Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:00:31.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How We Think about Human Nature: The Naturalizing Error

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Douglas Allchin  and
Alexander J. Werth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

History is littered with scientifically ill-founded claims about human nature. They frequently appear in normative contexts, projecting ideology or values onto nature (what we call the naturalizing error). In considering a remedy, we adopt a naturalized epistemology approach to how we think about human nature. The “nature” in “human nature” fosters unproductive essentialist thinking, epitomized in the adage “a tiger cannot change its stripes.” Universalist, fixist, and teleological perspectives each erode epistemic reasoning and blur the distinction between normative and descriptive justification. We articulate strategies to guide more responsible claims about human nature in science and science communication.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 499 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

We wish to thank H. Clark Barrett, Paul Griffiths, Tim Lewens, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

Allchin, Douglas. 2001. “Error Types.” Perspectives on Science 9:38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, Douglas. 2008a. “Monsters and the Tyranny of Normality.” American Biology Teacher 70:117–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, Douglas. 2008b. “Naturalizing as an Error-Type in Biology.” Filosofia e História da Biologia 3:95–117.Google Scholar
Allchin, Douglas. 2011. “The Domesticated Gene.” American Biology Teacher 74:120–23.Google Scholar
Allchin, Douglas. 2012. “To Be Human.” American Biology Teacher 75:132–35.Google Scholar
Allchin, Douglas. 2018. “The Politics of Biodiversity Speak.” American Biology Teacher 80:397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, Douglas, and Werth, Alexander. 2017. “The Naturalizing Error.” Journal for the General Philosophy of Science 48 (1): 3–18..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Garland. 2011. “Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics, 1910–1945.” Annals of Human Genetics 75 (3): 314–25..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antweiler, Christoph. 2016. Our Common Denominator: Human Universals Revisited. Trans. Kerns, Diane. New York: Berghahn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardrey, Robert. 1966. The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations. New York: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Atran, Scott. 1995. “Causal Constraints on Categories.” In Causal Cognition: A Multi-Disciplinary Debate, ed. Sperber, Dan, Premack, David, and Premack, Ann James. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Ayala, Francisco. 1970. “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology.” Philosophy of Science 37:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayala, Francisco. 1999. “Adaptation and Novelty: Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 21:3–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Barash, David P. 2016. Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barash, David P., and Lipton, Judith Eve. 2001. The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. Clark. 2015. The Shape of Thought: How Mental Adaptations Evolve. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastian, Brock, and Haslam, Nick. 2007. “Psychological Essentialism and Attention Allocation: Preferences for Stereotype-Consistent versus Stereotype-Inconsistent Information.” Journal of Social Psychology 147 (5): 531–41..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benshoof, Lee, and Thornhill, Randy. 1979. “The Evolution of Monogamy and Concealed Ovulation in Humans.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2 (2): 95–106..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brown, Donald E. 2000. “Human Universals and Their Implications.” In Being Humans: Anthropological Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Roughley, Neil, 156–74. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, Donald E. 2004. “Human Universals, Human Nature and Human Culture.” Daedalus 133 (4): 47–54..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2009. “Human Nature and Enhancement.” Bioethics 23:141–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buller, David J. 2005. Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cashdan, Elizabeth. 2008. “Waist-to-Hip Ratio across Cultures: Trade-Offs between Androgen- and Estrogen-Dependent Traits.” Current Anthropology 49 (6): 1099–107..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cashdan, Elizabeth. 2013. “What Is a Human Universal? Human Behavioral Ecology and Human Nature.” In Arguing about Human Nature, ed. Downes, Stephen M. and Machery, Eduoard, 71–80. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cézilly, Frank, Préault, Marina, Dubois, Frédérick, Faivre, Bruno, and Patris, Bruno. 2000. “Pair-Bonding in Birds and the Active Role of Females: A Critical Review of the Evidence.” Behavioral Processes 51:83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dar-Nimrod, Ilan, and Heine, Steven J. 2011. “Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA.” Psychological Bulletin 137 (5): 800–818..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Waal, Frans B. M. 2000. “Survival of the Rapist: Two Scientists Argue That Plain Old Evolution Explains Why Men Rape.” New York Times, April 2. http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/02/reviews/000402.002waalt.html.Google Scholar
