Slashdot Mirror
Nature Vs. Nurture: Waging War Over the Soul of Science
derekmead writes "Wherever determinism appears, controversy attends, raising specters of days when colonialists, eugenicists, public health officials, and political idealists believed they could cure the human condition through manipulation and force. Understanding those fears helps shed light on the controversy surrounding a recent paper (PDF) published in the American Economic Review, entitled, 'The "Out of Africa" Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development.' In it, economists Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor argue that the economic development of broad human populations correlate with their levels of genetic diversity—which is, in turn, pinned to the distance its inhabitants migrated from Africa thousands of years ago. Reaction has been swift and vehement.
An article signed by 18 academics in Current Anthropology accuses the researchers of 'bad science' — 'something false and undesirable' based on 'weak data and methods' that 'can become a justification for reactionary policy.' The paper attacks everything from its sources of population data to its methods for measuring genetic diversity, but the economists are standing by their methods. The quality of Ashraf and Galor's research notwithstanding, the debate illustrates just how tricky it's become to assert anything which says something about human development was in any way inevitable."
Clearly, the African continent is home only to the most primitive peoples. It's not a place that would birth historically powerful, flourishing civilizations whose large-scale engineering feats would be regarded among the "wonders of the world" millennia later. Oh, wait...
That is said in regard to hard sciences. Not the soft, "social" sciences. Trying to equate the two is to try to muddy things.
Hmm, what field of "science" most deserves those quotation marks? Macroeconomics, or cultural anthropology?
This is seriously a tough one.
Yes. The article can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669034
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
You have to be kidding. The very definition of hard sciences is in the rigour. Things like testable predictions, controlled experiments, quantifiability, etc., are the hallmarks of the hard sciences.
It's not that the soft sciences are without any rigour, but it isn't to the same degree because we can't do it to the same degree.
Also, in the last paragraph, there are two problems. First, the whole paragraph is an argument that hard vs. soft is a meaningful distinction that is more prone to the science being settled, which was exactly the GPs point that you were arguing against, so you paradoxically just started arguing against yourself.
Second, you say
the "soft sciences" are a hell of a lot _harder_
. It's hard to tell whether this is meant to be cute wordplay or you're really equivocating, but you should say "more difficult" instead of "harder". I would agree that it's more difficult to come to a consistent conclusion in the soft sciences. I would disagree that they are simply more difficult -- the fact that you can take more steps in physics and chemistry is an invitation to take those steps. All the sciences are beyond humanity's grasp so they are all basically equally difficult on their frontiers.
this is a war between scientists and a bunch of postmodernists parading around in lab coats shouting down results they don't like (cultural anthropologists.)
Umm, no. I take it you didn't even read the summary of either paper.
The economists claim that “the high degree of diversity among African populations and the low degree of diversity among Native American populations have been a detrimental force in the development of these regions.” In other words, that only populations with the "right" amount of genetic diversity (i.e. matching Europe) are likely to be successful. The rest of the scientific community points out that they have defined their terms in a way that gives the results that they want, and ignore existing standard means of measuring genetic diversity.
Africa is less than a century out of independence from various European powers.
Using colonialism as an explanation for lack of economic progress isn't supported by the evidence. The African country with the longest and most pervasive colonization was South Africa. The country with the least was Ethiopia, which maintained its independence except for a few years of Italian control in the 1930s. Yet South Africa is near the top of the African economic pile, while Ethiopia is near the bottom. There are plenty of other examples. Countries with long periods of colonization, much interaction between the locals and the colonists, and lasting European-style laws and civil institutions, are doing far better than countries where colonialism was less influential.