It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology, genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to show that the way ''race'' was defined by biologists several decades ago (by Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.
In this book, Neven Sesardic defends the view that it is both possible and useful to measure the separate contributions of heredity and environment to the explanation of human psychological differences. He critically examines the view-very widely accepted by scientists, social scientists and philosophers of science-that heritability estimates have no causal implications and are devoid of any interest. In a series of clearly written chapters he introduces the reader to the problems and subjects the arguments to close philosophical scrutiny. His conclusion is that antiheritability arguments are based on conceptual confusions and misunderstandings of behavior genetics. His book is a fresh, original, and compelling intervention in a very contentious debate.
This report describes changes in the distribution of women and men in different types of full-time academic appointments at The University of Western Ontario for academic years 1991-92 through 1998-99, and provides summary evidence on the career progress of faculty in that period. It also draws comparisons between Western and other universities in Ontario and Canada, and it reviews Western's recruitment activity. Although the primary focus is on appointments to non-clinical regular full-time faculty positions, information is also presented for full-time clinical appointments.This report marks a transition in the methods used to gather and present information on academic appointments. Five changes are implemented with this report.1. Data on the distribution of faculty by rank and contract status will draw from the University's annual submissions to Statistics Canada for 1 October. In the past, this information for the gender survey was based on the employment records as of 2 July for recruitment and appointments over the previous academic year up to and including 1 July. This resulted in inconsistencies between Western's internal reports on gender and Western's reports to Statistics Canada. 2. Statistics Canada implemented a change in the definition of what constitutes a full-time appointment in 1991. For this reason, academic-year 1991-92 is chosen as the base year for comparisons with other universities. Prior to 1991, Statistics Canada treated 8-month academic appointments as full-time. 3. Index measures are provided on career progression by gender. It is hoped that information on years in rank and age at various career points will allow for more informed considerations of trends in faculty distribution over time. 4. Recruitment data on job applications, interviews, and appointments are aggregated by employment status and are analysed for trends for the period 1991-92 to the present. In the past, data on recruitment activity have been obtained by annual surveys of all academic units at Western. The reliability of published reports using the survey data was high, however, validation required extensive effort to assure standardised reporting procedures by all units. This process was complicated by frequent changes in the administrative staff responsible for the surveys by academic units. Starting in July 1999, the collection of these data is tied directly to faculty appointment notices. This will simplify the process of maintaining data reliability and will permit more informed reports in subsequent years. 5. Whereas previous reports combined recruitment data for appointments and reappointments, the analysis in this report emphasises new appointments of tenured, probationary, and limited-term faculty.
To operationalize the methodological assessment of evolutionary psychology, three requirements are proposed that, if satisfied, would show that a hypothesis is not a just-so story: (1) theoretical entrenchment (i.e., that the hypothesis under consideration is a consequence of a more fundamental theory that is empirically well-confirmed across a very wide range of phenomena), (2) predictive success (i.e., that the hypothesis generates concrete predictions that make it testable and eventually to a certain extent corroborated), and (3) failure of rival explanations (i.e., that crucial and successful predictions attributed to the hypothesis in question cannot be derived from alternative hypotheses). The author argues that the hypothesis about evolutionary sex differences in human jealousy satisfies all three requirements.
Philosophers of science widely believe that the hereditarian theory about racial differences in IQ is based on methodological mistakes and confusions involving the concept of heritability. I argue that this “received view” is wrong: methodological criticisms popular among philosophers are seriously misconceived, and the discussion in philosophy of science about these matters is largely disconnected from the real, empirically complex issues debated in science.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.