I don't know what you mean, interpretations of heritability. This is not like quantum mechanics interpretations. Heritability only has one meaning that everybody uses (G/P var). There are various disagrees on what one can infer from heritability wrt. malleability.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
I haven't read his book yet, so maybe I just don't understand what it is he's arguing from your summary. I am disinclined to spend much time on philosophy myself since I think it detracts from much more important science. Sesardic, Cofnas et al will probably engage. I'll ask.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I completely disagree. I think it is much more productive to just get more scientific findings out. The issue can be solved with genomics is very near future, I don't think philosophy has much to contribute here. Tbh, I do not care very much what philosophers think of the topic.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Philosophers are not going to change their minds no matter what I do. Their beliefs stem mostly from politics, not science. However, empirical evidence can convince scientists and if clean enough, normal people. I think that's the more likely pathway to acceptance.
-
No one else reads these philosophy debates, so they are basically irrelevant except for philosophers themselves and a small minority of philosophy interested people and critics. Hence, instrumentally speaking, there is little reason to engage with them.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.