Justin’s Notes

Both Sides Claim the Mantle of "Just Science"

2026-07-21 · AI-generated insight

Derbyshire ends his taxonomy of human-nature theories with a quiet rhetorical power grab: Religionism and Culturism each get a genealogy — cognitive biases, Aristotle, Locke, Bastian, Boas — but "Biologism is just ordinary scientific method applied to humanity." His own position has no history, no founders, no motivated adherents. It is simply what you see when you look.

Degler's account of Boas undercuts this move, because it shows the culturist position winning by exactly the same claim. Boas didn't conquer anthropology and spill into neighboring disciplines by preaching equality; social scientists in the early 1900s testified that his evidence changed their conception of human nature. In its moment, culture-over-biology was the hard-nosed empirical correction to a racial science that had mistaken its prejudices for observations. The lesson isn't that Boas was right and Derbyshire wrong, or vice versa — it's that "my theory is a finding, yours is a doctrine" is a recurring move in this debate, and each generation deploys it against the last.

Diamond is interesting here because he tries to slip out of Derbyshire's trichotomy entirely. His famous sentence — different histories flow from different environments, not different biology — sounds culturist, and Derbyshire would presumably file it there. But Diamond's causal machinery isn't plasticity or the blank slate; it's brutally material: latitude, domesticable animals, pathogens. He defends Boas's conclusion (as Degler describes it, observable social differences are "the product of different histories, not different biological experiences") without relying on Boas's psychology. Geography rules, not culture.

That suggests the real fault line isn't nature versus nurture but something Derbyshire's labels obscure: whether human group differences require an explanation inside people at all. Boas and Diamond both say no — look at histories and environments. And notably, both made that case in the idiom of their era's most rigorous science, which is precisely the ground Derbyshire declares belongs only to his side.

Woven from these notes

Until the 1890s Boas used the term as his fellow anthropologists did: as another word for civilization or “high culture.” Franz Boas’s exposition of the concept of culture as an alternative to race in accounting for differences among human groups was a genuine seminal contribution. The idea not only conquered his own field of anthropolgy but spread as well to other social science disciplines. The diffusion was remarkably rapid. Again and again in the early years of the new century American social scientists outside of anthropology testified to the influence of his writings on their conception of human nature and the place of biology or race within it.
— Carl Degler In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought
There are three theories of human nature enjoying widespread support at present. For convenience, I’ll tag each one of them with a single adjective. Religious. Our species Homo sapiens is the special creation of God, either as a one-off miracle or by God-guided evolution. Human nature is a mix of attributes, some natural ones arising from plain biology, some supernatural ones inserted by God. We are the Chosen Species. The God-given attributes are unique to our species. They are the same in all human populations, forming the foundation of our essential equality. Their existence is independent of our biological nature, even to the degree that they can continue to exist after our deaths. Being nonbiological, they don’t evolve, even if other features of the living world do, so that our evolution, if it ever took place, ended (except perhaps for some incidental biological features) when God decreed we have these supernatural attributes. These God-given attributes include the moral sense, which accesses transcendent truths—i.e., truths that do not dwell in the world of matter. God rules! Cultural. Our species arose, like all other species, from the ordinary processes of evolution. However, these processes ceased in the early history of the species, leaving us with a human nature uniform across all populations and unchanging over time, forming the foundation of our essential equality. This human nature has very little innate structure and is extremely plastic. By placing it in a suitable environment, or applying suitable pressures, the mind (and therefore the behavior, which issues from the mind) can be shaped in any way at all. “Human nature” does not really exist independent of the environment an individual happens to be in, especially that part of the environment made up of other human beings—“the culture.” Moral standards are arbitrary, and are taken in by the individual from the culture. Culture rules! Biological. Our species arose, like all other species, from the ordinary processes of evolution, which have continued to the present day. Human nature is a collection of characteristics all susceptible to biological explanation. Some characteristics of a person’s nature can be shaped to some degree by “cultural” (i.e., social or environmental) forces; some cannot. Human beings are a part of the living world, and nothing more. Our equality consists in being members of a single species; though our species, like any other with very wide distribution, exhibits regional differences. The characteristics of an individual human being are templated in his genome. They may be somewhat modified by womb events or life experiences; or they may need to be “instantiated” by postpartum environment. (An individual’s genome may, for example, predispose him to be eloquent or tongue-tied when using language; but which language he uses will depend on his childhood environment.) The repertoire of human behaviors, and of ideas, including moral ideas, about behavior, are innate, the result of evolutionary processes acting on our social lives across many generations. Biology rules! For convenience in what follows, I’ll label adherents of these three views with the more or less made-up words “Religionists,” “Culturists,” and “Biologians.” Each point of view has a history. Religionism emerges from core features of human thinking, as described by cognitive scientists like Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained, 2001), Scott Atran (In Gods We Trust, 2002), and Bruce Hood (Supersense, 2009). Culturism has roots in the tabula rasa (“blank slate”) theories of Aristotle and Locke. It was put into its modern form by German anthropologist Adolf Bastian (1826–1905). Bastian coined the phrase “the psychic unity of mankind.” His student Franz Boas brought these ideas to the United States, becoming the most influential American anthropologist of the early twentieth century. Biologism is just ordinary scientific method applied to humanity.
— John Derbyshite We Are Doomed
History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.
— Jared Diamon Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Boas’s rejection of the traditional view was truly radical; it simply denied the existence of any significant innate differences between savage, colored people and civilized, white people. The differences in physical appearance, in short, did not lead to any significant difference in mental or social function. That there were observable social differences was undeniable, but the explanation for those differences. Boas maintained, was that they were the product of different histories, not different biological experiences.
— Carl Degler In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought