Why We Disagree About Human Nature

Is human nature something that the natural and social sciences aim to describe, or is it a pernicious fiction? What role, if any, does human nature play in directing and informing scientific work? Leading figures from the life sciences, philosophy, psychology, and anthropology present new essays exploring these questions.

Is human nature something that the natural and social sciences aim to describe, or is it a pernicious fiction? What role, if any, does ''human nature'' play in directing and informing scientific work? Can we talk about human nature without invoking-either implicitly or explicitly-a contrast with human culture? It might be tempting to think that the respectability of ''human nature'' is an issue that divides natural and social scientists along disciplinary boundaries, but the truth is more complex. The contributors to this collection take very different stances with regard to the idea of human nature. They come from the fields of psychology, the philosophy of science, social and biological anthropology, evolutionary theory, and the study of animal cognition. Some of them are ''human nature'' enthusiasts, some are sceptics, and some say that human nature is a concept with many faces, each of which plays a role in its own investigative niche. Some want to eliminate the notion altogether, some think it unproblematic, others want to retain it with reforming modifications. Some say that human nature is a target for investigation that the human sciences cannot do without, others argue that the term does far more harm than good. The diverse perspectives articulated in this book help to explain why we disagree about human nature, and what, if anything, might resolve that disagreement.