The Language of Politics

I've noticed in the comments and posting that there appears to be a general skepticism about science among a few students in the class. While the main focus of this class is not evolution or human development, this is Evergreen, and we tend to address issues with an interdisciplinary approach (that includes science). I'll try to outline the main risk I see in taking the view that science in general is "arrogant," "assuming," or "exploitive," and that somehow by studying things in a scientific manner, one becomes part of a system that oppresses people and destroys the planet.

First, the wholesale rejection of science is a choice for ignorance. This is never a good idea. Even if one feels that science is responsible for lots of bad things (nuclear bombs, pollution, etc.), it seems to me that one would still want to know about it just as a form of opposition research. If you believe that knowledge = power, and only the bad people have the knowledge about how to use science as a force for evil, then they have all the power that goes with that knowledge and will be able to do evil things unimpeded. So if you care about the human condition, it would be unwise to place yourself at a disadvantage with respect to your ability to understand and influence what happens in science and its applications.

Perhaps some are not skeptical about science, but see the application of evolutionary principles to the development of the human mind as problematic. To you folks, I recommend that you become more curious about the origins of the mind. It is my view that we will learn the answers to many difficult questions by using evolutionary principles to understand how adaptations shaped our psychology. The chief motivation for me is that if we don't understand what's happening in the human mind, we don't stand much of a chance of making the kinds of choices that will result in a more peaceful, compassionate and cooperative world.

Now, to those who perhaps accept that evolution may have shaped the mind in significant ways, but are concerned that this research will be used to justify patterns of behavior that are oppressive (i.e., sexism, racism, ablism, etc.), I agree that there is a danger. We must be careful to not fall into the trap of assuming that just because a pattern of behavior is evolved, it is somehow more "natural." This is a fallacy. Humans no longer live in the environment in which they evolved, so at some level, nothing is natural any more. What we need to do is use our morals and our intellect to decide what we think is right and fair. But this is a separate question from what is true about how the mind works. I believe that we can decide what is right and fair, but we need to know about how the mind works in order to implement those principles through laws and culture.

Finally, I would simply note that there is also a danger in doing nothing: namely, the perpetuation of the same system we presently have that already oppresses women, minorities, disabled, etc. To my mind, a refusal to look for alternatives to these types of oppression is irresponsible.

Here's an essay by Kenan Malik called "Genes, Environment, and Human Freedom."