>Human nature is the least productive concept ever. It is only ever brought up to defend the status quo and declare it as inevitable. It is a mystical concept impervious to examination.
Actually it's the exact opposite: very pragmatic and empirically verified.
It's exactly what people, in statistical quantities, tend to do over what they tend not to do.
Plus, most of it is shared with our animal siblings.
Except if you think that an Elephant or a Cat doesn't have certain natural characteristics (insticts, behaviors, traits) based on their species.
Do you see a specific claim backed up with empirical research in the above usage of human nature? I don't. Do people ever? Any time someone brings up human nature they could omit the term and just talk about the research itself. They don't. Human nature is a rhetorical shortcut. You can't assail human nature, you can't examine it like scientific evidence. It is intellectual laziness to make any argument from human nature.
>Do you see a specific claim backed up with empirical research in the above usage of human nature? I don't.
That's because it's a casual online conversation. I don't stuff my responses with citations when I'm not writing a paper.
>Do people ever?
Yes. There are tons of research on human psychology, cognition, physiology, evolutionary traits, instincts and other aspects of what colloquially is called "human nature".
Actually it's the exact opposite: very pragmatic and empirically verified.
It's exactly what people, in statistical quantities, tend to do over what they tend not to do.
Plus, most of it is shared with our animal siblings.
Except if you think that an Elephant or a Cat doesn't have certain natural characteristics (insticts, behaviors, traits) based on their species.