Science and Human Nature

RICHARD SAMUELS

There is a puzzling tension in contemporary scientific attitudes

towards human nature. On the one hand, evolutionary biologists cor-
rectly maintain that the traditional essentialist conception of human
nature is untenable; and moreover that this is obviously so in the
light of quite general and exceedingly well-known evolutionary con-
siderations.1 On this view, talk of human nature is just an expression
of pre-Darwinian superstition.2 On the other hand, talk of human
nature abounds in certain regions of the sciences, especially in
linguistics, psychology and cognitive science. Further, it is very
frequently most common amongst those cognitive-behavioral scien-
tists who should be most familiar with the sorts of facts that putatively
undermine the very notion of human nature: sociobiologists, evol-
utionary psychologists, and more generally, theorists working on
the evolution of mind and culture.
Faced with such a tension, three main kinds of response come
readily to mind. A first possibility would be to charge one party
with ignorance or idiocy. Perhaps students of human behavior and
cognition are, for example, just too stupid or ignorant to recognize
the implications of well known, general facts about evolution. But
this is highly implausible – not to mention uncharitable. Whatever
else is going on here, the problem is surely not one of silliness. A
second possible response would be to adopt a deflationary attitude
towards talk of human nature. Perhaps all talk of human nature is
mere rhetorical flourish – just filigree to decorate more sober views.
No doubt there is something to this. Talk of human nature sounds
grand and exciting, and connects one’s views to historically deep
and influential intellectual traditions. But it’s hard to believe that
this is the whole story. For it makes little sense of the fact that
people argue for the existence of human nature,3 or propose that a

1
D. Hull, ‘On human nature’, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial
Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2 (1986), 3–13.
2
M. T. Ghiselin, Metaphysics and the origins of species (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1997).
3
See, for example, E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press, 1979); J. Tooby & L. Cosmides, ‘On the univers-
ality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of

doi:10.1017/S1358246112000021 © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2012

Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 70 2012 1
Richard Samuels

central goal of science should be to develop a theory of human

nature.4
This brings us to the third option. Perhaps the notion of human
nature at play within the cognitive and behavioral sciences is not
the traditional essentialist one targeted by evolutionary critiques,
but some more sensible alternative – or replacement – notion. This
is, I maintain, the most plausible option. Yet if this is what’s going
on, then it is not at all obvious what the relevant notion of human
nature is supposed to be. With this in mind, the overarching issue
that I address here is: What could contemporary cognitive and behav-
ioral scientists sensibly have in mind when they make claims about
human nature? More precisely, I focus on a three subsidiary issues:
1) What notion of human nature is implicit in the practices of cog-
nitive science? (Roughly equivalently: What sort of phenom-
ena do cognitive scientists purport to characterize when
providing a theory of human nature?)
2) Does this notion of human nature evade the standard biological
objections to traditional human nature essentialism?
3) Is the notion of human nature that figures in the cognitive and
behavioral sciences sufficiently similar to the traditional one to
merit the honorific ‘human nature’? In particular, does it play
an appropriately large number of the theoretical roles tradition-
ally played by the notion of human nature?
If the answer to 1) yields affirmative answers to both 2) and 3), then
we have a prima facie attractive replacement notion of human nature.
And as luck would have it, there is such a notion. Or so I will argue.
It would perhaps be useful to summarize my responses to these
questions. Indeed it might be useful to do so twice over: once with
an eye to the content of the claims that I make, and once with an
eye to the history of the notion of human nature. First, the non-
historical summary: With regard to the first of the above questions,
I defend a version of what might be called causal essentialism about
human nature – roughly, human nature is a suite of mechanisms
that underlie the manifestation of species-typical cognitive and

genetics and adaptation’, Journal of Personality, 58 (1990) 17–67; and

S. Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.
(New York: Viking, 2002).
4
See, for example, N. Chomsky ‘Human Nature: Justice vs. Power’. In
N. Chomsky & M. Foucault The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human
Nature (New York: New Press, 1971, 1–67).

2
 Science and Human Nature

behavioral regularities. In response to 2), I argue that this causal

essentialist conception of human nature does not succumb to the
evolutionary critique; and in response to 3) I argue that it does
much – though not all – of the work traditionally expected of the
notion of human nature. But, I argue further that it is implausible
to suppose that anything could perform all the roles traditionally
expected of human nature.
Now for the more historical summary: The connection between a
science of the mind and human nature is not a novel one. Rather cog-
nitive scientific interest in human nature is an extension of the intel-
lectual tradition that runs through David Hume. Hume was, of
course, amongst the more influential, pre-Darwinian advocates of a
science of the human mind; and for Hume, the science of the mind
just was the science of human nature: an empirical discipline that
sought to identify the principles and mechanisms responsible for
human psychological phenomena. Though Hume was never very
explicit regarding what precisely he meant by ‘human nature’, the
notion played various theoretical roles in his research. Moreover,
these roles differed in important respects from the one assumed
by contemporary, evolutionary critiques of human nature.
Specifically, Hume never assumed that the notion of human nature
played the taxonomic function in defining what it is to be human.
The working hypothesis of the present paper is that contemporary
cognitive scientists are, at least in this regard, the intellectual descen-
dants of Hume. Though most disagree – often vehemently – with the
details of Hume’s own theory of the mind, they readily accept his
characterization of the goals of the science of the mind; and so con-
strued, the Humean notion of human nature comes along for the
theoretical ride.
Here’s the game plan. In section 1, I sketch some of the central
theoretical roles that the notion of human nature has traditionally
been intended to play. In section 2, I briefly rehearse the standard
biological objections to the traditional essentialist conception of
human nature. In section 3, I discuss one proposed reconfiguration
of the notion of human nature: Edouard Machery’s nomological con-
ception of human nature. Though this conception fairs quite well in
capturing many of the traditional theoretical roles of human nature,
there are some central roles that it will not readily play.
Specifically, it will not play the traditional taxonomic and causal-
explanatory roles of human nature. In view of this, in section 4,
I defend an alternative casual essentialist conception of human
nature. If we are looking for a conception of human nature that
accommodates the maximal number of traditional theoretical
3
Richard Samuels

functions and yet remains compatible with the evolutionary facts,

then this view is preferable. Or so I maintain. In section 5, I conclude
by addressing an objection to the proposal, and by spelling out the
Humean character of contemporary notions of human nature.

