Justin’s Notes

Both Sides Claim Science and Accuse the Other of Politics

2026-07-21 · AI-generated insight

Read together, these three passages stage a fight over a single question: was Franz Boas doing science, or doing politics in the costume of science?

Wade is unambiguous. The culturist consensus, he argues, is "designed to support the political view" — a doctrine reverse-engineered from a desired conclusion (essential human interchangeability) rather than discovered. Derbyshire pushes further by rhetorical framing: his "Biologism is just ordinary scientific method applied to humanity," while Culturism is a genealogy of thinkers — Aristotle, Locke, Bastian, Boas — a lineage of belief rather than a body of findings. In both accounts, Boas is the man who let ideology capture the discipline.

But Degler files the very same Boasian move under Science Against Prejudice. On his telling, the innate-difference view was the prejudiced one — the comfortable assumption that civilized white people were biologically superior — and Boas's radicalism was precisely a scientific correction, showing that observable social differences trace to "different histories, not different biological experiences." What Wade calls politics corrupting science, Degler calls science dislodging politics.

That is the genuinely interesting collision. Everyone in this room agrees that science should be free of prejudice and everyone accuses the other camp of smuggling prejudice in. Wade's "politics shaping science" and Degler's "science against prejudice" are the same event narrated by opposing referees.

This exposes something the debate rarely admits: "follow the science" cannot resolve it, because each side's account of what the evidence is already presupposes which prior commitment counts as bias. If you begin certain that racial hierarchy is a prejudice awaiting refutation, Boas is a hero of method. If you begin certain that innate variation is a fact awaiting acknowledgment, Boas is the founder of a taboo.

Derbyshire's own tell is instructive. He grants Religionism a cognitive-science explanation and Culturism a history — but exempts his own Biologism from either, calling it plain method. Yet a position immune to genealogy is exactly what an ideology looks like from the inside. The honest reader should ask of every party here: whose conclusion arrived before the evidence?

Woven from these notes

The social scientists’ official view of race is designed to support the political view that genetics cannot possibly be the reason why human societies differ—the answer must lie exclusively in differing human cultures and the environment that produced them. The social anthropologist Franz Boas established the doctrine that human behavior is shaped only by culture and that no culture is superior to any other. From this point of view it follows that all humans are essentially interchangeable apart from their cultures, and that more complex societies owe their greater strength or prosperity solely to fortunate accidents such as that of geography.
— Nicholas Wade A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History
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
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