Downes, Stephen M. 2016. “Confronting Variation in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.” Philosophy of Science 83:909–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 2003. “On Human Nature.” Human Affairs 13:109–22.Google Scholar
Dupré, John. 2018. “Human Nature: A Process Perspective.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 92–107. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, Waytz, Adam, and Cacioppo, John T. 2007. “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism.” Psychological Review 114:864–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, Helen E. 1989. “Evolution of Human Serial Pairbonding.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:331–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, James H., and Schreiber, Darren. 2008. “Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature.” Science 322:912–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fyfe, Sophie, Williams, Claire, Mason, Oliver J., and Pickup, Graham J. 2008. “Apophenia, Theory of Mind and Schizotypy: Perceiving Meaning and Intentionality in Randomness.” Cortex 44:1316–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaspar, Phil. 2004. “Is Biology Destiny?” International Socialist Review 38. https://isreview.org/issues/38/genes.shtml.Google Scholar
Gelman, David. 1992. “Is This Child Gay? Born or Bred: The Origins of Homosexuality.” Newsweek, February 24.Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan A. 2003. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez Galli, Leonardo Martin, and Meinardi, Elsa N. 2010. “The Role of Teleological Thinking in Learning the Darwinian Model of Evolution.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 4:145–52.Google Scholar
Gotz, M. J., Johnstone, E. C., and Ratcliffe, S. G. 1999. “Criminality and Antisocial Behaviour in Unselected Men with Sex Chromosome Abnormalities.” Psychological Medicine 29:953–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, Stephen J. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. 2nd ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J., and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205 (1161): 581–98..Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 2002. “What Is Innateness?” Monist 85:70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 2017. “Communicating Genomic Complexity.” Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 150 (463/464): 93–103.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E., Machery, Eduoard, and Linquist, Stefan. 2009. “The Vernacular Concept of Innateness.” Mind and Language 24:605–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenmos, Carrie Jeanette. 2012. Teleological Reasoning in Adults: Believing in the Purpose of Events. Masters thesis, Western Kentucky University.Google Scholar
Hallinan, Joseph T. 2009. Why We Make Mistakes. New York: Broadway.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Haslam, Nick, Bain, Paul, Douge, Lauren, Lee, Max, and Bastian, Brock. 2005. “More Human than You: Attributing Humanness to Self and Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6): 937–50..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heine, Steven J. 2017. DNA Is Not Destiny. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hull, David. 1986. “On Human Nature.” In PSA 1986: Proceedings of the 1986 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. Machamer, Peter, Fine, Arthur, and Forbes, Micky, 3–13. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2013. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study.” Judgment and Decision Making 8:407–24.Google Scholar
Kelemen, Deborah. 1999. “Functions, Goals and Intentions: Children’s Teleological Reasoning about Objects.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:461–68.Google Scholar
Kelemen, Deborah. 2004. “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Reasoning about Purpose and Design in Nature.” Psychological Science 15:295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelemen, Deborah, and Rosset, Evelyn. 2009. “The Human Function Compunction: Teleological Explanation in Adults.” Cognition 11:138–43.Google Scholar
Kelemen, Deborah, Rottman, Joshua, and Seston, Rebecca. 2013. “Professional Physical Scientists Display Tenacious Teleological Tendencies: Purpose-Based Reasoning as a Cognitive Default.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (4): 1074–83..Google ScholarPubMed
Kronfeldner, Maria. 2018. “Divide and Conquer: The Authority of Nature and Why We Disagree about Human Nature.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 186–206. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kronfeldner, Maria, Roughley, Neil, and Toepfer, Georg. 2014. “Recent Work on Human Nature: Beyond Traditional Essences.” Philosophy Compass 9 (9): 642–52..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108:480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laland, Kevin N., and Brown, Gillian R. 2018. “The Social Construction of Human Nature.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 127–44. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Jonas. 2009. How We Decide. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lewens, Tim. 2012. “Human Nature: The Very Idea.” Philosophy and Technology 25 (4): 459–74..