It was unfortunate that you didn't have time to really flesh out with John Dupre about the implications of his ideas for 'genetic engineering' and such. Perhaps it is incorrect to extend what was basically a conversation about human developement to plant gene engineering or animal gene engineering, but it seems to me that there must be similar processes in all living things. If the gene is not the only mechanism that makes a trait express in an individual organism, than it seems to me real hubris to think that we have control over the effects of genetically modified organisms.

Looks like an entirely terminological debate to me.
Nobody is unsure here around what happens when a brain develops, or than our physical makeup is contingent on our genes, including our brains.
If you don't like saying "genes maketh the man", then don't say it. In my own words, "Kabloo, ignagger fakwump. Blug blug igzoo". You didn't understand that? Well, that's because language is arbitrary. I'm *still not wrong* about genetics. A rose by any other name would still wilt after 5-7 days from delivery.
-MP

I do not know if genes make the man, but I have a question. How far does education go in developing a person? Can education improve all parts of the mind? Kant stated that education could not help develop judgment, but I also heard that Kant was a racist. In my view Will, Eros, and Reason are the most powerful parts of a human being, but I believe that artificial machines will be able to control all of the physical including the brain. Genes make up the genotype and phenotype of the human being, but I would be more concerned with the control of the mind. The mind can always use reason and will to manipulate genes through science, but what will the mind do when machines control the brain? If the spirit exists it has to go through the brain to produce action. If the brain is locked by a microchip, then it does not matter how much the spirit wants to move the arm if Will cannot go through brain. Artificial Intelligence, Genetics, its all about control. The most important control is the control of consciousness.

"S0 exactly how does a view that has no hold in the scientific community take on such a life of its own in the popular imagination? "
Journalists, for one. I think most educated people sense the slippery slope from the denial of free will to the social breakdown that would occur if we were deemed to not bear responsibility for our actions. Journalists pose genes as a threat to free will, and voila, Time and Newsweek have catchy cover stories.
当真正的学者感到这种恐惧时，根本的问题就来了，而他们的反应是从恐惧退回到对所涉及的科学细节的质疑。并不是说我们不应该质疑科学。但是，如果动机是出于哲学目的，而不是出于冷静的理性探究，我们就会让这些腐败的表情包进入专家们的头脑，然后进入外行的头脑，因为对科学的攻击来自学术权威。
Steven Pinker and (especially) Daniel Dennett take extraordinary pains to try and put thinking people at ease - modern science is not at odds with free will in any meaningful sense.
Daniel Dennett gave a great interview on these subjects (free will, determinism, evolution, etc) to Reason a little while back, it's a good introduction to some of his work as well:
http://www.reason.com/0305/fe.rb.pulling.shtml
-Steve

Hey! Why is the latest show not up on the website yet? Did you guys have a show on Genetics and Determinism?

The Genetic Determinism show is listed in Past Programs, but it doesn't seem to actually be there.
http://vodreal.stanford.edu/opa/philo/050419.ram是一个断链。

Ken's initial point about the way the media portrays "genetic determinism" (a misnomer indeed) made me want to plug a panel discussion on "Mind and Brain in the Media" that I have organized at the 2005 meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology (http://www.hfac.uh.edu/cogsci/spp/wwwanlmt.htm).
I worry that the media presents to the general public research in evolutionary psychology/genetics, neuroscience, and other cognitive sciences in a way that is sometimes misleading and potentially dangerous given the important ethical and legal issues affected by people's conception of human nature.
We'll be discussing the role philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists should play in having their research disseminated by the media (and popular works). Panel members include Paul Bloom (psychologist), Owen Flanagan (philosopher), Daniel Povinelli (cognitive evolution), and Dan Lloyd (philosopher). I'd like to get a science journalist there but have not had any success yet. Maybe Ken or John know someone??

They don't! But they do start the process of making the person.

Well i don't really know whether genes makes the person but this thing is for sure that they make up the genotype and phenotype of the human being.

我得出的结论是，基因和教养都不能造就一个人。更强大的影响是文字和阅读的力量。你能想到任何没有词的东西吗?

是的,我能。我称之为“无法命名”......糟糕!
But with regard to whether the genotype determines the phenotype the answer is obviously no, since some organisms develop dramatically different forms and behaviours depending on their environment. On the other hand the genotype does limit the phenotype - I have already lasted more than seven days without wilting but alas I will never smell like a rose.
From listening to the show, I had to agree with Ken and John when they appeared to be suggesting that John Dupre was exaggerating the literalness of the public understanding of "gene for" this or that. I think most of us are aware that the situation is often much more complicated and that the "gene for" is really understood as a proxy for "inherited biological tendency to" - but even if the misconception is real I am not sure how much it matters. The fact that the details are often expressed simplistically (or even understood that way) should not be used to deny the truth that many of our characteristics *are* determined at conception (whether by genes or whatever).
Yes it is unfortunate when determinism is assumed for characteristics to which it does not apply - or to which it does apply but only in a statistical sense, and especially when such assumptions are used to justify socially harmful attitudes and policies, but it does not make sense to deny the possibility just because we don't like the way some people abuse it.
I do wish there had been more time to follow up on Ken's concluding reference to the determinism/freedom issue.
Thanks for fixing the link. It's great to be able to enjoy these shows so long after the fact.