no science can be perfectly objective or independent of pervasive cultural norms. In other words, that knowledge is not necessarily concrete--what science is being done and how is based on a system of what knowledge we value and there are things that we don't know, not because the information isn't available, but because we--as a culture, not necessarily as individuals--choose to not investigate, ignore or reframe it. You said yourself that there is a common misperception about the science among laymen that's been demonstrated even here. I'm suggesting that that misperception doesn't exist in a vacuum and that the same knowledge patterns that inform it can also inform the path scientific discovery can take even among people who "should" know better, as well as--in the case of sexuality--also having a multitude of intra-social and political effects justified by a misperception of science.
Quote:
|
When I read your post, it seems like a complaint against those who think the only thing worth knowing about homosexuality is what you can determine from biological theory. I would agree that's complaint-worthy and for a whole picture of what homosexuality is, we need to add the social fluff. However, a more dangerous error is when social sciences and the like fail to include biology. It's like building a house of cards and any rustling in the foundations (biology) can tip it.
|
So, in essence, you're right--that is what I was trying to address. But I don't think you can really say that one side is more dangerous than the other (nor could one fairly characterize the social aspect as "fluff")--doing so, especially when the scientific community itself (versus a layperson) does so, makes it that much easier to foster that misperception that biological theory can explain everything. And, as I said earlier, that misperception can be exploited.