ESIC 2017 A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science Joseph Carroll, John A. Johnson, Catherine Salmon, Jens Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, Mathias Clasen, and Emelie Jonsson Abstract How far has the Darwinian revolution come? To what extent have evolutionary ideas penetrated into the social sciences and humanities? Are the “science wars” over? Or do whole blocs of disciplines face off over an unbridgeable epistemic gap? To answerquestions like these, contributors to top journals in 22 disciplines were surveyed on their beliefs about human nature, culture, and science. More than 600 respondents completed the survey. Scoring patterns divided into two main sets of disciplines. Genetic influences were emphasized in the evolutionary social sciences, evolutionary humanities, psychology, empirical study of the arts, philosophy, economics, and political science. Environmental influences were emphasized in most of the humanities disciplines and in anthropology, sociology, education, and women’s or gender studies. Confidence in scientific explanation correlated positively with emphasizing genetic influences on behavior, and negatively with emphasizing environmental influences. Knowing the current actual landscape of belief should help scholars avoid sterile debates and ease the way toward fruitful collaborations with neighboring disciplines. Keywords: human nature, culture, science, science wars, cultural construction, evolutionary social science, social science, humanities, biocultural theory INTRODUCTION or to anthropologists and sociologists? Are anthropologists and sociologists closer to liter- How much have evolutionary ideas penetrated ary scholars and historians or to psychologists into the various disciplines? To what extent, if and political scientists? Do certain disciplines any, do the social sciences and the humanities in the social sciences and humanities cluster form separate, internally cohesive blocs—blocs together in emphasizing culture’s independence defined by shared ideas about human nature and from biology, or in adopting skeptical attitudes culture, and by shared attitudes toward science? toward the validity of scientific knowledge? Do To what extent do evolutionists in the social other disciplines cluster together in empha- sciences and humanities converge in beliefs and sizing biological constraints on culture, or in attitudes? If the evolutionists stand together, to affirming the validity of scientific knowledge? what extent do they stand apart from scholars To what extent, if any, do beliefs about the and scientists publishing in journals that are not validity of scientific knowledge correlate with a explicitly evolutionary? Do scholars and scien- belief that human behavior is heavily influenced tists in different disciplines vary in the degree by biology? to which they share views with the evolution- Questions such as these characterize major ists? For instance, are psychologists and political controversies in academic intellectual life. Within scientists closer in their views to evolutionists the social sciences, for over a century, the deepest Joseph Carroll et al. conflict has been between contrasting claims for side, and environmental causes, including cul- biological or environmental causes of behav- tural conventions, on the other; (3) statements ior. That conflict blazed up in the sociobiology about the interactions between culture and wars of the 1970s, and has never since subsided evolution over evolutionary time scales—that (Fox 1989; Degler 1991; Tooby and Cosmides is, statements about gene–culture coevolution, 1992; Segerstråle 2000; Alcock 2001; Pinker cultural autonomy, and cultural evolution; and 2002; Kenrick 2011; Horowitz, Yaworsky, and (4) statements about the validity and scope of Kickham 2014). Antagonism between the sci- scientific explanation. Respondents were asked ences and humanities has been smoldering at to indicate the degree to which they agreed or least since the debate between T. H. Huxley and disagreed with these statements. Matthew Arnold in the late Victorian period. The survey was designed to give an up- In the middle of the twentieth century, it flared to-date map of the current academic landscape up in the “two cultures” debate between C. P. of belief. Any such map has intrinsic interest, Snow and F. R. Leavis; and in the 1990s, it and it can also contribute to research. It can flashed into open warfare—“the science wars” enable intellectual historians to orient them- (Huxley [1880] 1898; Arnold [1882] 1974; selves more accurately toward current beliefs Snow [1959] 1993; Leavis [1959] 1972; Gross and attitudes. Knowing what researchers in and Levitt 1994; Aronowitz 1996; Koertge other disciplines actually think can help sci- 1998; Sokal and Bricmont 1998; Brown 2001; entists and scholars formulate hypotheses that Weinberg 2001; Parsons 2003; Boghossian isolate real issues at contention and thus avoid 2006; Smith 2006; Carroll 2011; Smith 2016). sterile controversies generated by unintentional In recent decades, the conflict over scientific straw-manning. Conversely, having data on knowledge has been closely intertwined with the actual beliefs can help forestall evasions or conflict over the causes of human behavior— obfuscations produced by an inconsistent use closely intertwined, but not simply reducible of terms. On the more positive side, finding one to the other. Even without support from that contiguous disciplines are closer in belief hard data, one might be confident that theorists than one supposed could ease the way toward who deprecate biological influences on behav- cross-disciplinary collaboration and synthesis. ior range from social scientists who adopt rig- For many researchers, synthesis, integration, orous empirical methods to philosophers and and comprehensiveness have inherent value historians of science who regard science as a (Wilson 1998; Slingerland and Collard 2012; medium for ideology. Is it nonetheless true that Carroll, McAdams, and Wilson 2016). A chief describing science as socially constructed cor- motive in conducting this survey was to find out relates with minimizing biological influences on how far we have come in achieving a consensus human behavior? And if that correlation does based both on a shared reliance on scientific exist, does it cross the boundary between the knowledge and on shared ideas about the bio- social sciences and the humanities? One might logical underpinnings of human behavior—how guess, and dispute. Instead, we gathered system- far we have come, and how far we still have to go. atic survey data to help answer these questions. To assess basic beliefs and attitudes about biol- METHODS ogy, culture, and science, we developed a survey questionnaire that deployed four main groups of Selecting and Categorizing Disciplines statements: (1) statements about human univer- sals and cultural diversity; (2) statements about Potential respondents were selected by the relative causal force of evolved and genet- balancing two criteria for inclusion: (1) approx- ically transmitted characteristics, on the one imating to the proportions of PhDs awarded 2 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science in the various disciplines of the social sciences where to place these disciplines depended on and humanities; and (2) obtaining fairly equal subject matter, methodology, and classifica- numbers of respondents among evolution- tion of journals in indices of impact factors. ary social scientists, nonevolutionary social Researchers in the empirical studies of the arts scientists, and nonevolutionary humanists. have a humanities subject matter, but their (The much smaller target number of evolu- methods are quantitative, and most of them tionary humanists was determined by the small have appointments in departments of psy- number available. A search for journal articles chology. That group was thus assigned to the by evolutionary humanists produced a list of social sciences. Women’s or gender studies and 79 potential respondents.) A table created by ethnic studies have primarily social subjects, the National Center for Education Statistics not subjects in imaginative culture (the arts, provided information on numbers of PhDs religion, history, philosophy). The top jour- awarded.1 Beginning with information provided nals in ethnic studies, though, are primarily by this table, a list of disciplines was compiled discursive, not quantitative, in orientation, and target numbers of potential respondents and the top journals in women’s or gender assigned to each discipline. studies include much quantitative work, so In addition to evolutionary social scientists ethnic studies was placed in the humanities, and evolutionary humanists, 20 specific disci- and women’s or gender studies in the social plines were identified as relevant to the survey. sciences. In indices of impact factors, the top Humanities disciplines that are not explicitly journals in communication are sometimes designated as evolutionary include drama and grouped with the social sciences and some- theater, ethnic studies, film studies, history, his- times with the humanities. Much of the work, tory and philosophy of science, literary study though, is quantitative, and the field as a whole (Anglophone, European, and comparative), seems to have more affinity, in both method- music, philosophy, religious studies, and the ology and subject matter, with sociology than visual