Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate

Ullica Segerstrale

4.05 · Rating details · 64 ratings · 13 reviews

When Edward O. Wilson published Sociobiology, it generated a firestorm of criticism, mostly focused on the book's final chapter, in which Wilson applied lessons learned from animal behavior to human society. In Defenders of the Truth, Ullica Segerstrale takes a hard look at the sociobiology controversy, sorting through a hornet's nest of claims and counterclaims, moral con ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 512 pages

Published May 31st 2001 by Oxford University Press, USA (first published 2000)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Defenders of the Truth, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Defenders of the Truth

Lists with This Book

The Evolution Of Desire by David M. Buss

Books Discussed On Mating Grounds Part II

100 books — 1 voter

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.05 ·

Rating details

· 64 ratings · 13 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate

Jun 23, 2019 Richard Diehm rated it it was ok

Shelves: science-philosophy-of-science

This book is still fairly useful for someone interested in the history of the "science wars" but its usefulness is severely hampered by the fact that it is strongly biased toward one "side" (that of E.O. Wilson, Dawkins et al) and routinely derides, misrepresents, and even personally insults the critics of sociobiology, biological determinism etc.

A tiresome amount of space in the book is devoted to gossip or just insults about Lewontin et al from both their colleagues and the author herself (wh This book is still fairly useful for someone interested in the history of the "science wars" but its usefulness is severely hampered by the fact that it is strongly biased toward one "side" (that of E.O. Wilson, Dawkins et al) and routinely derides, misrepresents, and even personally insults the critics of sociobiology, biological determinism etc.

A tiresome amount of space in the book is devoted to gossip or just insults about Lewontin et al from both their colleagues and the author herself (who inserts herself into this "history" frequently). Even small things like the choice of adjectives for the two groups is blatantly biased. Constant excuses are made for when the sociobiologists display "bad" behavior, explaining how their hands were forced, while there is never an attempt at a charitable interpretation of their critics. Exchanges between the factions are frequently left with the "last word" going to the sociobiologist camp, who also get far more quotes both explaining their positions and criticizing that of their critics. A strong effort is made to put the sociobiologists into proper context and a similarly strong one is made to take their critics out of it.

Perhaps most annoyingly the author persists in declaring the critics of sociobiology to be "environmentalists" or "nurturists" when every major critic of sociobiology quite regularly attacked the nature/nurture dichotomy altogether as facile and misleading. This is actually something some of the sociobiologists did as well although here the author bothers to mention it as a means of defending them from accusations of genetic determinism.

If this had been presented as a autobiographical polemic arguing for the baselessness of Lewontin, Gould, Levins, et al's criticisms it might've received 3 stars from me. It is not convincing in that regard but as I said it *is* a useful historical resource and I would've appreciated the honesty.

Also the title, blurb, introduction and the fact the the author is a sociologist had led me to believe the book would attempt to take an overarching sociological view of the "wars" and maybe even use these episodes to analyze how science operates as an institution, what exactly "truth" means here, and what this can add to sociology/philosophy of science. Unfortunately there is almost none of this in the book. While the title ostensibly refers to both sides of the debate it's clear the author believes the critics of sociobiology were a bunch of confused pompous ideologues attempting to hinder "progress" and unfairly attacking the real Truth as revealed Wilson et al.

This hinders the obvious goal of the author because the shoddiness of the attacks undermines where it really *does* point out some issues with the critics such as their initial problems coming up with a positive antireductionist program, Gould's clamoring for the spotlight and his penchant for GREAT BIG THEORIES which at least matched Wilson's, their wishy-washiness about whether their politics informed their science (unlike the author I believe it did for BOTH sides and the belief in an apolitical science is both absurd and itself a political statement). I assume book this is meant to preach to the choir but if I were someone "on the fence" or without much knowledge about the subject I would probably question all the author's assertions based on their extreme and obvious bias.

Most unfortunately perhaps we are given a one-sided view on how echoes of this debate are felt today. We're left with the idea that once these wacky leftists piped down Wilson, Dawkins et al were finally left alone while they transformed science. Being only spiteful critics with no positive program to put forward the wacky leftists all faded away.

