69. Fear Of Causation In Biology: The War Against Determinism

The fear that biological theory might “reveal” that humans and human behaviour are “really” determined — “merely” the effects of causes — has motivated considerable debate in the biological community. However, being consistent with the desire not to be determined can put the ideational consistency of construals at risk, as outlined below. 

(1) Genetics As Determining Vs Ecology As Freeing 

Construing genes as agents, as the external cause of human processes, potentially threatens the the belief that individuals have the power of self-determination, the belief that individuals are agents (responsible for) their own “destinies”. So it has the potential to trigger an immune response in those who hold this interpersonal value. The responses may be interpersonal, ideational and/or textual (focus of attention). An interpersonal response involves attacking espousers of the view. An ideational response identifies the ideational inconsistencies in any claim that genes are the causes of human processes. A ‘focus of attention’ response gives more importance to other factors than to genes. This can mean emphasising the importance of ecology, for example, and downplaying the importance of genes. However, this involves conveniently ignoring the possibility of also construing the ecological dimension as deterministic, as suggested, for example, by the similarity of responses across individuals to the same enviromental stimuli.[1] But doing so provides a comforting refuge from the threat posed by genetic determinism. 

(2) Selection As Determining Vs Variation As Freeing 

The war against determinism is also fought in the construal of evolutionary processes. Here the bogeys are selection and adaptation, which are easily construed as simple cause and effect, and the comforting refuge is variation, which might be seen as more capricious. Again the immune responses may be interpersonal, ideational and/or textual. An interpersonal response involves attacking espousers of the view. An example of an ideational response is disputing that all evolutionary change is adaptive. An example of a ‘focus of attention’ response is downplaying the importance of selection and adaptation and emphasising the importance of variation. Again, this involves conveniently ignoring the possibility of also construing variation as deterministic, for, while variation is random at the biological level in terms of adaptiveness, at the molecular level, it is the direct result of chemical causes. 

Footnote:

[1] Note also the immune responses to the Behaviourism proposed by Skinner and colleagues.

ChatGPT revised:

Immunity to Determinism in Biological Theory

The fear that biological theory might “reveal” that humans and human behaviour are “really” determined — merely effects of prior causes — has prompted substantial resistance within the biological sciences. Yet attempts to align biological construals with a desire for self-determination often come at the cost of ideational consistency, as outlined below.

---

(1) Genes as Determiners vs. Ecology as Liberator

When genes are construed as agents — as external causes of human processes — this potentially threatens the belief that individuals are the agents of their own “destinies.” Such construals may therefore trigger what amounts to an immune response in those who hold self-determination as an interpersonal value. These immune responses may be interpersonal, ideational, or textual (a matter of focus). An interpersonal response targets the proponents of genetic determinism. An ideational response attempts to identify logical or conceptual inconsistencies in genetic accounts. A textual response shifts attention away from genes and towards other factors, such as ecological influences.

This last strategy often involves emphasising ecology while downplaying genetics. However, it conveniently ignores that ecology can also be construed as deterministic — as evidenced, for example, by the consistent responses of organisms to shared environmental conditions.[¹] The shift from genes to environment thus often reflects not an escape from determinism, but a redirection of explanatory threat.

---

(2) Selection as Determiner vs. Variation as Liberator

The ideological war against determinism is also evident in construals of evolutionary processes. Selection and adaptation, easily modelled as simple cause-and-effect relations, serve as the new bogeys. By contrast, variation offers a comforting refuge, appearing less rule-bound and more capricious. Once again, immune responses can be interpersonal, ideational, or textual. An interpersonal response involves attacking those who promote a selection-centred view. An ideational response may involve disputing that all evolutionary change is adaptive. A textual response shifts focus away from selection and adaptation and toward variation.

However, this move again overlooks the potential determinism of the favoured alternative. Variation, though random in its adaptive consequences, is itself caused — chemically and physically determined at the molecular level. What appears as contingency at one scale remains causality at another.

---

Footnote:

[1] Compare, for example, the defensive reactions to Skinnerian Behaviourism, which similarly located causality in external conditions rather than internal agency.