1. The Theoretical Roles of Human Nature

In order to address the above issues, we need first to get clearer on the
various theoretical roles that human nature – and theories thereof –
have traditionally been intended to play within scientific enterprises.5

1.1 Organizing Role

A first major theoretical function for human nature is organizational

in character. It is to delimit an area of scientific enquiry, and more-
over, to do so by specifying a distinctive object of empirical
enquiry. In short: some regions of science are to be demarcated, at
least in part, by the fact that they are concerned with human nature.
Hume’s philosophy nicely illustrates this function. In setting out
the project of his Treatise, Hume makes quite clear that human
nature is to comprise a distinctive object of enquiry for his new
science of Man; and though Hume maintained that all the sciences
were to some degree related to aspects of human nature, what made
the science of Man distinctive was that it, and it alone, had human
nature per se as its object.6 The goal of this fledgling enquiry was to
provide an account of human nature. Moreover, the methods for at-
taining this end were for Hume resolutely empirical in character.
Thus on Hume’s view, human nature was an empirically discoverable
phenomenon – a part of nature in much the same way as animals,
plants and planets are.
It seems that this Humean attitude towards human nature is very
much in evidence today. If one surveys the writings of theoretically
oriented cognitive scientists, one finds much the same sentiment.
Thus, for example, Chomsky asks whether

5
Though human nature has often been expected to play a central role in
moral theory, I will discuss this here. The main reason for this is that I am
concerned with the status of human nature in the sciences; and in such con-
texts, little or no moral work is expected of human nature.
6
D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge,
2nd ed. revised by P.H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975).

4
 Science and Human Nature

[T]he concept of human nature …might not provide for biology

the next peak to try to scale, after having…already answered to
the satisfaction of some the question of what is life.7
For Chomsky, then, as for Hume, the concept of human nature is to
play an organizing role in the sciences: to pick out – albeit in rough-
and-ready fashion – a set of phenomena that will form a focus of
empirical enquiry for some region of science.

1.2 Descriptive functions

A second role that theories of human nature have traditionally been

taken to play is a descriptive one. They are supposed to characterize
what human beings are like. Historically, this has often been taken to
involve describing properties that are presumed to be unique to
human beings, and moreover, universally possessed by us. On such
a view, a fondness for cooking Beef Wellington, though unique to
humans, would not be an aspect of human nature since it is not a uni-
versal characteristic. Conversely, possessing lungs, though universal,
would not count as an aspect of human nature since many non-
human organisms also possess lungs. On the traditional view, then,
the task of saying what human beings are like becomes the task of
specifying a set of properties possessed by all and only humans. As
we will see in section 2, this characterization of human nature’s de-
scriptive function will require modification. But for now, let it stand.

1.3 Causal explanatory functions

A third central function of human nature is causal-explanatory.

Human nature – and theories thereof – are supposed to contribute
to the causal explanation of reliably occurring features of humanity.
So, for example, if the capacity for language-use is a reliably occur-
ring feature of human beings, then aspects of human nature will be
expected to figure in the causal explanation of the fact that we
exhibit this capacity.
As we will see later on, there are different ways in which human
nature might contribute to the causal explanation of species-typical
regularities. But on the standard conception of natures – one var-
iously associated with Aristotle, Locke and others – it is assumed
that human nature is, in some sense, an underlying – ‘hidden’ or
7
Op. cit. note 4.

5
Richard Samuels

unobservable – entity that explains more readily observable, reliably

occurring features of human beings.8 That is, the fact that humans
have the same nature is supposed to contribute to the causal expla-
nation of generalizations that hold amongst human beings.

1.4 Taxonomic function

A fourth function that is commonly attributed to human nature is a

taxonomic one. A theory of human nature should specify what it is
for something to be a human being. That is, it should provide necess-
ary and sufficient conditions for kind membership. On this view,
widely regarded as deriving from Aristotelian philosophy,9 human
nature is in some sense definitional of kind membership, and as
such, has a certain modal status. It is not merely that, as a matter of
fact, all and only humans possess a human nature. Rather, for some-
thing to be a human being, it must as a matter of metaphysical neces-
sity possess a human nature.

1.5 Invariances

The fifth and final assumption about the role of human nature that I
discuss here is that it is supposed to set limits on human flexibility.
That is, human nature is presumed to be, in some sense, hard to
change. This idea is not readily articulated with precision; and
clearly takes a variety of forms. On the strongest reading of this
idea, aspects of human nature are supposed to be impossible to
change.10 But something weaker is often intended. Perhaps human

8
Louise M. Antony, ‘“Human Nature” and Its Role in Feminist
Theory’ In Janet A. Kourany (ed.) Philosophy in a Feminist Voice:
Critiques and Reconstructions, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1998, 63–91).
9
Op. cit. note 8.
10
Two points are in order. First, the precise modal status of such
impossibility claims is unclear – e.g. whether they are supposed to be
expressions of nomological, metaphysical or logical impossibility. Second,
however else the claim is intended, it is clearly distinct from the idea that
human nature is definitional of being human. The mere fact that one’s mem-
bership of a kind is defined by one’s nature does not imply that one’s nature
is hard to change. It just means that if one’s nature changes, then so too does
one’s kind membership (and vice versa).

6
 Science and Human Nature

nature can be changed; but it is hard to do so, and when done tends
incur costs – e.g. slow, laborious efforts, curtailment of freedom, or
social disruption.

2. Traditional Human Nature Essentialism

As already noted, the notion of human nature is closely intertwined

with the idea that human beings share a common essence. Indeed,
if human nature were a shared essence, then it would play the pre-
viously enumerated roles. But the idea that we share a common
essence – at least in the traditional sense – is untenable, and for
very familiar reasons. In what follows I briefly rehearse the view
and its central problems. The lessons to be learned from this will
help guide us in identifying a replacement notion.

2.1 The View

Essentialism about human nature is not an isolated thesis, but an in-

stance of other more general forms of essentialism that are familiar
from metaphysics and from the philosophy of science. Perhaps the
most general thesis that is relevant here is what is sometimes called
kind essentialism. This is primarily a thesis about what it is for some-
thing to be a genuine or natural kind as opposed to, say, a merely
arbitrary class of entities. On one very typical rendition, kind essen-
tialists maintain the following.
K is a natural kind if and only if:
E1. All and only the members of a kind share a common essence.
E2. The essence is a property, or a set of properties, that all (and
only) the members of a kind must have.
E3. The properties that comprise a kind’s essence are intrinsic
properties.
E4. A kind’s essence causes the other properties associated with
that kind.11
Some philosophers of science argue that this conception of natural
kinds applies to certain regions of science. For instance, Brian Ellis
has argued that chemical kinds plausibly satisfy the above

11
M. Ereshefsky ‘Natural kinds in biology’ In E. Craig (ed.) Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 2009).

7
Richard Samuels

conditions.12 For example, perhaps having the atomic number 30 is

the essence of zinc in precisely the above sense. But the particular
variant of kind essentialism most relevant to the present discussion
is not essentialism about chemical kinds, but about species. To be
an essentialist about species is to maintain that for each species,
there is an essence or nature that satisfies conditions E1–E4.
Essentialism about human nature is just an instance of this thesis.
Thus, to endorse a traditional essentialist view of human nature is
to maintain that humans have an essence or a nature: that all and
only human beings possess a set of intrinsic properties that define
membership of the kind and cause other properties reliably associated
with the kind.
Notice that if essentialism about human beings were true, then
human nature could play its traditional theoretical roles. According
to traditional essentialism, essences are definitive of kind member-
ship and figure in causal explanation of properties associated with
the kind. Further, a theory of such a nature would obviously need
to describe unique, universal characteristics of human beings; and
if there were such natures, then plausibly they could be objects for
scientific enquiry, in much the same way as the ‘essence’ of zinc
and other chemical elements are. The problem is that we are excellent
reasons to suppose that traditional essentialism about species – and
about human nature, in particular – is false.

