Epistemic peer disagreement in the nature-nurture debate


  • Nahuel Pallitto Instituto de Filosofía “Dr. Alejandro Korn”, CONICET, ARGENTINA




Scientific disagreements constitute valuable resources for reflecting on epistemic peer disagreements. In this essay I engage in the debate whether epistemic peers who disagree should be conciliatory or steadfast by examining how scientists actually react in the so called nature-nurture debate. The main conclusion of the analysis is that, when taking into consideration concrete epistemic practices with peers responding to different epistemic perspectives, scientists have good reasons to be steadfast. At the same time, the theoretical conceptualizations of the epistemology of peer disagreement illuminates certain aspects of the nature-nurture debate, such as its long persistence. Therefore, this article contributes both to the debate over the epistemology of disagreement and to the understanding of a never-ending controversy in the life sciences.


Christensen, D. 2007. Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. The Philosophical Review 116(2): 187-217.

Collins, F. 2010. The language of life. DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. Nueva York: Harper.

DiLalla, L.F. 2003. Behavior genetics of aggression in children: review and future directions. Developmental Review 22: 593–622.

Douven, I. 2009. Uniqueness Revisited. American Philosophical Quarterly 46(4): 347–361.

Douven, I. 2010. Simulating peer disagreements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 148–157.

Elga, A. 2007. Reflection and disagreement. Noûs 41(3): 478-502.

Feldman, R. 2006. Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. In: S. Hetherington (ed.), Epistemology Futures, p.216-236. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

Fox Keller, E. 2010. The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Londres: Duke University Press.

Frances, B. 2013. Disagreement. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Griffiths P.E. 2013. Developmental systems theory: What does it explain, and how does it explain it? Advances in Child Development and Behavior 44: 65–94.

Griffiths P.E. & Tabery J.G. 2008. Behavioral genetics and development: historical and conceptual causes of controversy. New Ideas in Psychology 26: 332–352.

Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jumonville, N. 2002. The Cultural Politics of the Sociobiology Debate. Journal of the History of Biology 35: 569–593.

Junges, A.L. 2013. Desacordo racional e controvérsia científica. Scientiae Studia 11(3): 613-35.

Kelly, T. 2005. The epistemic significance of disagreement. Oxford studies in epistemology 1: 167-196.

Kelly, T. 2010. Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence. In: R. Feldman & T. Warfield (eds.). Disagreement, p.111-174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kitcher, P. 2001. Battling the Undead: How (and How Not) to Resist Genetic Determinism". In: R.S. Singh; C.B. Krimbas; D.B. Paul & J. Beatty (eds.). Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives, p.396-414. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lackey, J. 2010. A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance. In: A. Haddock; A. Millar & D. Pritchard (eds.). Social Epistemology, p.298-325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lehrman, D. S. 1970. Semantic and Conceptual Issues in the Nature-Nurture Problem. In: L. Aronson; E. Tobach; D.S. Lehrman & J.S. Rosenblatt (eds.). Development and Evolution of Behavior, p. 17-52. Nueva York: W. H. Freeman.

Lerner, R. 2016. Complexity Embraced and Complexity Reduced: A Tale of Two Approaches to Human Development. Human Development 59: 242–249.

Lewontin, R.D.; Rose, S. & Kamin, L.J. 1987. No está en los genes. Barcelona: Crítica.

Lo Guercio, N. 2012. Philosophical peer disagreement. Logos & Episteme 3(3): 459-467.

Lo Guercio, N. 2015. Desacuerdos entre Pares Epistémicos: Problemas y Soluciones. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Lo Guercio, N. 2016. Desacuerdo entre Pares y Dependencia Epistémica. Principia 20(3): 325–341.

Longino, H. 2013. Studying Human Behaviour: How Scientists Investigate Aggression & Sexuality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Machamer, P.K.; Pera, M. & Baltas, A. (eds.). 2000. Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Monares, R. A. 1999. Modernidad y crisis ambiental: en torno al fundamento de la relación naturaleza - ser humano en occidente. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales 3: 31-42.

Oyama, S. 1985. The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oyama, S.; Griffiths, P.E. & Gray, R.D. 2001. Introduction: What is developmental systems theory? In: Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution, p.1-11. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Pallitto, N. 2017. Representar e intervenir el comportamiento humano en la era de la tecnobiología. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia 17(35): 7-34.

Pallitto, N. & Folguera, G. 2017. Ni cabalmente clásico, ni completamente molecular. Un análisis del concepto de gen en la genética del comportamiento. Scientiae Studia 15(2): 439-457.

Paul, D.B. 1998. The Politics Of Heredity Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate. Nueva York: State University of New York Press.

Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Plomin, R. & Asbury, K. 2005. Nature and nurture: Genetic and environmental influences on behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600: 86−98.

Plomin, R.; DeFries, J.; Craig, I. & McGuffin, P. 2012. Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Plomin, R.; DeFries, J.; Knopik, V. & Neiderheiser, J. 2013. Behavioral Genetics. Nueva York: Worth Publishers.

Plomin, R.; DeFries, J.; Knopik, V. & Neiderheiser, J. 2016. Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science 11: 3–23.

Raeff, C. 2016. Exploring the dynamics of human development: An integrative approach. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

Segerstrale, U. S. 1986. Colleagues in conflict: An "in vivo" analysis of the sociobiology controversy. Biology & Philosophy 1: 53-87.

Silberstein, M. & Chemero, A. 2013. Constraints on localization and decomposition as explanatory strategies in the biological sciences. Philosophy of Science 80(5): 958–70.

Stotz, K. 2010. Human nature and cognitive–developmental niche construction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9: 483–501.

Stotz, K. & Allen, C. 2012. From Cell-Surface Receptors to Higher Learning: A Whole World of Experience. In: K.S. Plaisance & T.A.C. Reydon (eds.). Philosophy of Behavioral Biology. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, p.85-123. Dordrecht: Springer.

Tabery, J. 2009. Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Turkheimer, E. 2012. Genome Wide Association Studies of Behavior are Social Science. In: K.S. Plaisance & T.A.C. Reydon (eds.). Philosophy of Behavioral Biology. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, p.43-64. Dordrecht: Springer.

Wedgwood, R. 2010. The moral evil demons. In: R. Feldman & T. Warfield (eds.). Disagreement, p.216-246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, R. 2005. Epistemic Permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives 19: 445–459.