|
Why the Topic of Bioethics in Science
Classes?
A New Look at an Old Debate
by Carolyn Csongradi
What Is The Relationship Between "Nature"
And "Nurture" In The Acquisition Of Knowledge?
"Nature" is more influential than
"nurture":
Knowledge arises from genetic information honed by a process of
natural selection. Some portions of this knowledge might be nurtured,
but genetically determined forms also may modify how we categorize
our experiences.
From an evolutionary point of view, certain things we know about
the world are innate, although modifiable by interactions with
family, education, religion and society. This knowledge about
objects and what is valued is "natural" having been
selectively reinforced over time. For instance, pack behavior
observed in wolves is a form of collective behavior which supports
kinship preferences and caring, while perpetuating a common genetic
pool. These core values, associated with social groups, were used
long ago by individuals who were successful in their primitive
world and had the greatest chance of procreation. Accurately understanding
the world enhanced both group and individual survival.
During the 1800's, Charles Darwin
speculated that certain rules for conflict arbitration were needed
at the point in time when a species evolved a longer memory, a
keener imagination and became involved in social contracts.(29) For
example, a bird, which could leave an active nest to migrate with
her group, choosing that instinct over the one to nurture, would
find this choice too difficult with a better memory. He argued
that certain instincts, such as caring for young as opposed to
making a rapid decision to leave, were preferentially selected
in any conflict because those values had longer lasting consequences.
(30)
A reasonable alternative interpretation might be that those behaviors
encouraging the survival of young also perpetuated those genes
which might select for altruism at least among relatives. This
form of altruism enhances the survival of the genotype of the
altruist. Altruism for non-relatives is quite a different story
because the personal pay-off or gain is less easily discerned.
Oliver Sacks, author and neurologist, has devoted much of his
recent book to describing the unique behavior of a group of his
patients who are savants.(37) A savant is someone who demonstrates
an extraordinary talent in a particular field such as art, music,
or mathematics. A large percentage of savants are autistic with
limitations in their ability to personally relate to others. Sacks
became "friends" with a young boy named Stephen, who
was an autistic savant, capable of memorizing complex scenery
at a glance and retaining the information for months. When asked
he would accurately construct a pen and ink sk
etch from what he
had observed earlier. He started his pictures at one edge of the
paper, working across to the other edge, filling in the framework
and all the details without an outline. While drawing, "the
house could come down" and Stephen would not notice. He sometimes
took artistic license and added features which did not originally
exist, but the basics, the original flavor, remained. In a sense,
having demonstrated his enormous talent at an early age, he had
little need for nurture - from the environment or from other humans.
In examining the relationship between what was inherited and what
was learned from experience, philosophers Hume and
Kant
were echoed by the behaviorist, Freud, when they spoke of nature's
contribution as a force to be reckoned with, educated or subdued.
Human nature was always a "fact" to contend with. In
a more extreme view from the 1500's, Descartes questioned whether
anything existed outside of the mind. He finally conceded that
if there were real things instead of only our thoughts about them,
God was responsible for the interpretation. Kant, who realized
that Descartes' position made all knowledge subjective to each
individual, tried to move away from this restrictive view and
proposed that the mind was an active participant in knowledge
acquisition, constructing certain aspects of an experience. Kant
believed we inherited certain categories or concept grids on which
experiences could be sorted or organized.
(5)
To understand how the mind might "construct" an experience,
the following experiment should be helpful. Obtain three bowls
each holding about a gallon of liquid. Arrange them so
that the
first bowl contains hot water; the second, tepid; and the third,
very cold water. Simultaneously, place your left hand in the hot
water and you right in the cold. Wait one minute and immerse both
hands in the tepid water. What has each hand told you about the
temperature? Additional examples of the mind's involvement in
interpreting experience are seen with optical illusions, the unnoticed
retinal "blind spot" and other adaptive behaviors found
in the nervous system.
One of the problems with a purely "nature" based argument
is how to explain the existence or continuing survival of certain
values which may involve actions for which there is no obvious
natural selection pressure. For example, why should a choice be
made contrary to an individual's stated preferences or which may
result in actual punishment? Altruism for non-related individuals,
truthfulness and justice as fairness are values difficult to support
from an evolutionary view, particularly when some choices cause
the death of an individual, effectively removing those genes from
the pool. Hypothesizing these as primarily inherited values would
generate a requirement for a very complex set of genetic directions
having a large common human base of reference. The search for
a potential common morality has provoked more debate than agreement
among anthropologists, theologians, and philosophers.(33)
Nature and Nurture Continued:
|