Introduction

Abstract. The author recalls a distinction between philosophy conceived as "analytics of truth" and philosophy as "ontology of the actual." The latter might be seen as a diagnostics of our times. For this second type of philosophy questions of legitimation are prominent. According to the author, one can distinguish three main sources of legitimacy of beliefs and practices: religion, reason, and nature. Reason has been considered the most important legitimating ground as far as modernity is concerned. Nevertheless, it has never been very clear what reason as a source of legitimation amounts to. The author, finally, points to the fact that, in times of increasing menace to the biosphere, "nature"– metaphorically speaking – may set a standard for human laws.     

DEMONSTRATING THE VALIDITY OF TWIN RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY

In a recent article published in Criminology, Burt and Simons ( 2014 ) claimed that the statistical violations of the classical twin design render heritability studies useless. Claiming quantitative genetics is “fatally flawed” and describing the results generated from these models as “preposterous,” Burt and Simons took the unprecedented step to call for abandoning heritability studies and their constituent findings. We show that their call for an “end to heritability studies” was premature, misleading, and entirely without merit. Specifically, we trace the history of behavioral genetics and show that 1) the Burt and Simons critique dates back 40 years and has been subject to a broad array of empirical investigations, 2) the violation of assumptions in twin models does not invalidate their results, and 3) Burt and Simons created a distorted and highly misleading portrait of behavioral genetics and those who use quantitative genetic approaches.