Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Despite publicly disavowing genetic determinism, biologis... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Despite publicly disavowing genetic determinism, biologists often implicitly adhere to a weaker form of genetic primacy, holding that traits are primarily (even if not wholly) genetic.

    BioethicsCausation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Biologists disavow the strong 'intervention is useless' form of genetic determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Yet Kaplan finds biologists frequently treat genes as causally primary among the factors influencing traits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No adequate basis for this primacy of genes over non-genetic causes has been established.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The methodological practice of holding environmental factors constant while varying genes reflects experimental design constraints, not ontological commitment to genetic primacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kenneth Waters' 'actual difference making' account shows geneticists privilege genes because they explain actual population variation, not because genes are causally superior in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A pragmatic, context-sensitive criterion for causal relevance is not equivalent to the metaphysical claim that genes are primary causes of traits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Developmental systems theorists like Susan Oyama have shown that gene-environment asymmetries in biological practice dissolve under a fully symmetric developmental systems ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no principled asymmetry survives Oyama's critique, Kaplan's charge of implicit genetic primacy identifies a correctable heuristic bias rather than a persistent theoretical commitment among biologists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    BioethicsCausation

    Key Terms

    Disavowing(in the statement about belief)
    Publicly rejecting or denying something; saying you don't believe in or support it.
    Genetic primacy(a bias that Kaplan thinks biologists have)
    The assumption that genes are the main or most important factor in determining how organisms develop and behave.
    Implicitly(describing a way the universe might be called 'God' without saying it outright)
    Suggested or contained within something without being directly stated or obvious.
    genetic determinism(Identified as a mistaken belief underlying concerns about cloning and identity.)
    The belief that who and what we become is entirely determined by our genes.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A pragmatic, context-sensitive criterion for causal relevance is not equivalent ...Biologists disavow the strong 'intervention is useless' form of genetic determin...Developmental systems theorists like Susan Oyama have shown that gene-environmen...If no principled asymmetry survives Oyama's critique, Kaplan's charge of implici...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: human-genome
    View source passageHide passage
    Yet, DNA is still portrayed as fundamental: in a public lecture held in celebration of the completion of the HGP, Collins characterized the HGP as “an amazing adventure into ourselves, to understand our own DNA instruction book, the shared inheritance of all humankind.”[23] While virtually all biologists disavow genetic determinism today, it is not always so clear what exactly they are denying. Jonathan Kaplan (2000) identifies three different ways in which claims about genetic determinism migh
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    +4 moreShow less
    Kenneth Waters' 'actual difference making' account shows geneticists privilege g...No adequate basis for this primacy of genes over non-genetic causes has been est...The methodological practice of holding environmental factors constant while vary...Yet Kaplan finds biologists frequently treat genes as causally primary among the...

    Similar

    Yet Kaplan finds biologists frequently treat genes as causally primary...82%No adequate basis for this primacy of genes over non-genetic causes ha...78%Without heritability as a necessary condition, natural selection reduc...78%Replacing quantitative genetic techniques with molecular genetic techn...78%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit