Paul Griffiths on Human Nature 6 Aug 200922 Jun 2018 Below the fold is a notice for a lecture by my friend and colleague Paul Griffiths that anyone in Sydney ought to go to. Sydney, Australia, not Sydney in any other country that seems to use all other countries’ placenames… The Sydney University Arts Association presents The Inaugural Lecture of Professor Paul E. Griffiths, Department of Philosophy and Sydney Centre for the Foundations of Science Reconstructing Human Nature: Tuesday 11th August 2009 at 6:00pm Refreshments in the Woolley Common Room from 5:30pm. Lecture in the Woolley Theatre N395 Woolley Building, University of Sydney. The Common Room is on the first floor of the Woolley Building. The Lecture Theatre is on the right hand side of the entrance lobby. The idea of human nature is the locus of longstanding disputes about the relevance of the biological sciences to the humanities and social sciences. But the ideas of “human nature”, “instinct”, and “innateness” are not derived from the biological sciences. They originate in intuitive, pre-scientific thought about living things, sometimes known as “folkbiology”. In this lecture Professor Griffiths will present a model of the folkbiological understanding of human nature, based on empirical research conducted with biologically naive subjects in Australia and North America. This folkbiological understanding of human nature is fundamentally inconsistent with current biology. This raises the pressing issue of what a biologically credible account of human nature would look like, and he will try to address this question. A philosopher of science with a focus on biology and psychology, Paul was educated at Cambridge and the Australian National University. He taught at Otago University inNew Zealand and was later Director of the Unit for History and Philosophy of Science at The University of Sydney, before taking up a Professorship in Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. He returned to Australia in 2004, first as an Australian Research Council Federation Fellow and then as University Professorial Research Fellow at the University of Sydney <http://www.usyd.edu.au> . He spends part of each year at the University of Exeter in the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, an adjunct member of the Pittsburgh HPS faculty, and a member of the Australian Health Ethics Committee <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ethics/human/ahec/> of NHMRC. Biology Epistemology Evolution Philosophy Science
Biology Names and nomenclature in classification 17 Jul 2010 One of the main focuses in the literature, especially in biology, regarding classification is the problem of nomenclature, of names. Many treat classification as being all about names, an error that is akin to mistaking not the map for the territory, but the names on the map for the territory…. Read More
History Evolution quote 6 Aug 2010 As all sciences are based upon facts, known, or to be known from experience, so are they, in their early state of developement [sic], matters of pure observation. It is only when we have acquired the power of generalising these facts, when such generalisations agree among themselves and with every… Read More
Philosophy More civil insolence 22 Jan 2010 My disclaimer/policy on comments here has occasioned a bit of discussion on the tubes. Isis reckons that those who say it is a bad thing to piss on the rug will do it anyway when things get heated. Golden Thoughts compares this to the Civil Rights movement, and that those… Read More
Damn, I’m stuck in Canberra that day. Do you know if this will be posted on the net anywhere? I did some study on this area uni in my undergraduate, and it is a fascinating topic.
Well, since I live in Brazil I will not be able to watch that lecture. That’s sad, there is a big ocean between me and the discussion of such a interesting topic. Unfortunately, I’ve got used to that feeling. Soon I will write on my blog about a false generalization based on folk biology: that every man cheats on his partner in romantic relationships, and that such behavior is caused by some ‘natural trait’ or ‘instinct’. Lots of people make this generalization around here. Men trying to justify their behavior, women trying to justify their incredulity about relationships. Well, certainly not with the competence of professor Griffiths, but with some effort, I’m also trying show the inconsistencies of folk biology around here.
…naive subjects in Australia… Isn’t qualifying the concept ‘Australian’ with the adjective ‘naïve’ a tautology?
Thanks — I came as a result of this post and it was great. Just posted on some tangential impressions from the talk: http://anadder.com/the-problem-of-innateness