Che cosa significa essere scimpanzé al 98%

by Jonathan Marks, Giancarlo Carlotti (Translator)

Il fatto scientifico da cui prende avvio questo libro è la prossimità genetica di uomini e scimmie. Solo un misero 2% del nostro genoma ci separa da scimpanzé e gorilla: sapere questo ci aiuta, come sostengono molti, a capire la natura umana? La controversia uomo-scimmia è il punto di partenza per una radicale correzione di alcuni presupposti ingenui della nostra visione scientifica. "Che cosa significa essere scimpanzé al 98%" contiene fatti interessanti, personalità curiose ed esempi coloriti. Il libro dimistifica certe pretese della scienza genetica umana e offre strumenti per ripensare in modo critico i suoi risultati più recenti, mostrando come essa sia spesso assoggettata a logiche di tipo sociale e politico.

Genres: Science, Anthropology, Nonfiction, Evolution, Biology, Genetics, Psychology

274 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Shainlock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Primatology class. Insightful.

[Cynthia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full of humor and perhaps overfull of social criticism, Marks' book is an extremely thought provoking entryway into the softer side of science. I would advise anyone dipping their toes into the sciences to take a strenuous look at the ideas he raises, especially about scientific responsibility and the cultural ramifications of scientific study. To the animal rights activists out there, I just want to open this book to the human vs. animal rights page and SHMEAR it all over your faces. Not because I don't respect your cause, but because it's important. To remember. That people > animals, for the most part. IDK. All of his points made me slightly uncomfortable, which I appreciate, though sometimes his arguments felt a little holey.

[Steklina · Rating 3 out of 5]

J. Marks pokládá provokativní otázky zpochybňující nejen výsledky vědeckých výzkumů, ale taky správnost a oprávněnost předpokladů a hypotéz, na kterých se výzkumy realizují. Na tom by nebylo nic špatného. Velmi mi ale vadil způsob a dikce, s jakou k tomu Marks přistupoval. Že by byl opravdu jediným a nejspravedlivějším molekulárním genetikem se zdravým rozumem a korektním politickým smýšlením? Navíc se při argumentaci uchyluje ke stejným nešvarům, jaké vytýká ostatním: zjednodušování a nedostatku vědecky podložených dat.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

"[S]cience is both about the universe and about scientists; it is both a rational and a social process." This book was excellent. Not since Stephen Jay Gould have I really enjoyed this type of meta-analysis of science. Understanding bias is obviously important, but this provides a thorough explanation of the different lenses through which science is done, and gives some excellent examples of how it can go wrong, how science can be abused, and how even the best intentioned people can make and propagate mistakes.

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book to read if you are interested in Anthropology. Gives insights and fundamentals of Anthropology and their current views.

[Jerrid Kruse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exposing the ways our myths and misconceptions about genetics leads to inaccurate conclusions not based in science. Highlights the ways culture influences interpretation of science.

[Mel Stead]

Review from the March 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard:

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blog...

[Smellsofbikes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was good but frustrating. One of his points that all science is political, and I want to argue with him because I, being involved in science, think there are absolute truths. But I have to concede that there are many, many less than most people in science like to think.
He spends a lot of time talking about DNA and its relevance to races and species, and while he doesn't say that it isn't important, he does discuss why the very idea of races and species is a human invention to make classification easier, and doesn't have any basis in nature.
I kept feeling yelled at, while reading this, as if he were doing many of the things he criticizes other people for doing, but it did have a lot of insight.

[Scott Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

The spiritual successor to Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man." Marks, with eloquent humor, tries to teach people why so much of what they think they know isn't quite true. What particularly great is that these aren't just things that an ivory tower intellectual would expect the unwashed masses to believe; it's things that readers of popular science books and magazine probably still believe, as well. Marks isn't, in a sense, even making arguments here - he's just presenting ways of thinking about popular scientific knowledge; and those ways to thinking open your eyes and make the real truth behind these many discoveries even more fantastic.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great book on the responsibility of science journalists and the misinterpretation of scientific conclusions. It's very accessible and answers the nature vs. nurture(is that even a question any more? I feel like it is) debate succintly with plenty of examples. The only downside is that Marks has a tendency to be really angry and sharp, which I found to be distracting when I read it. Too much vitriol made the book kind of irritating, even though I understood why he was angry.

[Thomas Stevenson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the world of politics, science is whatever you want it to be. Marks says it isn't and set out to show the many ways that science has been misused to lead the unaware or uncritical to incorrect conclusions. Along the way, he shows why anthropology training and perspective, in this case biological anthropology is wonderful tool for critical thinking.

[Geordie · Rating 4 out of 5]

please read immediately before doing anything else like walking, eating, sleeping, etc. also please use hardback edition to bonk uninformed animal activists on head with for quicker gratification

[Marckissel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. I don't agree with everything he says (and who would?) but much of what he writes needs to be better known.

[Evan · Rating 3 out of 5]

For someone who doesn't believe in a human nature he sure uses the word 'dehumanizing' a lot.