At 09:40 18/06/07 +0100, Paul Spicker wrote (in part):
>In line with this, Ned Block, who Daniel cites, writes:
>[quote snipped]
>I thought this was a really interesting and worthwhile position. It
>proposes a definition of heritability based on family and environment, and
>so on variation in the phenotype rather than the genotype. This is quite
>unlike other definitions I've seen, it makes excellent sense, and it gets
>neatly around the first two problems I was complaining about: it does not
>require any
>distinction between genotype and phenotype, and it does not require the
>attribution of causes to a notional factor.
Whilst I can see that, for some purposes, it might sometimes be useful to
have a word (ideally not "heritability"!) for this all-encompassing concept
of 'acquisition' of characteristics/whatever, I personally would think that
it has to capacity to seriously confuse, particularly if the word
"heritability" is used. The problem is that such a word totally muddles up
that which is biologically (genetically) determined (traditionally termed
'inherited') and that which is a result of environmental factors
(traditionally termed 'acquired').
Since the inherited/acquired ('nature vs.
nurture') discussion/debate/controversy is so common in relation to so
many characterstics (be they IQ, 'sexual orientation' or whatever), I am
far from convinced that having a word which encompasses both will help such
discussions to move forward, and I certainly think that if the word used
for that were "heritability", serious confusion would easily result.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|