Registration is now open for the conference ‘Why We Disagree about Human Nature’, to be held at CRASSH, University of Cambridge, 10–11 December 2015.
Is human nature something that the natural and social sciences aim to describe, or is it a pernicious fiction? What role, if any, does ‘human nature’ play in directing and informing scientific work? Can we talk about human nature without invoking—either implicitly or explicitly—a contrast with human culture? It might be tempting to think that the respectability of ‘human nature’ is an issue that divides natural and social scientists along disciplinary boundaries, but the truth is more complex. Some evolutionary theorists have enthusiastically embraced ‘human nature’, while others have rejected it. Many social scientists have explicitly rejected it, while implicitly gesturing towards universal ‘cognitive schemas’. Philosophers, meanwhile, have recently put forward a variety of suggestions for how, if at all, we might make sense of this divisive notion.
With speakers from psychology, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of medicine, social and biological anthropology, evolutionary theory, and the study of animal cognition, this conference will explore these different approaches to the concept of ‘human nature’ and attempt to uncover and understand the sources of disagreement.
Gillian Brown(St Andrews) and Kevin Laland (St Andrews):The social construction of human nature
Heidi Colleran (Toulouse) and Fiona Jordan (Bristol): Bridging divides in anthropology using evolutionary theory
Stephen Downes(Utah):Understanding the evolutionary challenges to human nature
John Dupré(Exeter):The nature of human processes
Cecilia Heyes (Oxford): The development of human nature
Maria Kronfeldner(Central European University): Divide and conquer: The authority of nature and why we disagree about human nature
Edouard Machery(Pittsburgh): A plea for human nature, redux
Peter J Richerson (UC Davis): What work (or mischief) does ‘human nature’ do in the work of scientists?
Christina Toren (St Andrews): Human ontogenies as historical processes: Lessons from ethnography
Convenors: Beth Hannon, Tim Lewens, Sam Murison
Please go here for more information and to register.
In this case, a mistake was made in the process of an in vitro-fertilisation procedure involving a Singaporean Chinese woman and her German Caucasian husband. Mistakenly, the wife’s egg was inseminated with sperm from an unknown Indian donor. Baby P was born healthy, but with a different skin tone. The claimant’s affidavit states that the pain and suffering […]