Standpunten en kanttekeningen

De mens-sociobiologische controverse: een Kuhniaanse interpretatie

---

Abstract

The human sociobiology controversy. A Kuhnian interpretation - This article consists of two parts. In a first part we are demonstrating how the human sociobiology controversy fits into Kuhn’s theory of science and, secondly, we are presenting an alternative theory of evolution (a genotypic version of Darwin’s theory of evolution), which, in our opinion, can succeed where the modern theory of evolution and the human sociobiologists seem to have failed, namely in making an evolutionary explanation of human behaviour and human cultures possible. The development of evolutionary biology has followed the Kuhnian pattern : after a preparadigmatic period during which several competing evolutionary schools existed, a synthesis has come into existence "which succeeded in attracting most investigators of the next generation" (Kuhn, 1987 : 37). According to this paradigm, the so-called modern synthesis, (micro-)evolution, consists of changes in the genetic composition of populations. It has been very successful in describing this process and in giving evolutionary explanations of biological phenomena. Sociobiologists have even found an explanation for altruistic behaviour. The human sociobiology controversy, however, has according to us revealed that it can’t explain human behaviour and human cultures : both remain anomalies or ’unsolved puzzles’ for that paradigm. Kuhn contends that a discipline can react to a ’stubborn’ anomaly with a revolution during which a paradigm switch occurs. In our opinion that’s what has to happen. When we redefine evolution as the process whereby populations or species genotypes undergo, under the influence of natural selection, an adaptation to a certain way of life in a certain environment, an evolutionary and genetic explanation of our culture and behaviour seems to become possible.

How to Cite:

Tanghe, K., (1996) “De mens-sociobiologische controverse: een Kuhniaanse interpretatie”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen 41(4), 429–438. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/tvsw.95251