We are not informed about Lewontin et al's influence on so many modern areas of biology from broad theoretical perspectives like Developmental Systems Theory and Extended Evolutionary Sythesis (which, whether you agree with it or not is also influenced by Wilson's advocacy of group selection) or more minor things like how they influenced how people think about, talk about, and emphasize niche construction, exaptation,"complexity, contingency, epigenetics, Neutral Theory etc. It's inescapable that those people transformed the landscape of modern science just as much as the sociobiologists but the author either does not know this or does not want it known. Even a hateful dismissal of how they've influenced things would've been useful.

So with so many complaints why am I even bothering to give this book 2 stars? Because as of right now it's all we have. There is another book focusing on Dawkins and Gould but, to my knowledge anyway, this is the only book analyzing this notable clash in the history of science from such a broad perspective. Maybe someday down the line some future iteration of Gould --a working, creative scientist that is also a talented writer for the public that *also* is skilled at historical analysis-- can approach this and give a proper (I won't say "balanced" but perhaps less ireful) account of these episodes and put them into the broader context of the philosophy of science to boot.

P.S. I have plenty of further gripes but one I feel I should really add is that virtually no attention is paid to the feminist critiques (or critics) of sociobiology. Ruth Hubbard is mentioned twice. Once in a list of names, and once parenthetically. Elisabeth Lloyd is mentioned once parenthetically. Ruth Bleier is not mentioned at all. Evelyn Fox-Keller is not mentioned at all. The only mention of feminism is when the author attempts to paint Wilson as the victim of a feminist witch hunt due to his speculative statements regarding the supposed disposition of men toward politics, business, and science and of women toward... home life. They didn't understand he was merely speculating, we are told. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 26, 2020 Bruce Nappi rated it it was amazing

The classic book Sociobiology by E.O. Wilson provides deep explanations for human behavior in groups. But mainstream pressures against any "scientific" attempt to "understand" human behavior in a way that might suggest modifying it, turned against Wilson just as they have on the population limitation activists. They effectively made the term "social evolution" a taboo in the scientific community from the publication of Sociobiology through the end of the last century. A new academic society, the ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 26, 2020 jjonas rated it liked it

Shelves: evolution, history, non-fiction, science

3.5 stars.

Before starting this I thought this would be an unabashedly partisan book — in favour of sociobiology, it being the "Truth" that some were defending — than it actually was; I was surprised to find that the title referred to both sides defending their own "Truth", i.e. what to them counted as "good science". That was a pleasant surprise. I still think though that she had more understanding for what the sociobiologists tried to do than for what the critics tried to do, all things conside ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 17, 2011 DoctorM rated it really liked it

Shelves: science, sociology

Segerstrale's "Defenders of the Truth" looks at the debates and polemics growing out of E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" in 1975 and fought out across the mid-1980s. The book itself derives from Segerstrale's PhD thesis, and she had amazingly free access to key players in the debates--- E.O. Wilson, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith, et al. ----many of whom gave her substantial interviews.

The stakes in the debate were, at least in the popular press, about whether Wilson was guilty of promoting a Segerstrale's "Defenders of the Truth" looks at the debates and polemics growing out of E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" in 1975 and fought out across the mid-1980s. The book itself derives from Segerstrale's PhD thesis, and she had amazingly free access to key players in the debates--- E.O. Wilson, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith, et al. ----many of whom gave her substantial interviews.

The stakes in the debate were, at least in the popular press, about whether Wilson was guilty of promoting a genetic determinism and a view of the genetic origins of behaviour that could be used to justify race and class inequities--- Wilson was accused of being an enabler of racists and conservatives. If group differences were based on genes, then they were presumably "well-adapted", and there was no use in trying to change society. Yet as Segerstrale makes clear, the lines of argument were never simply about sociobiology and its implications. Whether Wilson and his supporters (e.g., Richard Dawkins) were correct about the influence of genes on human behaviour, there were other issues at hand: not just the political consequences (though both sides in the debate accused the other of 'Lysenkoism'), but also the meaning of what science is and how it should be conducted...and how advances in molecular biology would affect the view of what natural selection is...and the role of statistical models...and competing British and American views of the social role of scientists...

