Alan, would you mind boiling your message down a little? Give us the
main points?


--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Alan Forrester
<alan_forrester2@...> wrote:
>
> --- ozarkheretic <ozarkheretic@...> wrote:
>
> > Szasz goes into a brief discussion about the ideas of Galton,
and
> > Szasz sets out to belittle Galton's ideas by comparing Galton's
> > remarks about the heredity of "genius" to the ideas of "the
modern
> > psychiatrist" who "knows that "manic depression is hereditary".
> > Therefore, Galton's ideas are no better than the ideas of "the
> > modern psychiatrist". I would point out that "manic depression"
may
> > very well be hereditary. Just because "the modern psyschiatrist"
may
> > say that md is hereditary does not mean it is not hereditary, if
> > that is what Szasz is implying. Of course, I would agree with
Szasz
> > that md is not an illness as defined by Virchow. However, if md
is
> > a personality trait maybe it is a trait or behavioral tendency
that
> > is inherited.
> >
> > For some reason Szasz seems to be very suspicious
of "genetics".
> > Galton's research on "genius" really led to the research
> > on "intelligence". And actually Modern research has shown
> > that "intelligence" is a characteristic or trait that is
primarily
> > produced by heredity or genetics. People do not become
intelligent
> > because of the environments they grow up in. They are
intelligent
> > because of DNA that is transmitted to them by their parents.
But
> > for reason that idea seems to bother Szasz, as one can see from
his
> > remarks about Galton. Szasz says, "Edison knew neither genetics
nor
> > psychology, but he knew what genius was firsthand. It was, he
> > said, 'one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent
> > perspiration'." Whose perspiration and inspiration was Edison
> > talking about? Just any old Tom, Dick, or Harriet? Edison did
not
> > just hire anyone to work in his laboratories.
>
> It is certainly true that our genes contain a lot of objective
knowledge
> that affects our interpretation of the world around us. For
example,
> information that enters our eyes in the form of light is processed
partly
> by the eye itself and partly by the brain. That this is true can
been seen
> by hte phenomenon of colour blindness, in which a genetic
difference
> between two people can make the difference between one of them
being able
> to distinguish red and green and the other being unable to do so.
>
> However, phenomena registeed by the senses of a non-colour blind
person as
> red and green are in fact different. The exact difference depends
on subtle
> details of the context in which a particular object which a normal
person
> sees as red or green object is viewed. However, there is every
reason to
> think that whatever the circumstances there will be some
difference between
> a red object and a gree object and this difference might be
measured by
> some suitable light detector. Then if a colour blind person agrees
that the
> explanation behind how the light detector works he might agree
that red and
> green are in fact different. This situation is not particularly
unusual:
> there are many things that we cannot directly detect but which we
> nevertheless think exist because ouyr best explanations of how the
world
> works entails that they exist - atoms, for example.
>
> So a person can entirely reject a theory that is written into his
genes if
> he has an explanation that he considers more compelling. As such,
there are
> at least two things that can influence how a person thinks: his
genes and
> critical argument. We are constantly immersed in ideas on the
radio on
> television and in discussions with our peers right from the day we
are
> born. All of the behavioural genetics studies I have read look for
> correlations between genes and behaviour, but these correlations
have no
> direct bearing on the issue of the genetic heritability of
behaviour
> because people are capable of learning by taking ideas from other
people
> and modifying them to suit their own ends. For example, if we had
conducted
> a study in the South in, say, the 1950s we might have found a
correlation
> between certain genes and the habit of lynching people or of being
lynched.
> Namely, we would have found a correlation between some families of
white
> people being racist morons and some families of black people
bearing the
> brunt of their gross stupidity. This correlation was not caused by
genes
> but by people creating traditions through discussion,
indoctrination and
> criticism. Behavioural genetics studies make no serious attempt to
deal
> with this problem and as such they are all junk science.
>
> Who do people accept such junk? Some people have not given any
serious
> critical thought to the issue. Some people want to eliminate the
role of
> religion in moral philosophy and have, ironically, ended up
replicating
> many of the least attractive features of religion, largely because
people
> can read any moral they like into behvioural genetics studies,
which, as
> with all factual theories do not directly imply the rightness or
wrongness
> of any particular policy. For example, if a behavioural genetics
study
> finds a link between a certain gene and teenage promiscuity then
should all
> foetuses with that gene be aborted? Or should children with that
gene be
> given free condoms, or ... what? As such the morals drawn from the
studies
> tend to be those that suit the prejudices of those drawing the
lesson. And
> of course that in itself is a convenient feature for those who
wish to go
> on a moral crusade while posturing as objective scientists, which
is why so
> many psychiatrists are enamoured of these studies.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
>