2.2 Two Objections from Biology

The main difficulties with traditional species essentialism are exceed-

ingly well known; so I won’t make heavy weather of them here. (For
more detailed elaborations, see Hull, 1986; Ghiselin, 1997.) They can
be divided into two, related objections.

2.2.1 The Descriptive Objection

The first targets the traditional descriptive function of human nature.
As a matter of empirical fact, it seems highly unlikely that we will
succeed in identifying many, unique universal properties of human-
ity (still less ones that are intrinsic and causally central). First, it
seems that to the extent that there are properties possessed by all

12
B. Ellis, ‘Essentialism and Natural Kinds’. In S. Psillos & M. Curd
(Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (New York:
Routledge, 2008, 139–148).

8
 Science and Human Nature

human beings, they are shared by non-human organisms as well.

Second, though there are a great many properties that are unique to
humans, they almost invariably fail to be universal. This is plausibly
true for many of the characteristics that have historically been pro-
posed as aspects of human nature – e.g. the capacity for language,
for moral judgment and for rational foresight. Such characteristics
are in some sense species-typical; but they clearly admit of excep-
tions.13 In which case, it would seem that if a theory of human
nature is supposed to describe unique, universal properties, then
there is little or nothing for it to describe.

2.2.2 A Moral
In addition to providing a reason to reject the traditional human
nature essentialism, the above consideration also yields a moral for
how best to construe the descriptive function of a theory of human
nature. By broad acknowledgment, a theory of human nature is sup-
posed to describe what humans are like. For traditional essentialists,
this seems to consist in specifying unique, universal characteristics.
But if the above objection is correct, then we ought not to expect a
theory of human nature to do this. In which case, the task of describ-
ing what we are like needs to be glossed in some alternative way.
How? One alternative that I find attractive is this: We should think
of a theory of human nature as, amongst other things, providing a
kind of field guide to humanity.14 To a first approximation, field
guides function to describe what some species of organism is like.
Moreover, they do so in such a way as to render kinds members
readily identifiable; and this amongst other things involves describ-
ing typical (and readily observable) morphological and behavioral
features. But they don’t achieve this end by describing unique, uni-
versal characteristics. On the contrary, they seldom contain such
descriptions. Instead they make reference to characteristics not pos-
sessed by other species, but that are hardly ever strictly universal.
Moreover, they contain descriptions of lots of typical features that
are not unique to that species. No doubt a theory of human nature
should not be oriented so much towards the goal of identification;
and nor (for this reason) need it focus on describing features that
13
Of course, there are a huge number of characteristics that are unique
to humans that no-one thinks are aspects of human nature because they are
socio-historically local. Playing for the Dallas Cowboys, scoring an 800 on
one’s GRE’s, or having a fondness for cooking Chateau Briand are charac-
teristics of this sort.
14
This idea was suggested in discussion with Paul Griffiths.

9
Richard Samuels

are readily observable. So, a theory of human nature should differ

from typical field guides in being theoretically deeper: less concerned
with superficial, readily observable regularities. Nevertheless, in de-
scribing what we are like, a theory of human nature should capture
aspects of human beings that are in some sense species-typical as
opposed to unique and universal.15

2.2.3 The Taxonomic Objection

The second, and perhaps more serious problem for traditional species
essentialism focuses on the presumed taxonomic function of essences
or natures. It can be framed as a tension between the assumption that
kinds are individuated by their causally relevant, intrinsic properties,
and the assumption that species are individuated at least in part by
genealogical relations: roughly, by their locations on phylogenetic
trees. This second assumption is deeply entrenched in contemporary
biological theory. Yet species essentialism of the sort outline above
violates this assumption in at least two ways. First, if species essenti-
alism were true, it would be possible for organisms to be members of
the same species and yet genealogically unrelated.16 Yet this is incom-
patible with the genealogical assumption about species individuation,
and so flies in the face of how evolutionary biologists individuate
species. Second, if species are individuated genealogically, it is poss-
ible for two organisms to vary enormously in both genetic and phe-
notypic properties, and yet be members of the same species because
they bear the appropriate genealogical relations to each other.
Suppose for example, that humans evolve dramatically – undergo
massive phenotypic and genetic modification. By genealogical cri-
teria, human beings now and them could be members of the same
species. Not so, on the essentialist picture.

15
Recently Griffiths has stressed the importance of regularities that do
not concern similarities between conspecifics but reliably occurring differ-
ences – e.g. sexual dimorphisms, and systematic behavioral or morphological
variation that is a function of, say, climate. Though I see no serious problem
with accommodating such regularities into an account of human nature, for
the sake of simplicity, I will not to focus on them here.
16
Imagine an atom-for-atom duplicate of President Obama that inha-
bits a planet far, far away. If species essentialism were true, then this
Twin Obama must be a human being since it is intrinsically indistinguish-
able from Obama. Moreover, this would be so even if Twin Obama were en-
tirely genealogically unrelated to Obama and other humans.

10
 Science and Human Nature

2.3 The Austerity Objection

There is another, rather different problem with traditional essential-

ism about human nature. Though human nature essentialism is an in-
stance of species essentialism, it is also an instance of a more generic
essentialism about natural kinds. Yet this conception of natural kinds
is highly problematic; and once one sees that this is so, it is utterly
unclear why one should suppose that traditional essences should be
at all important to the task of understanding human beings – or any
other natural kind, for that matter.

2.3.1 The Objection

The notion of a natural kind has had a notoriously checkered intellec-
tual history; and for much of the twentieth century was considered
little more than an artifact of an ancient and outmoded metaphysics.
But in recent decades, the notion has regained some philosophical re-
spectability, in large measure because it has proven useful in under-
standing some central aspects of contemporary scientific practice.17
Most importantly, all sciences mark a distinction between a) those
kinds that are objects of systematic enquiry, and over which inductive
generalizations and causal explanations range; and b) kinds that are
not apt to play these roles.18 The notion of a natural kind appears
to capture just such a distinction; and it is largely for this reason
that it has regained an air of respectability. In view of this, if one’s
theory of natural kinds fails to capture this distinction, then it fails
to satisfy a central desideratum for such a theory.
Now a major problem with traditional kind essentialism – i.e. a
theory that endorses E1–E4 – is that it is manifestly too restrictive
to permit the notion of a natural kind to capture the above distinction
between scientifically ‘respectable’ kinds and the rest. Perhaps, as
noted earlier, traditional essentialism holds of some scientific cat-
egories – such as the elements of the periodic table. But it clearly
does not apply more broadly to the kinds that figure in scientific
practice:
† Many scientific kinds are not characterizable in terms of their
intrinsic properties at all. This is true of many biological

17
R. Boyd, ‘Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for
Natural Kinds’, Philosophical Studies 61 (1991) 127–148.
18
E. Machery, ‘Concepts are not a Natural Kind’, Philosophy of
Science, 72 (2005), 444–467.