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewens, Tim. 2018. “Introduction: The Faces of Human Nature.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 1–17. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. 1993. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA: New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C., Rose, Steven, and Kamin, Leon J. 1984. Not in Our Genes. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Linquist, Stefan, Machery, Eduoard, Griffiths, Paul E., and Stotz, Karola. 2011. “Exploring the Folkbiological Conception of Human Nature.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366:444–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Machery, Eduoard. 2008. “A Plea for Human Nature.” Philosophical Psychology 21 (3): 321–29..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, Eduoard. 2018. “A Plea for Human Nature, Redux.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 18–39. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst. 1988. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological.” In Towards a New Philosophy of Biology, 38–66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Louise, Mead, and Scott, Eugenie. 2010a. “Problem Concepts in Evolution.” Pt. 1, “Purpose and Design.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 3:78–81.Google Scholar
Louise, Mead, and Scott, Eugenie. 2010b. “Problem Concepts in Evolution.” Pt. 2, “Cause and Chance.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 3:261–64.Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas, and Ortony, Andrew. 1989. “Psychological Essentialism.” In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, ed. Vosniadou, Stella and Ortony, Andrew, 179–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Sperber, Dan. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Thomas A., Haslam, S. Alexander, Postmes, Tom, and Ryan, Michelle K. 2006. “We Value What Values Us: The Appeal of Identity-Affirming Science.” Political Psychology 27 (6): 823–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Thomas A., Postmes, Tom, Haslam, S. Alexander, and Hornsey, Matthew J. 2009. “Theorizing Gender in the Face of Social Change: Is There Anything Essential about Essentialism?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (3): 653–64..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nettle, Daniel. 2018. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Biology.” In Hanging on the Edges: Essays on Science, Society and the Academic Life, 25–42. Cambridge: Open Book.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2:175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Diane B. 1995. Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present. Amherst, NY: Humanities.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Grant. 2013. “Human Nature in a Post-essentialist World.” Philosophy of Science 80:983–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Robert C. 2007. Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, Peter J. 2018. “The Use and Non-use of the Human Nature Concept by Evolutionary Biologists.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 145–69. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark. 2010. The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. New York: Harper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Steven P. 1997. Lifelines: Life beyond the Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rottman, Joshua, Zhu, Lizu, Wang, Wen, Schillaci, Rebecca Steston, Clark, Kelly J., and Kelemen, Deborah. 2017. “Cultural Influences on the Teleological Stance: Evidence from China.” Religion, Brain and Behavior 7:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saad, Gad. 2011. The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal about Human Nature. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Samuels, Richard. 2012. “Science and Human Nature.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 70:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 1993. “Why Mammals Are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History.” American Historical Review 98:382–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotz, Karola, and Griffiths, Paul E. 2018. “A Developmental Systems Account of Human Nature.” In Why We Disagree about Human Nature, ed. Lewens, Tim and Hannon, Elizabeth, 58–75. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Stuart. 1992. Irrationality: Why We Don’t Think Straight. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, Randy, and Palmer, Craig T. 2001. A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, William. 2014. Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human. Washington, DC: Regnery.Google Scholar
Werth, Alexander. 2012. “Avoiding the Pitfall of Progress and Associated Perils of Evolutionary Education.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 5:249–65.Google Scholar
Werth, Alexander, and Allchin, Douglas. Forthcoming. “How We Think about Human Nature: Cognitive Errors and Concrete Remedies.” Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Edward O. 1993. “Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic.” In The Biophilia Hypothesis, ed. Kellert, Stephen R. and Wilson, Edward O., 31–41. Washington, DC: Island.Google Scholar
Wright, Robert. 1994. “Infidelity—It May Be in Our Genes: Our Cheating Hearts; Devotion and Betrayal, Marriage and Divorce: How Evolution Shaped Human Love.” Time, August 15.Google Scholar