"Defenders of the Truth" does tend to side with Wilson in the debates, but Segerstrale nonetheless presents the arguments on all sides with precision and deftness and wit. Her concern is not with which side had the best of the science, but on how the debates were conducted, with the sociology of scientific controversy, and on how scientists respond both professionally and personally to challenges to theory.

A well-done book, and one that makes a distinction always worth pondering. Segerstrale divides the scientific world up into 'planters', who spin out ideas, and 'weeders', who hunt for error. Umberto Eco made the same division once upon a time--- between those who looked for truth and those who try to eliminate error. Segerstrale's sympathies are with the planters, as are Eco's. Relentless criticism is a key part of the scientific method, but there's always something chilling about those whose commitment is to finding and eliminating perceived error whether that's political or scientific...

...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 31, 2013 Tom rated it it was amazing

This is an overall wonderful book. Not only are the (sometimes very intense) debates between all the major players (Wilson, Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, etc.) fleshed out impeccably, but the work manages to touch upon deeper issues such as the role of values in science, the differentiation between "good" and "bad" science, the search for a "correct" scientific ontology, and the scientist's placement in a broader social context, among other things. There's general history of science here, but it's a ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 04, 2016 Sylvester Kuo rated it really liked it

Shelves: biology, politics

The sociobiological debate centres on the conflict of the traditional (objective) scientist seeking to find out the truth about the genetic influence on animal behaviours and the Marxists who refuses to accept the reality. Two camps are created: the Wilson camp and Lewinton camp who debate about whether studying evolutionary genetics is, well, moral.

Wilson and his proponents (Dawkins, Jensen, Hamilton etc) were accused of being "racist", "reductionist", "immoral", "nazi", etc for their work, the ...more

flag Like · see review

Apr 03, 2012 Kevin Arthur rated it it was amazing

Shelves: technology-and-society

Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate by Ullica Segerstrale is a comprehensive (exhaustive might be the better word) analysis from a sociologist of the actions and motivations behind the parties in the "Sociobiology Debate," which began with the publications of E.O. Wilson's book, Sociobiology, in the 1970s. Wilson basically proposed that "the genes hold culture on a leash." Other parties include Richard Dawkins (also of the genetic determinism bent, though he later denied it), and, in ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 11, 2015 Divya Ramesh rated it liked it

A first-hand account of the age-old still-somehow-lingering debate and discussion on sociobiology. What I found most interesting was how influential politics and ego were in spurning the entire thing, or how at least we could be misguided into thinking that the debate was politically motivated (the author argues it was not). The author develops through the book the notions of 'good' and 'bad' science, and how everyone was actually fighting for their version of the truth. I skipped entire chunks ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 26, 2009 Eric Hines rated it really liked it

Shelves: science, history, evolution, genetics, philosophy, of

This book is rightly celebrated as THE place to go to to learn about the socio-biological (and related) disputes of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Segerstrale had an uncommon degree of access to the central figures in the debate, and also an uncommon degree of access to those less-famous working scientists who largely pass judgement on these sorts of debate.[return][return]The big weaknesses of the book are its small but decided bias in favor of EO Wilson, whom the author obviously l ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 09, 2011 John Roberson rated it it was amazing

(4.5 stars) Wonderful exposition of the sociobiology debate (basically, how to explain human sociality within the matrix of evolutionary theory). Of particular interest to me was the central significance of non-experimental factors in the debate; human sociality was playing out right before them! Politics, intrigue, argument, corruption, ethics, and more: it's all there!

flag Like · see review

Jul 13, 2010 Conor rated it it was amazing

A great comprehensive survey of the opinions of key voices in the debate over the application of evolutionary biology to human behaviour. Comprehensive set of references and interviews with key players mean it's an excellent survey. It is possibly a little one-sided, on the side of sociobiologists/evo-psych, but there's enough coverage that you can make up your own mind.

flag Like · see review