The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human Nature and the Limits of Science
Abstract
This book applies to the study of human nature the generally pluralistic metaphysics and methodology developed in the author's earlier work. It begins with detailed criticism of two popular projects for understanding human nature, evolutionary psychology, and rational‐choice theory. The argument shows how the flaws in these projects reflect deep misconceptions about the nature and the legitimate ambitions of science. Such scientific theories necessarily provide highly simplified accounts of a phenomenon as complex as human nature and can provide only a small part of the total picture of such a phenomenon. Only a pluralistic approach, an approach that combines insights from a variety of perspectives not limited to the scientific, can hope to provide anything close to an adequate account of human nature. In addition to a variety of partial perspectives from science, the humanities, and, not least, common human experience, it is argued that there is also room for a conception of human autonomy. The details of this conception, including a sketch of a novel voluntarist theory of freedom of the will, are provided in a concluding chapter.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770
Heritable True Fitness and Bright Birds: A Role for Parasites?
Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M. (1982) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7123238 · Cited by 3,733
The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers
Lakatos, I. (1978) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621123 · Cited by 3,045
The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
Cartwright, N. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139167093 · Cited by 2,433
Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility
Frankfurt, H. G. (1969) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2023833 · Cited by 2,405
Cartwright, N. (1983) · doi:10.1093/0198247044.001.0001 · Cited by 2,082
Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science
Hull, D. L. (1988) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001 · Cited by 2,061
Lawson, T. (1997) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203195390 · Cited by 1,863
Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.7.2.159 · Cited by 1,567
Cited by
Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400217 · Cited by 743
COHEN, G. A. (2003) · Philosophy & Public Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00211.x · Cited by 377
Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept?
Hanson, H. I., Wickenberg, B., & Alkan Olsson, J. (2020) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104302 · Cited by 192
Scientific and lay communities: earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing
Grasswick, H. E. (2010) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9789-0 · Cited by 140
Metadata
- Authors
- Dupré, J.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2001-11-08
- OpenAlex
- W1569102797
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 32.26
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human Nature and the Limits of Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/0199248060.001.0001
- The paper
- Dupré, J. (2001). Human Nature and the Limits of Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199248060.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.