Biologists would never say that. At least not any biologist worth their salt.
There’s no nurture or nature. It’s both.
As a biologist,
We can’t even get the actions of water bears down.
We have the entire genetic code and brain mapping of a fruit fly, and can get, very slow, good guesses about how they respond to very basic stimulus.
Let’s not even get into epigenetics.
I would never downplay the importance or difficulty of psychology.
But I get nothing but kicks on this house of “science” memes.
This is correct, but as useful as saying “A PC can be explained by the ones and zeros on the hard drive”.
I just think of nurture as the way the software of the body develops based on the experiences of the hardware.
All human behavior can be explained by the movement of particles and or waves.
There’s an arguable overlap in neurobiology and neuropsychology, but the gap hasn’t been bridged yet.
In the same vein, all biology can be explained by chemistry, and all chemistry can be explained by physics. Doesn’t mean we have all the pieces to effectively due so, though
I’ve personally accepted that it’s basically predictable/deterministic, but due to how complicated and unknowable the system is there’s no practical way for an outside observer to get all the information.
I’m guessing the lower resolution imaging methods might still allow more or less accurate prediction, though? We don’t need to know the details on every air molecule to do fairly accurate weather forecasting, so maybe the same approach can work to predict mindweather. Maybe it’s possible to know a person’s brain well enough and accurately adjust predictions very fast after random encounters/events influencing them – like the people they meet, the things they see, and a myriad of other things – and in that way get something more and more capable of predicting behavior?
I don’t really know much about either field, though.
Even if you had perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe, knew all the laws, you still couldn’t predict shit. The reason is chaos, more precisely: There are no closed-form solutions to chaotic systems. To simulate them you have to go through all the time steps (assuming, without loss of generality1, discrete time), simulate every single of them one after the other, arguably creating a universe while doing so. And you have to do that with the computational resources of the universe you’re trying to simulate. Good luck. Chaos also means that approximate solutions won’t help because sensitivity to small perturbations: There’s no upper bound to how far your approximation will be off.
1 I can wave my hands faster than you. I dare you. I double-dare you.
First statement is a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? We already predict a lot with useful accuracy.
But I get that in some things, chaos inhibits useful prediction.
Nature and nurture are just different levels of the same idea. Nurture is just a higher level version of nature, just as Python is a higher level language than assembly, but they both ultimately work by turning on and off transistors.
It’s like when you’re watching a YouTube video. You can choose to explain how the creator digitally edited the video, the lighting, the chapters, the topic of the video. Or you can explain how packets of data are being sent over radio waves, and a complicated series of transistors turn on and off in complex ways, leading to certain pixels being displayed on your screen. They’re both describing the same phenomenon, just in different ways.
In the same way, while describing human minds in terms of motivation, logical thinking, phobias, memory, etc may be useful for the higher levels of psychology, noticing that higher levels of dopamine are correlated with higher levels of hallucinations in people with schizophrenia, and noticing the complex ways neurons and biochemical indicators interact, is the same idea, just at a lower level.
Both are useful, and both are true, they’re just different ways of thinking about it.