11
Richard Samuels

kinds; but it is also true of many of the kinds in psychology,

materials science and arguably physics.
† Even if we allow essences to contain relational properties – i.e.
we reject E3 – the modified view is still overly restrictive since it
implies both that for each natural kind there is a set of necessary
and sufficient conditions on kind membership (i.e. E2) and that
these conditions are also the causally central properties of kind
members (i.e. E4). Yet it is doubtful that natural kind member-
ship is always defined by its causally most central character-
istics. This is plausibly true of kinds, such as cell and neuron.
† Finally, as Richard Boyd noted long ago, there is not the slight-
est reason to suppose that all the (presumed) natural kinds that
figure in science can be defined by sets of individually necess-
ary and jointly sufficient conditions (i.e. E2). Boyd’s parade
case is biological species; but the point is almost certainly
true of many other natural kinds as well, including the kinds
of psychology, anatomy and ecology.
In short: Not only is traditional essentialism bad biology, it is also bad
general philosophy of science.

2.3.2 Another Moral

Again, there is a lesson to be learned from the failure of traditional es-
sentialism. If one seeks a theory that captures the broad distinction
between the explanatory kinds of science and other kinds, then tra-
ditional essentialism won’t fit the bill. But if this is so, then it is
obscure why a theory of human nature – or of anything else for that
matter – should place much stock in the traditional conception of
essences. For it is only within the theoretical framework provided
by traditional kind essentialism that traditional essences make theor-
etical sense. In view of this, we would do well to locate an account of
human nature within some alternative, more plausible account of
natural kinds. I return to this issue in section 4, when I present a posi-
tive proposal regarding how to construe the notion of human nature.

3. The Nomological Conception of Human Nature

We have already seen that an important moral of the demise of tra-

ditional human nature essentialism is that a theory of human nature
ought not to be expected to describe unique, universal features of
humanity. More plausible is the idea that its descriptive role is dis-
charged when it specifies species-typical regularities. In recent

12
 Science and Human Nature

work, Eduoard Machery has gone a step further and argued that the
commitment to human nature just is the commitment to the existence
of such regularities. Thus, for example, Machery and Barrett (2006)
assert that a commitment to the existence of human nature is a com-
mitment merely to the fact that:
[T]here are generalizable statements that we can make about
humans: that there are some properties that, characteristically
and for the most part, humans posses.19
Still more recently, Machery has endorsed what he calls ‘the nomolo-
gical conception’ of human nature.20 On this view, human nature is
what we might call a nomological nature: a set of species-typical,
lawful regularities; or equivalently, a set of properties that humans
reliably, though need not invariably, instantiate. Further, he main-
tains that the relevant properties are ones that result from the evol-
ution of our species.
Notice that the nomological conception of human nature is, in a
number of respects, less demanding than traditional human nature
essentialism. First, regularities need only be species-typical as
opposed to strictly universal. This is an acknowledgement of the
fact that few, if any, scientifically interesting regularities apply lit-
erally to all humans. Second, the nomological conception of human
nature does not restrict the class of regularities to those ones that
are unique to humans. Thus lots of regularities might hold of other
organisms as well as humans and yet still be aspects of human
nature. Third, the nomological conception is consistent with the
idea that human nature can change over time. In particular, it is con-
sistent with the idea that human beings might evolve in such a way
that many – even all – extant regularities cease to be regularities
that apply to humans.
What are we to make of the relatively undemanding character of the
nomological conception? An obvious virtue is that it insulates the
notion of human nature from standard biological objections. If a
commitment to human nature does not imply the existence of
unique and universal intrinsic properties, then the fact that there
are no such properties – and, hence, that species membership
cannot be defined by the possession of such properties – is no objec-
tion. But in order to assess the adequacy of the nomological

19
E. Machery & C. Barrett, ‘Debunking Adapting Minds’, Philosophy
of Science 73 (2005), 232–246.
20
E. Machery, ‘A Plea for Human Nature’, Philosophical Psychology, 21
(2008), 321–330.

13
Richard Samuels

conception, there are two further issues to consider: a) Do human

beings possess a nomological nature? b) To what extent can nomolo-
gical natures play the theoretical roles that human nature has tra-
ditionally been expected to play?

3.1 Do Human Beings have a Nomological Nature?

Scientists have intensively studied many different kinds of organ-

isms, including such ‘model’ organisms as the bacterium
Escherichia coli, the sea slug Aplysia, the Drosophila fruit fly, the
freshwater zebrafish, and the common house mice, Mus musculus.
As a matter of fact, whenever scientists have engaged in such intensive
research, they have almost invariably uncovered a wide array of regu-
larities that hold largely – though seldom invariably – across the
species. In the nomological sense, then, such species have a nature;
and though it is (of course) an empirical issue, there is excellent
reason to suppose that human beings are exactly similar in this
regard. This is because there are many disciplines that have generated
substantial numbers of species-typical generalizations about human
beings. Research on human anatomy and physiology is, for
example, replete with such generalizations. But so are those sciences
more intimately concerned with mind and behavior – such as, neuro-
science, behavioral ecology and psychology. According to the nomo-
logical conception, all such regularities comprise aspects of our
nature.
Since we are concerned primarily with the notion of human nature
as it figures in contemporary cognitive-behavioral science, it would
be useful briefly to highlight the above general point with some
plausible candidates from the domain of psychology. Start with
some readily observable – ‘superficial’ – examples chosen more-or-
less at random. Human beings speak languages. We engage in pair
bonding. We make moral judgments; and we engage in means-ends
reasoning. We experience emotions, such as anger and fear; and we
have thoughts about the world. Little or no systematic research is
required to recognize these as robust features of our psychology –
no doubt subject to plenty of exceptions, but robust all the same.
Now for some examples, again chosen more-or-less at random,
whose discovery required more systematic empirical research:
† In the study of perceptual categorization, human beings exhibit
typicality effects. Roughly, the extent to which something is a
typical instance of some category (e.g. birds) correlates with a

14
 Science and Human Nature

host of independent psychological measures, such as speed of

response, accuracy of categorization judgments, order of
recall, and so on.21
† In the study of memory, power laws of learning and forgetting
are widespread.22 Roughly, much data concerning remember-
ing and forgetting – how quick, how reliable etc. – can be fit
by power functions. Similarly, it is a robust finding that statisti-
cal and semantic associations influence reaction times in recall
tasks.
† In the study of concept acquisition, there is good reason to
suppose that concept acquisition in childhood exhibits certain
regularities. For example, the concept ONE is acquired prior
to the concept FOUR (if indeed the latter is ever acquired);
and the concept BELIEF is typically possessed prior to the
age of 5.23
† As a final example, the study of human perception has uncov-
ered an enormous range of trans-cultural regularities. So, for
example, in the domain of vision, there are many psychophysi-
cal findings that are extraordinarily robust.24
This is, of course, a vanishingly small sample of the sorts of regu-
larities to have been identified by psychologists and cognitive scien-
tists. Moreover, they are ones that remain open to empirical
enquiry; and it may turn out that not all of them really are species-
typical.25 Nonetheless, it is plausible that they are; and to that
extent, it is plausible that our psychology exhibits the sorts of regu-
larities that according to the nomological conception constitute
human nature. In any case, from hereon I will suppose that this is so.

21
G. Murphy, The Big Book of Concepts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2004).
22
J. R. Anderson & L. J. Schooler, ‘The adaptive nature of memory’.
In E. Tulving and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.) Handbook of Memory, 557–570.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
23
See, for example, Susan Carey The Origin of Concepts (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2009).
24
See, for example, G. A. Gescheider, Psychophysics: The
Fundamentals (Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1997).
25
The Muller-Lyer illusion illustrates this point. Though widely
assumed to result from species-typical perceptual biases, it is in fact quite
sensitive to developmental- environmental conditions. For discussion see
R. McCauley and J. Henrich, ‘Susceptibility to the Muller-Lyer Illusion,
Theory-Neutral Observation, and the Diachronic Penetrability of the
Visual Input System’ Philosophical Psychology 19 (1) (2006) 1–23.

15
Richard Samuels

3.2. Can nomological natures play the traditional roles of

Human Nature?

So, there are good reasons to suppose that humans have a nomological
nature. But is this something that deserves the honorific ‘human
nature’? Specifically, to what extent will it play the theoretical roles
traditionally assigned to human nature?
Let’s start with the good news. First, nomological natures can
readily play the organizational role of delimiting areas of enquiry.
On the present view, human anatomy, human psychology, and so
on can be viewed as largely concerned with the study – discovery,
confirmation and explanation – of species-typical regularities.
Second, if Machery is right, a theory of human nature can play the
role of describing what humans are like. On the present proposal, this
descriptive function is not performed by specifying unique, universal
features of human beings. On the contrary, the nomological con-
ception of human nature is largely motivated by the assumption
that there are few, if any, interesting generalizations of this sort.
Rather, saying what we are like will involve articulating a range of
species-typical generalizations. No doubt many of these will also
hold for other organisms. But it is presumably the case that some
of them will be unique to us. To that extent, a theory of human
nature will on the present view describe features that are both
species-typical and unique.
Third, the nomological conception provides, pretty much for free,
a sense in which human nature is fixed. More-or-less by definition,
laws of nature exhibit fixity in the sense that they are in some sense
counterfactually robust. This is because, in contrast to accidental gen-
eralizations, lawful generalizations project to counterfactual scen-
arios. But if this is so, and if as the nomological conception
maintains, human nature just is a set of lawful regularities, then
human nature must exhibit fixity, at least in the sense that it is coun-
terfactually robust. Of course, this might not – and presumably
doesn’t – capture all that theorists have meant when saying that
human nature is fixed. So, for example, it won’t capture that idea
that human nature is strictly impossible to alter; and nor will it
capture the idea that efforts to change our nature – ‘to meddle
with nature’ – will come to no good. But it is far from clear that
a replacement notion of human nature – one that seeks scientific
respectability – should seek to capture such ideas.
Now for the less good news. There are two traditional aspects of
human nature that nomological natures do not readily play.
Moreover, they are perhaps the two most central theoretical functions
16
 Science and Human Nature

of human nature. First, nomological natures will not play the taxo-
nomic function that human nature has been expected to play.
There are two reasons for this:
† On the nomological conception, it is doubtful that possessing
a human nature is even extensionally equivalent with being
human. In other words, it is doubtful that all and only actual
humans satisfy the relevant range of regularities. Given the
ceterus paribus character of generalizations about human
beings, it is almost certain that many humans will fail to
satisfy many of the regularities that (putatively) comprise
human nature. Thus, for example, some humans (e.g. aphasics)
fail to satisfy some of the regularities regarding language com-
prehension and production; some fail to satisfy various regu-
larities regarding perceptual capacities (e.g. visual agnosics);
and some humans fail to satisfy robust regularities regarding
memory (e.g. amnesiacs). Thus on the nomological conception
possessing a human nature will not even be extensionally equiv-
alent with being human.
† On the nomological conception, human nature will lack the
modal properties required for defining kind membership.
Even if, contrary to fact, all and only humans satisfied the rel-
evant regularities, it would still be the case that something could
be human and yet fail to possess the relevant nomological
nature. So, for example, humans might evolve in such a way
that many of the extant generalizations no longer hold.
Of course, the present points come as no surprise to Machery.
Indeed, the nomological conception is deliberately engineered to
have these properties since it is in part by rejecting the assumption
that human nature plays a taxonomic role that the proposal seeks to
evade the standard biological objections to human nature. For all
that, this does mark an important divergence from the traditional
conception of human nature.
The second central role of human nature that the nomological
account does not readily accommodate is its causal-explanatory func-
tion. As noted in section 1, natures have traditionally been expected
to play of the role of underlying – ‘hidden’ or unobservable – entities
that figure in the causal explanation of regularities involving the kind.
To use a well-worn example, the essence of water – e.g. its molecular
structure – is according to traditional essentialists expected to con-
tribute to the explanation of various water-involving regularities –
e.g. that water boils at 100 degrees at sea level. Similarly, human
nature is supposed to be an underlying causal factor that figures in
17
Richard Samuels

the explanation of regularities involving human beings. But, if

human nature just is the set of human-typical regularities, then it
clearly cannot be the cause of these regularities, underlying or other-
wise. In which case, on the nomological conception, human nature
cannot play its traditional causal-explanatory function.
Again, Machery is fully aware of the implications of his view. As he
puts it:
[I]t is important to see that the nomological notion of human
nature inverts the Aristotelian relation between nature and gener-
alization. For Aristotle, the fact that humans have the same
nature explains why many generalizations can be made about
them … For me, on the contrary, the fact that many generaliz-
ations can be made about humans explain in which sense there
is a human nature.26
This is not, of course, to claim that, on the nomological conception,
human nature can do no explanatory work. One obvious possibility,
for example, is that the regularities that comprise a nomological
nature can figure in DN (or statistical nomological) explanations.
Another possibility, recently suggested by Machery,27 is that
human nature, construed nomologically, might figure in explanatory
sketches of a certain kind. Roughly put, by asserting that something is
part of human nature, one implicates that it is a product of a particular
kind of cause – viz. that it can be explained evolutionarily and that a
purely non-evolutionary (cultural/social) explanation would be
wrong.
So, on the nomological conception human nature can do some ex-
planatory work. Moreover, I would not wish to deny that it is work
that is worth doing. For all that, it is important to be clear that
from the vantage of traditional conceptions of human nature such ex-
planatory work is ersatz. Natures are supposed to be underlying
structures that play a central role in the explanation of an entity’s
more superficial properties; and this is not something that the nomo-
logical conception can give us. If we seek a replacement for the tra-
ditional essentialist conception of human nature, we would do well
to look further afield – to seek a conception on which human nature
can play its customary causal-explanatory function.

26
Op. cit. note 20, 323.
27
‘Virtues of the Nomological Notion of Human Nature’ presented at
The International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of
Biology, Utah 2011.

18
 Science and Human Nature

4. What Next? Causal Essentialism About Human Nature

The traditional essentialists conception of human nature is incompa-

tible with the biological facts; and the nomological conception won’t
perform two of the most central theoretical roles traditionally as-
signed to human nature. We can do better. In this section I argue
for a version of what we might call causal essentialism about human
nature. As with the nomological conception, it is compatible with
the evolutionary facts and enables human nature to play its traditional
organizing, descriptive, and fixity-specifying functions. But in con-
trast to the nomological conception, it also allows us to endorse a tra-
ditional conception of human nature’s causal-explanatory function.
What it will not plausibly do is play both the traditional causal expla-
natory role and the taxonomic function of human nature. But as I
hope to make clear, nothing can do this consonant with the biological
facts. To the extent that we seek a replacement conception of human
nature, then, it is no criticism of the present causal essentialist propo-
sal that it cannot do this.

4.1 Casual Essentialism (1st Pass)

According to traditional kind essentialism, a kind’s essence is a set of

intrinsic properties that must be possessed by all and only members
of the kind, and which causes the instantiation of other properties
associated with the kind. One common relaxation of these commit-
ments is to give up the assumption that essences must be intrinsic.
This yields a version of kind essentialism that allows essences to
consist of relational properties; and in the context of debate over
species this is associated with a view that is sometimes called rela-
tional essentialism.28 Still, both traditional and relational essential-
ism demand that essences both a) individuate their kinds and b)
cause the instantiation of properties associated with the kind.
That is, they both posit what are sometimes called taxonomic
essences.29

28
Paul Griffiths, ‘Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical es-
sences’. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999, 209–228).
29
S. A. Gelman, ‘Psychological essentialism in children’, Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 8 (2004) 404–409. D. Walsh, ‘Evolutionary essentialism’
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2006) 425–448.

19
Richard Samuels

But there is another causal conception of essences that relaxes the

traditional notion even further by giving up the demand that essences
are kind individuating. According to this causal essentialist view, es-
sences are entities – mechanisms, processes, and structures – that
cause many of the more superficial properties and regularities reliably
associated with the kind.30 In which case, the causal essentialist about
human nature maintains that human nature should be identified with
a suite of mechanisms, processes, and structures that causally explain
many of the more superficial properties and regularities reliably
associated with humanity.31
Notice that the distinction between taxonomic and causal essences
suggests a way of avoiding the standard biological objections to
human nature essentialism. Recall: what the objections purport to
show is that essences cannot play the traditional descriptive and taxo-
nomic functions of human nature since there are no properties that
are necessarily possessed by all and only members of the kind. But
this is no objection at all, if, as the causal essentialist maintains,
(causal) essences need not be shared by all kind members.
Specifically, on a causal essentialist conception of human nature,
when cognitive and behavioral scientists profess an interest in
human nature they are in no way committed to the assumption that
there is some common nature that all and only humans share.
Rather, they are concerned with is the existence of empirically disco-
verable causal mechanisms (processes, structures and constraints etc.)
that explain the characteristic properties and regularities associated
with human beings – especially those concerning behavior and cogni-
tion. Thus the biological objections have no force against causal
essentialism about human nature.

30
Some maintain that this causal conception of essences and not the
taxonomic one is the more traditional. For example, Walsh (2006) argues
that Aristotle has a causal conception of essences was a causal as opposed
to taxonomic one. I do not propose to dispute the issue here.
31
As I use the terms, all taxonomic essences are causal essences but
not vice versa. For in addition to figuring in causal explanations, a taxo-
nomic essence is, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, possessed by all
and only the member of the kind. In contrast, causal essences need not
even be possessed by all members of the kind, let alone be individuative
of the kind. They may, for example, be lacking in deviant, abnormal or
borderline members of the kind. In terms of the essentialist commitments
outlined in section 2.1, the point may be put as follows: Taxonomic es-
sences must satisfy conditions E2 and E4, whilst causal essences need
only satisfy E4.

20
 Science and Human Nature

4.2 Developing the View: Homeostatic Property Clusters

Clearly the above formulation of causal essentialism requires elabor-

ation; and though there are, no doubt, many ways to do this, a possi-
bility that I find attractive recruits Richard Boyd’s well-known
homeostatic property cluster account of natural kinds. In what
follows I first say what the HPC account is, and then apply it to the
case of human nature.

4.2.1 HCP Kinds

The HPC account is arguably the most popular extant account of
natural kinds to have emerged from recent philosophy of science.32
Boyd and others have developed the account over a number of
decades; and I do not propose to go into the fine-grained details
here. For our purposes, the following sketch will do. Let us say
that a kind K is a natural kind if:
H1. It is associated with a contingently co-varying property
cluster – a range of properties that tend to be co-instantiated by
instances of the kind, but need not be genuine necessary con-
ditions for membership.
H2. There is some set of empirically discoverable causal mechan-
isms, processes, structures and constraints – a causal essence, if
you will – that causally explains the co-variation of these
various symptoms.
H3. To the extent that there is any real definition of what it is for
something to be a member of the kind, it is not the symptoms, as
such, but the causal essence that defines membership. More pre-
cisely, to the extent that natural kinds have definitions, it is the
presence of a causal essence producing aspects of the property
cluster that defines kind membership.
Consider an illness such as influenza. Influenza is, on the homeostatic
cluster view, a plausible candidate for natural kind status. First, it is
associated with a range of characteristic symptoms – coughing, elev-
ated body temperature, and so on – even though these symptoms do
32
For more extensive characterizations of the homeostatic cluster view
see: R. Boyd ‘What Realism Implies and What It Does Not’, Dialectica 43
(1990) 5–29; R. Boyd, ‘Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm
for Natural Kinds’, Philosophical Studies 61 (1991) 127–148; and R. Boyd
‘Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa’. In R. Wilson (ed.) Species:
New Interdisciplinary Essays (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
1999, 141–186).

21
Richard Samuels

not define what it is to have flu. Second, there is a causal mechanism –

roughly, the presence of the flu virus – whose operation explains the
occurrence of the symptoms. Finally, to the extent that influenza has
a definition, it is the presence of the virus – or better, the presence of
the virus producing some of the symptoms – but not the symptoms as
such, that make it the case that one has flu.

4.2.2 HCP Kinds applied to Human Nature

How might the idea of HPC kinds be applied to the notion of human
nature? Traditional essentialists recruit a general theory of natural
kinds in order to provide an account of human nature as an intrinsic
taxonomic essence. But as we have seen the general theory of natural
kinds is problematic; and there is good reason to suppose that it
doesn’t apply to species – and to human beings in particular – since
we do not possess an intrinsic taxonomic essence. In response, I
propose that if we wish to preserve the connection between talk of
natures, and the theory of natural kinds, we would do well to opt
for a better general account of natural kinds – the HPC view – and
that we should identify human nature with whatever it is that plays
a role most similar to the one played by taxonomic essences within
the traditional essentialist framework. Within the HPC approach, it
is obvious what this should be. Human nature should be identified
with a set of empirically discoverable causal mechanisms, processes,
structures and constraints that causally explain the co-variation of
the various properties – especially psychological properties – associ-
ated with being human. In other words, we should identify human
nature with this causal essence.
Two further issues require our immediate attention. First, an HPC
view of human nature presupposes the existence of an appropriate
property cluster: a set of psychological properties that reliably co-
vary with each other. But does such a cluster exist? Presumably the
answer is ‘Yes’. Indeed, this follows with minimal addition from
our earlier discussion of the nomological conception of human
nature. On the nomological conception, human nature is a set of
species-typical psychological regularities; and as noted, there are ex-
cellent reasons to suppose that human beings have a nature in this
sense. But the regularities assumed by the nomological conception
just are the reliable instantiation and co-variation of various psycho-
logical properties. In which case, if we have reason to suppose that
human beings conform to robust psychological regularities, then
we also have reason to suppose that human beings exhibit a property
cluster of precisely the sort required by the HPC conception of
natural kinds. Indeed, the presumed cluster just is a nomological
22
 Science and Human Nature

nature of the sort that Machery has in mind. The idea that we have a
nomological nature and that there is a human nature in the causal es-
sentialist sense are, therefore, not incompatible. Rather the latter idea
presupposes the former.
The second sort of issue concerns how, on the present proposal, to
think about the causal essence that is to be identified with human
nature. In contrast to traditional essentialism, which assumes that es-
sences must be intrinsic, the HPC view of natural kinds makes no
such assumption about causal essences. Rather, the entities respon-
sible for property co-variation might be relational and may operate
at quite different time-scales. Consider the following crude, but
useful three-way division:
† Evolutionary mechanisms: Phylogenetic processes and mech-
anisms that operate over evolutionary time and cause human
species-typical properties. This might include, selection,
drift, mutation, and many other things besides.
† Developmental mechanisms: Ontogenetic mechanisms that are
responsible for the acquisition of human psychological
capacities. This will include developmental biological pro-
cesses and mechanisms – e.g. those involved in the develop-
ment of the neural tube – but it will also involve more
straightforwardly psychological mechanisms, such as con-
ditioning, induction and other sorts of learning.
† Synchronic mechanisms: Mechanisms that are causally respon-
sible for particular manifestations of psychological capacities.
For example, seeing involves various visual processing mech-
anisms, speaking involves language production systems, recol-
lecting involves memory systems, and so on.
Which of these time-scales are most relevant to the present project? If
we aim to provide comprehensive explanations of species-typical
regularities, then all of them are presumably relevant. But our
current task is rather more restrictive. It is to characterize a replace-
ment notion of human nature that fits the use of contemporary cogni-
tive-behavioral science. And as a matter of fact cognitive-behavioral
scientists are not primarily in the business of characterizing evol-
utionary mechanisms. Rather they are most centrally concerned
with the characterization of more proximal cognitive and neural mech-
anisms: those involved in online processing and in the development
of psychological states and structures. Indeed the task of characteriz-
ing such mechanisms is arguably the central goal of cognitive science.
Further, it should be noted that this focus on proximal causes is very
much in line with the traditional view of human nature’s causal
23
Richard Samuels

explanatory function. For if essences are intrinsic properties of kind

members, then they must be proximal causes, if they are to be
causes at all. Thus a replacement notion of human nature that fits
the usage of cognitive and behavioral scientists by construing casual
essences in a proximal fashion – i.e. as synchronic and/or ontogenetic
mechanisms – fits quite well with tradition.
To summarize the discussion so far: The general conception of
human nature that I have developed here is one on which human
nature is a suite of empirically discoverable proximal mechanisms –
a causal essence – that causally explains the various psychological regu-
larities that comprise our nomological nature. It is now time to see how
well this proposal accommodates the scientific roles traditionally
assigned to human nature.

4.3 The Traditional Roles that Causal Essences Can Play

In section 1, I characterized five traditional scientific roles for human

nature. The causal essentialist conception of human nature readily
accommodates four of these.
First, it can function to delimit an area of enquiry. In particular,
human psychology on this view would be the study of human
causal mechanisms and the psychological regularities for which
they are responsible. On the face of it, this fits well with what cogni-
tive-behavioral scientists are up to.
Second, the causal essentialist conception readily accommodates
the descriptive function of human nature by describing species-
typical features of human beings. Indeed, it does so twice over. It
must describe the species-typical regularities of the sort incorporated
in a nomological nature since this is required in order to specify the
phenomena that the underlying mechanisms purport to explain.
Moreover, it must describe the species-typical mechanisms in
virtue of which such regularities hold. Further, on the overwhel-
mingly plausible assumption that human beings are unique in some
psychological respects, it must also describe those unique regularities
and the mechanisms in virtue of which such regularities obtain.
Third, the causal essentialist picture accommodates the fixity-
specifying function of human nature. As with the nomological con-
ception, it will yield counterfactual robustness, and for exactly the
same reason: nomological natures are comprised of nomological regu-
larities. In addition to this, however, there are good empirical reasons
to suppose that many of the mechanisms that are responsible for the
manifestation of such species-typical regularities are environmentally
24
 Science and Human Nature

canalized. For so far as we know, mechanisms for perceptual proces-

sing, learning, memory and so on are highly conserved across
environmental variation.
Finally, the causal essentialist view accommodates the traditional
causal explanatory function of human nature. This is, in my view,
what makes it preferable to the nomological conception of human
nature. Proponents of the latter view must seek ersatz causal-explana-
tory work for human nature. In contrast, the advocate of casual essen-
tialism can attribute the exact same causal explanatory function that
human nature has traditionally been intended to play: viz. an under-
lying entity that explains more readily observable, reliably occurring
generalizations that hold of human beings. Thus where the nomolo-
gical conception accommodates only three central roles for human
nature, the causal essentialist picture accommodates at least four;
and to that extent it provides a better replacement notion than the
nomological conception.

4.4 What Causal Essences Will Not Do

What of human nature’s presumed taxonomic function? I maintain

that given the biological facts nothing could play the traditional prox-
imal causal role of human nature and perform this taxonomic func-
tion. There are two natural arguments for this claim. The first is
probably not a good one; but the second probably is.

The (Probably) Bad Argument

Those psychological and neural mechanisms that causally explain the
regularities that hold of modern humans are extant structures – they
exist in the here and now. In contrast, if evolutionary biologists are to
be believed, then species are genealogically individuated. In which
case, it seems possible that an organism could possess the mechan-
isms that comprise human nature, and yet fail to be human because
it lacks the relevant relationship to the past. (Think of Davidson’s
Swampman or Putnam’s Twin.) In which case, proximal mechan-
isms of the sort that cognitive scientists care about cannot be kind
individuating.
As it stands, this is a bad argument; and it’s bad because it ignores
the well-known possibility that extant states and mechanisms can be
individuated historically. Suppose, for example, that the mechanisms
for human visual perception are partially individuated by historical
facts about human evolution. Then it would not be possible to

25
Richard Samuels

possess a human visual system without being human. Of course, there

might be – and indeed are – perceptual systems that are very much like
our own. Still, no matter how similar in structure or function, on the
present view, such mechanisms would not be our visual mechanisms
unless they shared the same evolutionary history. But if this is so,
then the present objection to the claim that causal essences individu-
ate kinds requires that the relevant mechanisms not be (even partially)
individuated by human evolutionary history. The problem (for me at
least) is that this seems highly implausible. Perhaps psychological
states and mechanisms per se are not individuated historically.33
But the claim that being a human psychological state or mechanism
is determined in part by genealogical relations seems no less plausible
than the claim that the species, Homo sapiens, is historically individ-
uated. In which case, if we are to cleave to a genealogical conception of
species individuation, then we should also probably reject the present
argument.

The (Probably) Good Argument

Let’s leave aside questions about the individuation of mechanisms.
The real problem with treating proximal causal essences as kind indi-
viduating is that it is possible to be a member of the kind and yet
lack the relevant causal essence. By way of illustration, consider once
more the case of visual perception. Psychophysics and vision scientists
have identified a huge array of species-typical regularities regarding
human vision; and on the present proposal the mechanisms that
explain these regularities are aspects of human nature. But we know
that these mechanisms – cognitive, neural, and developmental
systems of various sorts – are not possessed by all humans. In particular,
there is a host of disorders – both genetic and environmentally pro-
duced – that result in the absence of such mechanisms. For all that,
the people who lack these mechanisms are still human beings; and
this, I take it, suffices to show that human nature, construed as a prox-
imal causal essence, cannot play its traditional kind individuating role.

5. Conclusion: Returning to Hume

In this paper I have articulated a conception of human nature on

which it should be identified with a suite of mechanisms and
33
This is, of course, a longstanding issue in the philosophy of psychol-
ogy. See Gabriel Segal, A Slim Book about Narrow Content (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2000).

26
 Science and Human Nature

structures – a causal essence – that is implicated in the explanation of

species-typical psychological regularities. The account is presented as
a replacement for the more traditional (taxonomic) essentialist con-
ception of human nature. More specifically, it has been fashioned
to a) captures how cognitive and behavioral scientists tend to
deploy the notion of human nature whilst, b) evading standard evol-
utionary objections, and c) allowing human nature – and theories
thereof – to fulfill many of their traditional theoretical roles. In devel-
oping this account I have argued that the proposal is preferable to one
competitor – the nomological conception of human nature – because
it more fully accommodates these traditional theoretical roles.
Further, I have argued that its failure to fulfill all the traditional
roles of human nature is a consequence of the fact that – given very
general considerations – nothing can jointly satisfy all these con-
ditions. Finally, I have sought to integrate the proposal within a
more general account of natural kinds – the HPC view – in a
manner that reflects the way in which traditional human nature essen-
tialism is an instance of a more general essentialist conception of
natural kinds.
Though there are no doubt many issues and objections that a com-
prehensive treatment of the notion of human nature ought to address,
I propose to conclude with a discussion of just one, which should help
clarify how I think about causal essentialism’s relation to historical
usage of the notion of human nature.
The objection I envisage runs as follows: Though you purport to
have articulated a replacement notion of human nature, what you
have really done is show that there is no such thing as human
nature. The notion of human nature has always been expected to
fulfill both a proximal causal function and a taxonomic function.
This is (so the objection continues) as close to a conceptual truth
about human nature as anything is. But if what you say is true,
then nothing could play both these roles. In which case, there is no
such thing as human nature.
Of course, I accept that nothing conforms to the traditional (taxo-
nomic) essentialist conception of human nature. That’s my starting
point. But I deny that there is a single univocal notion of human
nature. Indeed, I deny that traditional taxonomic essentialism is
even the only historically prominent conception of human nature.
Another prominent conception – one that clearly manifests itself in
Hume’s work – appears exceedingly close in spirit to the causal essen-
tialist picture developed here. For Hume, the term ‘human nature’
functions in the first instance to pick out – in rough and ready
fashion – a suite of psychological phenomena; and a theory of
27
Richard Samuels

human nature is an empirical, causal explanatory psychological

theory: a ‘mental geography’ or ‘anatomy of the mind’ that provides
a ‘delineation of the distinct parts and powers of the mind’.34 As such,
for Hume, a theory of human nature is a specification of the under-
lying proximal psychological processes, structures and mechanisms
responsible for human behavior and mental activity. Yet there is
not the slightest suggestion that Hume also expected his theory to
perform the taxonomic function of specifying what it is to be
human, still less that he thought of human nature in traditional essen-
tialist terms. For Hume this just does not seem to be part of human
nature’s remit.
In Hume, then, we have a prominent historical figure that viewed
human nature as something of immense importance, and yet did not
see it as involving any commitment to kind individuating essences. If
what I have said in the forgoing sections is correct, then much the
same is true of contemporary cognitive and behavioral scientists.
Much of their research is oriented towards characterizing the mech-
anisms and structures responsible for species-typical psychological
phenomena –whether it be a specification of components of the
visual system, a theory of working memory, a model of causal infer-
ence, and so on. Indeed, specifying such mechanisms – such causal
essences – is arguably the central goal of contemporary cognitive
science. In this regard at least, we are the intellectual descendants
of Hume.35

The Ohio State University

[email protected]

34
David Hume Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries
concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals,
edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 3rd edition revised by P. H. Nidditch.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975)
35
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Royal Institute of
Philosophy Annual Conference at Oxford Brookes, Washington University,
the University of Pittsburgh and the ISHPSSB conference held at the
University of Utah. I am grateful for the many helpful suggestions that
were offered on these occasions. Special thanks are due to Mark Cain,
John Doris, John Dupre, Steve Downes, Frederick Eberhardt, Hans-
Johann Glock, Paul Griffiths, Maria Kronfeldner, Sandy Mitchell, P.D.
Magnus, Gillian Russell, Constantine Sandis, Roy Sorensen, Kim
Sterelny and Karola Stotz. I would also like to thank Tim Schroeder,
Eduoard Machery, P.D. Magnus, and Carl Craver for stimulating discus-
sions of the issues covered in this paper.

28