TY - JOUR
T1 - Burt uses a fallacious motte-and-bailey argument to dispute the value of genetics for social science
AU - Zietsch, Brendan P.
AU - Abdellaoui, Abdel
AU - Verweij, Karin J. H.
N1 - Funding Information: K.J.H.V. and A.A. are supported by the Foundation Volksbond Rotterdam. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2023/9/11
Y1 - 2023/9/11
N2 - Burt's argument relies on a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Burt aims to argue against the value of genetics for social science; instead she argues against certain interpretations of a specific kind of genetics tool, polygenic scores (PGSs). The limitations, previously identified by behavioural geneticists including ourselves, do not negate the value of PGSs, let alone genetics in general, for social science.
AB - Burt's argument relies on a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Burt aims to argue against the value of genetics for social science; instead she argues against certain interpretations of a specific kind of genetics tool, polygenic scores (PGSs). The limitations, previously identified by behavioural geneticists including ourselves, do not negate the value of PGSs, let alone genetics in general, for social science.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85170488769&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002394
DO - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002394
M3 - Review article
C2 - 37694992
SN - 0140-525X
VL - 46
SP - e231
JO - Behavioral and brain sciences
JF - Behavioral and brain sciences
M1 - e231
ER -