Kitcher and Griffiths argue that gene-environment interaction loses explanatory force when molecular biology identifies developmental reaction norms with sufficient precision to predict phenotypic outcomes across environments.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Developmental reaction norms(as what molecular biology can identify precisely): A fancy way of saying: the different ways an organism can develop (grow and change) depending on what environment it's in—like how a seed grows differently in shade versus sunlight.
Explanatory force(Harman requires that new moral descriptions must preserve this quality): The ability of a description or theory to actually explain and make sense of what we observe in the world.
Gene-environment interaction(as the main concept being discussed): The idea that what traits an organism ends up with (like height or intelligence) comes from BOTH its genes AND the environment it grows up in, and these two things work together in complex ways.
Kitcher and Griffiths(as the main thinkers being cited): Philip Kitcher and Paul Griffiths are philosophers of science who study how we understand biology and evolution. In this context, they're making an argument about how we explain why organisms look and behave the way they do.

Based on where you are in your exploration