I agree with most of what's written in the article, but I think there are some additional points to be made, a critique of the critique if you will
( ... )
Yeah, I appreciate this, but then you go over to convert_me and run into Philosophy majors who link to these kinds of squabbles within the genuinely difficult and hairy study of evolution and psychology and then conclude that Kant must have lowered morality down to us on a skyhook, and that morality was ontologically rigged up as the red carpet H. Sapiens was destined to arrive on, or... something.
Actually, part of my break from being an evo-psych cheerleader is because of them. My current ambivalence might also be unacceptable to them, but I'm not exactly dying to test whether that's true.
SciAm definitely has a liberal bent, which must be taken into consideration, but I don't see evolutionary psychology appealing to social conservatives. It seems to suggest that religion-at least any specific doctrine-is unnecessary for morality and that many "unsavory" human behaviors are biologically driven. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with your first comment, but I'm interested in your take on this.
I agree, something shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because it cannot be definitively proven; scientists and educators just have to be careful about how they phrase things and be clear about how much of what they are saying is solidly backed by evidence and what is largely conjecture.
Michael Shermer's still there. His most recent book was on behavioral economics/psychology and I seem to remember him on some podcast criticizing some of the grander claims made by evolutionary psychology, but I don't have that reference and don't remember for sure.
I see evo-psych attacked by liberals far more than conservatives, largely because a lot of liberal egalitarianism and aspirations of social reform rely on the kind of "blank slate" philosophy which Pinker dedicates his book to dismantling. I agree that evo-psych can also be used to attack conservative ideas, but liberals hate it just as much if not more. A weak testament to that fact being the fact that SciAm chose to target it.
Anyways, The Mind of the Market, iirc, relied heavily on evo-psych to make some of its points. I don't know what in particular he found worthy of criticism, but he seemed to embrace it wholeheartedly in his work.
I was remembering the April 18th episode of the Point of Inquiry podcast in which Shermer is the guest. At about 9:25 he addresses some of the criticism of evolutionary psychology. He's more pro-EP than I recalled, but he takes a pretty even handed, reasonable approach to answering the question. I haven't read the book but EP does seem to be a major part of it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I agree, something shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because it cannot be definitively proven; scientists and educators just have to be careful about how they phrase things and be clear about how much of what they are saying is solidly backed by evidence and what is largely conjecture.
Michael Shermer's still there. His most recent book was on behavioral economics/psychology and I seem to remember him on some podcast criticizing some of the grander claims made by evolutionary psychology, but I don't have that reference and don't remember for sure.
Reply
Anyways, The Mind of the Market, iirc, relied heavily on evo-psych to make some of its points. I don't know what in particular he found worthy of criticism, but he seemed to embrace it wholeheartedly in his work.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment