Jump to content

Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Evolutionary psychology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 05:22, 20 February 2011 (Archiving 5 thread(s) from Talk:Evolutionary psychology.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

The external links for academic societies and journals would be better suited in prose form in a new article section, perhaps one to two paragraphs long. I don't know what you would name it, but "Societies and publications" might work. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Social cognition

I would like to help edit this article. I am not an expert in EP but a very keen student. I am concerned about the initial sentence, and I am requesting editors views. My point is that the opening needs to be not only simple and reader-friendly but also uncontentious (if that is possible). At present it reads:

Evolutionary psychology (EP) attempts to explain psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, that is, as the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection.

Is it fair to say that memory, perception and thinking are traditional aspects of cognitive psychology that focus on questions of mechanisms? These three aspects of cognition are basic to how we perceive the world and also subject to natural selection but there are proponents of EP who maintain that the focus of EP should be on strategic functional questions about behavioral decisions, in other words social cognition, which is a higher order of cognition more specific to our behavior. From my reading it seems that there are different EP schools of thought on this. If I am correct then surely the article should start off with a less contentious sentence? What are people’s views on this? If you agree with me then I would like to suggest that, as EP is explained in considerable detail within the article, it can start off as gently as possible with a very simple and reader-friendly sentence (providing, of course, it is not so diluted as to be actually misleading or uninformative). I have selected a few possibilities from the literature (see below):

  • The study of the psychological adaptations of humans to the changing physical and social environment, especially of changes in brain structure, cognitive mechanisms, and behavioral differences among individuals.
  • The study of the way in which a variety of higher mental functions may be adaptations, formed in response to selection pressures on human populations through evolutionary time.
  • A theory of human behavior that incorporates the effects of evolution.
  • The study of the psychological adaptations of humans to the changing physical and social environment, especially of changes in brain structure, cognitive mechanisms, and behavioral differences among individuals.
  • The study of the evolved cognitive structure of the mind.
  • The study of human cognition and behavior with respect to their evolutionary origins.
  • The study of how our minds have evolved, and the traces left by that evolution.
  • The study of the phylogenetic history and adaptive functions of the mind. (Pinker, 2002, p. 51)
  • The evolutionary analysis of human behaviour.

What about the last one - any other suggestions? Granitethighs 10:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

EP is of course, not about mechanism per se but function. That said, it can lead to hypotheses about mechanism. I quite like "The study of human cognition and behavior with respect to their evolutionary origins." but that is just me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks DB. I see this article has become stymied and assume there were clashes over different academic approaches to the topic. I would really like to see it rejuvenated and as an "outsider" with editing skills I think I can help by gently improving readability. Perhaps in the process some of the points of disagreement will diminish. Please excuse my presumption but I would like to give it a try. I would like to pass other suggestions by you shortly.Granitethighs 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There were lots of clashes, though that seems to be the past. Anyway, I may have overplayed the idea about function, as noted of course evolutionary theories are about function, but, they can make concrete predictions about mechanisms, so like the idea of modularity. Thought I would clear that up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Article suggests that alot of altruism is due to evolved memes rather then genes

Science article: Markets, Religion, Community Size, and the Evolution of Fairness and Punishment. Joseph Henrich, Jean Ensminger, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer, and John Ziker Science 19 March 2010: 1480-1484.

I don't know if anyone wants to incorporate this paper's findings within the article. Its a major paper in a respected journal that shows that altruism is related to our level of market incorporation and our willingingness to perform third-party punishment is related to the community size that we live in. Both findings are inconsistent with the idea that genes simply determine our level of altruism, and instead suggests that shared ideas or memes are required. 76.66.24.64 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Within the text of the article there are various sections discussing and describing disciplines related to EP. There is a general tackling of the topic in the introductory matter and then a small section on sociobiology later and other mentions of other disciplines as they emerge in the text. I think it would greatly improve the article if all this was put together (to get the bits together as much as any other reason). This would also serve to orientate those readers new to the topic but who are not quite sure where EP fits in with similar and related topics. The following is a first attempt at doing this. It takes up space but I figure if done well (I need some help here) it can replace quite a lot of the existing text (some of which is unreferenced). Could someone work with me on this?

The content of EP has derived from, on the one hand, the biological sciences (especially evolutionary theory as it relates to ancient human environments, the study of paleoanthropology and animal behavior) and, on the other, the human sciences especially psychology. Evolutionary biology as an academic discipline emerged with the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s,[1] although it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that university departments included the term evolutionary biology in their titles. Several behavioural subjects relate to this core discipline: in the 1930s the the study of animal behaviour (ethology) emerged with the work of Dutch biologist Nikolaas Tinbergen and Austrian biologists Konrad Lorenz and Karl von Frisch. In the 1970s two major branches developed from ethology. Firstly, the study of animal social behavior (including humans) generated sociobiology, defined by its pre-eminent proponent Edward O. Wilson in 1975 as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior"[2] and in 1978 as "the extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organization".[3] Secondly, there was behavioral ecology which placed less emphasis on social behavior by focusing on the ecological and evolutionary basis of both animal and human behavior.

From psychology there there are the primary streams of developmental, social and cognitive psychology. Establishing some measure of the relative influence of genetics and environment on behavior has been at the core of behavioral genetics and its variants, notably studies at the molecular level that examine the relationship between genes, neurotransmitters and behavior. Dual inheritance theory (DIT), developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, has a slightly different perspective by trying to explain how human behavior is a product of two different and interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution and cultural evolution. DIT is a "middle-ground" between much of social science, which views culture as the primary cause of human behavioral variation, and human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which view culture as an insignificant by-product of genetic selection.[4]

  1. ^ Sterelny, Kim. 2009. In Ruse, Michael & Travis, Joseph (eds) Wilson, Edward O. (Foreword) Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. 978-o674031753. p. 314.
  2. ^ Wilson, Edward O. 1975.Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Pre ss, Cambridge, Ma. ISBN 0-674-00089-7 p.4.
  3. ^ Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On Human Nature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. p. x.
  4. ^ Laland, Kevin N. and Gillian R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 287-319.

Granitethighs 01:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Continue copyediting?

I have incorporated the above text since it does not seem to have offended anyone. I have also made the statement of principles as simple as I can. I would like to do more editing - for example there is now repetition in the explanations of what EP is. Also there are some eccentricities in this particular article like citing, or rather naming, in the lead a whole lot of practitioners of the discipline: this could be done I think in a simpler and more digestible way for the reader. There is a bit more possible copyediting too ... what do you think? Granitethighs 12:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I like what you have done so far, keep it up! Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest working on adding topics (below) on the EP Temp page to the EP Main page

I think it is time to start fleshing out some of the additional topic areas noted on the EP Temp page (see link at the top of this page) and adding them to the main page. I'll start doing so -- others' help with these new contributions would be appreciated.

  1. 7 Areas of research
   * 7.1 Survival  (already there)
   * 7.2 Mating (already there)
   * 7.3 Parenting (add)
   * 7.4 Kinship (add)
   * 7.5 Group living (add)
  1. 8 EP as an integrative paradigm for psychology (add)
   * 8.1 Cognitive psychology (add)
   * 8.2 Social psychology (add)
   * 8.3 Developmental psychology (add)
   * 8.4 Personality psychology (add)
   * 8.5 Clinical psychology (add)
   * 8.6 Cultural psychology (add)

Memills (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a short introduction really required?

Evolution is discussed in the Evolution article, do you really need to add an extra section to introduce evolution again in this article, couldn't it just be put in a link in the see also section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollyoxenfree (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Explains" or "examines"

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on as to whether or not the word "explains" or "examines" should be used in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph:

Evolutionary psychology (EP) [explains/examines] psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, that is, as the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection.

Using the term "examines" is more appropriate, IMO. Using the term "explains" seems a bit presumptuous. Certainly, there are those who would contest the notion that EP actually "explains" what it purports to, (i.e., "psychological traits...as adaptations"). There is a certain POV "ring" to such a claim. However, it would not seem so controversial to state that EP "examines" psychological traits in such a manner. Whether or not EP actually "explains" what it does indeed "examine" from a particular perspective should be left up to the reader to decide and not merely presumed in the article's opening statement. Thus, using the word "examines" would be more conducive to NPOV. EPM (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "would explain" or "describes" or "considers...to be"? It's about how EP refers to "psychological traits"; not what it does with them (i.e. "examines") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekimiheart (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "proposes to explain" or "seeks adaptational explanations for ..." ?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Ekimiheart

The recent edits Ekimiheart (talk · contribs) have several problems that mean that they cannot be introduced in the form that Ekimiheart wants. They are out of encyclopedic style, containing much hyperbole and editorializing about the way evolutionary psychology relates to other branches of psychology. It also refers to wikipedia which isnot permissible. It seems that Ekimiheart has much knowledge about and interest in the topic, but we require attention to the encyclopedic style of the material included as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: First, let me apologize for not knowing that you cannot refer to Wikipedia in an article. But I wanted to use a definition of "hard" and "soft" science to make my point and felt it would be more appreciated if I use the definition from Wikipedia in doing this. I could have easily found another definition on the web for the same purpose. But, given that Wiki articles routinely link to other Wiki articles, I didn't see the problem in doing so and then using what was said within that article to make my point. How would this have been done to be in compliance with the expectations of Wiki editors? Is it just that I said "Wikipedia" in the article, and could have done what I did exactly had I not said "Wikipedia"? I'm all ears, as this should certainly be an easy issue to rectify.

Now more to the meat of the issue: To make this discussion of what I had inserted productive, it is imperative (especially when dealing with a science site) to be specific. To use general terms like "encyclopedic style", "hyperbole" and "editorializing" does little good without specifying the particular phrase or word choice that is the problem. It would allow me to simply assert "I did not use hyperbole" --and where does that leave us? So let us start with "hyperbole". Could you specify a particular phrase where you perceive hyperbole being used? I do know I took pains to admit the current limitations of the new science through use limiting words such as "attempts", "merely", "limited", etc. (I might gently remind the editors that simply describing an elephant as "large" is not hyperbole.) I don't assert what EP does ---only what it is attempting to do, in overview, within the larger context of natural science. And, it would disingenuous to obfuscate the fact that EP is, at least, attempting to do very "large" things.

Two additional points I probably should make at the outset.

First, I thought my comments were consistent with both the "revolutionary" aspect of Wikipedia (Be Bold!); but also with the proper placement within an "Overview" section --the term directing one to go beyond mere description (as is the character of each opening section) to a deeper "putting it all into the larger perspective" approach. This is especially important for the new science given the intense confusion regarding its logical placement within the broader Natural Science category of Biology (i.e. as a branch of Primatology).

Second, I had sent the EP Overview page including my edits (and before it had been reverted) to Frans DeWaal, who is one of the most well-known and respected primatologists in the world (and who has written extensively about Evolutionary Psychology and its connection to Primatology). He read through my comments and found them "very interesting". He apparently didn't see any particular inappropriateness about my description of the science in an Overview page of an encyclopedic article.

I eagerly await a response, but I have never gone through this process before so I might come off as rather awkward at the outset. I'll probably do "what just isn't done", many times over before I get the gist of this.Ekimiheart (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you did nothing wrong by being bold. What you did wrong was only to keep reinserting the material without engaing in discussion. The basic principle of how to be bold is to respect the cycle of Bold-Revert-Discuss. You wrote:
Evolutionary psychology (EP) is the first psychology that attempts to proceed, undeviatingly, from the base premise that human beings are primate animals and, as is true of all biological organisms, subject to the laws of Darwinian evolution. Tautologically, it is defined as the science of the human primate brain and, in turn, understands itself to be a branch of Primatology (and, thus, of Natural Science) as opposed to being a branch of traditional, “soft”, human science psychology. As Wikipedia correctly defines ”hard” as “perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate’, in conjunction with the fact that science always moves in the direction of becoming more “rigorous” and “accurate”, the dichotomy of “soft” science vs. “hard” science was never meant to be a permanent feature of science itself, but rather a transitional one. In overview, EP is merely a terminology representing the beginning movement of this transition towards its completion. Although EP’s ability to make successful predictions about the nature of human primate behavior is, as yet, fairly limited (as is also true, for example, of the limited predictive power of the natural science of Meteorology), it’s framework as a branch of natural science will, necessarily, seek to incorporate all of the psychological sciences under its rubric and to end the transitional division of “soft” and “hard” science.
In the previous I have marked in bold face each phrase that is unnecessarily using editorializing to direct the reader to understand the topic from a particular viewpoint. This is not how articles in encyclopedic style is written - the article should neutrally and factually state what the topic is, not try to convince the reader that a particular viewpoint on the topic is preferable. Describing the discipline as "the first psychology that...", or its goal to do something "undeviatingly" is also hyperbole that serves to paint the discipline in a particular light, that is not neutral. Regarding Frans de Waal's response that really doesn't mean anything at all - teachers typically tell their students that their ideas are "very interesting" when they are Not even wrong, but the professor can't be bothered to argue, I know I do. I think the whole point about hard and soft science is out of place - there is nothing particularly hard about evolutionary psychology compared with other kind of psychology or social science. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article

"Stone age solutions to depression"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenylalanine (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice short definition

"evolutionary psychology. Founded in the late 1980s in the ashes of sociobiology, this field asserts that behaviors that conferred a fitness advantage during the era when modern humans were evolving are the result of hundreds of genetically based cognitive "modules" preprogrammed in the brain."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202789

So you experts may want to add "EP studies behaviors that conferred a fitness advantage during the era when modern humans were evolving" or something. Anyway, IMHO good article explaining EP and what is wrong with it. Or maybe this link belongs to controversies page? Please do as you feel right and remove this.

I do not really like anything that says pre programmed. It could be worked on though. I am not sure that newsweek is a useful source either, perhaps an intro book would be better? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

recently expanded controversy section

I thought we went through this 3 years ago, but anyway... New material has been added, please take a look. My view is that the material added, a philosophical criticism of a science, seems to put too much weight on the view of philosophers (I think I said such a thing a few years back). What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. That is just 2-3 sentences. That section is about controversy and was already too meager. Are there more notable controversies? Another thing is that it is really rare for philosophers to arrive at consensus on something! So, this is really notable :-) --DoostdarWKP (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dbrodbeck. This issue has already been been discussed at length. Further, it is an overstatement, without apparent empirical support (e.g., a representative survey of philosophers) that EP is 'deeply flawed."
Compare with this statement from another philosopher (already in the Controversies main page):
"In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes:
"...there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
Another example: Dan Dennett, a prominent philosopher, is, of course, a strong proponent of EP.
Bottom line is this -- this article is about the science of EP, not about the opinions that some philosophers may have about it pro or con.
Again, the appropriate place for any objections by philosophers, or other non-science fields, is in the EP Controversies main page. Memills (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There are two independent statement: (1) There is NOT a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed, (2) There are philosophers who support evolutionary psychology.
The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia says that both (1) and (2) are true: "I said in my introduction that there is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise but there are proponents of evolutionary psychology among philosophers of science." And the author cites Edouard Machery, Clark Barrett, Robert Arp as examples.
By citing Edouard Machery and Dan Dennett, you have simply shown statement (2) is correct (in fact, we have 4 philosophers by now). You have not shown that (1) is correct. To claim that (1) is correct, you need a reliable source that summarizes the view of the dominant majority rather than speaking of one's own viewpoint (and the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia does exactly that).
And lastly, the claim that psychology and philosophy are completely separate spheres of knowledge without any interplay is inaccurate. Philosophers are looking at evolutionary psychology from their own perspective. And their view is part of the "evolutionary psychology" package. And obviously exclusive inclusion of the view of the practitioners of "evolutionary psychology" makes the article systematically biased, because those who have devoted their life to evolutionary psychology are among those who were already convinced that it is important in the first place. You cannot expect someone who does not share such a conviction to become a practitioner in "evolutionary psychology". --DoostdarWKP (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, this issue was thoroughly explored about 3 years ago, and a general consensus was reached that non-science based criticisms of the field (philosophical, religious, political, etc.) would be explored quite generously on the EP Controversies Main Page, while the main EP Main Page focuses on empirical findings (both corroborative and disconfirming). This has been the consensus for other science based disciplines on Wikipedia. Memills (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is a difference between philosophical, and the rest "religious, political, etc." And naturally speaking if there is a controversy section here, it should summarize what is included in the main article. I am not saying that we should go into details but there is nothing wrong with mentioning the existence of a controversy. And consensus can change.
Honestly to me this sounds like censorship. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course it can change. However, it does not seem to have changed. I see why scientific criticisms fit in a different category than others, but those using other methods of inquiry (including philosophy) do not belong in a science article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that this article should not include even one sentence in the controversy section about the view of philosophers. At the top of this page, it even says that "This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy." --DoostdarWKP (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that any evolutionary psychologists added this. Evolutionary psychologists do not consider their discipline a philosophy any more than geological scientists would consider their discipline to be a sub-field of philosophy. Memills (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I just thought I should note that "philosopher of science" can be used as a synonym for "scientist", in the same sense that "science" was once called "natural philosophy", and a "PhD" is a "Philosophiae Doctor". My interpretation of the term in a bit of context would be "person who sees significant value in application of the scientific method", which seems to fit with what the philosophy of science page describes. Thus, it implicitly sounds like the quotee's objection to the field of evolutionary psychology is that he feels it does not apply the scientific method appropriately. That said, I have no idea what comprises evolutionary psychology, who is being quoted, what justification the quotee has for his opinion, or the issues to which the quote might be referring. I therefore can't form a valid opinion of my own, but widespread failure to apply the scientific method appropriately would definitely be a significant issue with the soundness of a scientific field, e.g. the controversy surrounding so-called "string theory". Ndickson (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exclusively, or not exclusively? (Re EvPsych's way of viewing the world)

The article states:

"Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach within psychology that examines psychological traits — such as memory, perception, or language — from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective."

Can some expert on the subject please be more specific about what "from a Darwinian perspective" means? Does it imply that everything about the makeup of present-day human nature is assumed by evolutionary psychologists to be the result of natural selection, and that no other causes are tolerated? (Because if so, that is quite notable -- and if not, it's probably worth clarifying that it's not the case.) As an ignorant outsider, I for one, would be grateful to learn more about this. Thanks.Daqu (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

EP takes the same approach to the mind/brain and does general evolutionary theory to the body. For an overview, see Confer, et al., (2010) Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and Limitations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memills (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. But despite my perhaps poor choice of words, I'm not asking just for my own sake but -- above all -- for the sake of the article.Daqu (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am having an issue with the first statement: "Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach within psychology that examines psychological traits — such as memory, perception, or language — from a modern evolutionary perspective." I am sure this is how EP's would view it, but it sounds as if ALL 'modern evolutionary perspectives' would necessarily concur with the approach taken by EP. In other words, it would appear that the general and less contested theory of "evolution" is being used in this sentence to bolster support for EP, which is a certain take on evolutionary ideas, focusing on adaptive selection while making certain assumptions about the 'mind' - assumptions much disputed by academics that may very well support the standard theory of evolution. Logic prevails (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about Evolutionary psychology having the status of a science

According to Lawrence Shapiro in the Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer reviewed encyclopedia in Philosophy), there is a dispute as to whether this field can be considered as a science. "Critics have objected that evolutionary psychology is untestable because hypotheses about the EEA cannot be tested, that evolutionary psychology is adaptationist to a fault, and that commitment to the existence of a human nature is inconsistent with evolutionary theory." --DoostdarWKP (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Better inform these poor folks of this: EP Research Groups and Centers. Further, Shapiro has apparently moderated his views, arguing in a 2009 book review that EP can rest on a theory of functionalism, even sans an assumption of historical adaptation, and thus "remains a sensible research program." See his book review in Metascience. Memills (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In that article, Shapiro himself does not full heartedly support this criticism, but raises some objections about the criticism himself. But he does report that this is one of the ways that the critics criticize EP. And that's all I meant: "Some philosophers think that EP is untestable." --DoostdarWKP (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I still have no idea why a philosopher's opinion matters about this. We have had a criticisms page, let us keep it there. This has all been discussed a lot, and there seems little change in consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. A recent book review by H. Clark Barrett makes the point that some philosophical arguments are really "language games" with little relevance to actual science. See the review here. Memills (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
That idea was first proposed by a philosopher - Wittgenstein. "Science" as a distinct undertaking and a special kin of epistemology was first defined by a philosopher - Popper. There would have been no Einstein without Spinoza. There would have been no science without philosophers like Descartes and Kant. The kind of mathematics that enable scientists to do science were developed by philosophers such as Russell, Whitehead, Gödel, Pierce and many other. The notion of a scientific paradigm, such as the one evolutionary psychology pretends to be comes from Kuhn - a philosopher. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of what science is to suggest that philosophy is irrelevant to scientific topics. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Word game: I came from my mother. My mother was a woman. Therefore, I am a woman. Scientific hypotheses and theories cannot ultimately be evaluated by philosophical argumentation, but by empirical tests. 157.242.197.123 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
That is neither a word game or philosophical its just silly. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the 'science' of EP actually arose from ideas produced by philosophy - particularly as it relates to theory of mind, information-processing, modularity, etc., so I think it is fair to listen to philosophers who take issue with how EP's use these ideas in their methodology. Science is much more than experimental hypothesis testing... hypotheses need to originate from somewhere... hopefully from someplace logical. Most of the critics take issue with the assumptions made by EP before they even begin the 'research' we often associate with science. Logic prevails (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_3&oldid=414905224"