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
    The assertion that the relative contributions of nature a... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The assertion that the relative contributions of nature and nurture can be apportioned is misleading if not outright false

    CausationMoral Responsibility
    ?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.Apportioning causal contributions requires separability of gene and environment effects
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gene and environment effects are non-additive and context-dependent
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-additivity makes it impossible to assign fixed proportional causal responsibility to genes or environment
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Heritability statistics (h²) in quantitative genetics provide well-defined, reproducible variance partitions within specified populations and environments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Variance decomposition need not presuppose additivity; interaction components (G×E) can themselves be quantified and assigned proportional weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A measure being population-relative and context-dependent does not entail it is meaningless or that apportionment is impossible, only that results are scope-limited.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Woodward's interventionist causation allows causal contribution to be defined by the magnitude of change produced by a targeted intervention on one variable while holding others fixed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under interventionism, the non-separability of gene and environment effects is an empirical finding, not a conceptual barrier to assigning differential causal responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Philosophers including Sterelny and Griffiths have argued that causal parity claims about genes and environments themselves presuppose that such contributions can be compared and contrasted.
      ?

      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

    Moral ResponsibilityCausation

    Related

    A measure being population-relative and context-dependent does not entail it is ...Apportioning causal contributions requires separability of gene and environment ...Gene and environment effects are non-additive and context-dependentHeritability statistics (h²) in quantitative genetics provide well-defined, repr...
    +5 moreShow less
    Non-additivity makes it impossible to assign fixed proportional causal responsib...Philosophers including Sterelny and Griffiths have argued that causal parity cla...Under interventionism, the non-separability of gene and environment effects is a...Variance decomposition need not presuppose additivity; interaction components (G...Woodward's interventionist causation allows causal contribution to be defined by...

    Similar

    It is impossible to apportion the relative causal contributions of gen...75%The assertion that evolutionary theories show altruism in nature is on...73%The evidence for the uniformity of nature is itself based only on the ...72%Traits cannot be attributed primarily to genes or primarily to environ...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: human-genome
    View source passageHide passage
    But notice the waffle words used by Watson and on the cover of Life: “in large measure” and “mostly in your genes.” Everyone is an interactionist these days, in some sense of “interaction.” Genes and environment, or nature and nurture, are recognized both to be necessary for development: by themselves, genes can’t determine or do anything. Yet, theorists still seem to give the nod to one or the other, suggesting that it is mostly genes or mostly the environment, mostly nature or mostly nurture,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit