Max Castle

Can I do both? Saying epigenetics is bunk is a step too far but it has clearly been latched onto by those who want to dismiss the 'determinism' of genetics. It started with Deleuzian vitalists about 15 years ago and looks like it has nowade it to the pseudo-commies. 1/2

The bigger problem is the question of epigenetics is simply irrelevant. Even if environmental factors were a larger causal agent in development, it would not then follow that "we could have some control over the way genetic traits are expressed."

"Even if the environment in which humans develop were a large causal factor in how they develop, this wouldn't imply humans could...manipulate the environment to affect development"? I hate playing "who's more obvi taking an instrumental position and phoning in the details?" but.

Yeah, you're right.

I imbued the author with a greater level of control than is necessary from her position here. One doesn't need the voodoo of epigenetics to recognize the possibility of something like genre manipulation. But this is a secondary and largely unrelated point. @nihilaxis

dismissing the concept and whole bodies of work on epigenetics as voodoo is a weak imo. can’t be explained away that easy. you leave yourself open to argumentative exploit with that

I could have said 'epigenetics'. I have already stated that it's a step too far to call it bunk. Epigenetic effect seems to be minor and not really a nail to hang your revoltionary hat on. And like many other such concepts that the humanists grab onto, it's going to disappoint.

i guess the empirical research on this determine if that’s true, or not. I just know that in a lot of anthropology circles gene-determinism is ridiculed in the same vein as Victorian science concepts