|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 19:05:37 GMT 10
"Evolutionary Psychology thus rests on a couple of key arguments and ideas: (1) The claim that the cognitive mechanisms that are underlying our behavior are adaptations. (2) The idea that they cannot be studied directly, for example, through observation of the brain or our overt behavior, but have to be discovered by means of a method known as “functional analysis,” where one starts with hypotheses about the adaptive problems faced by our ancestors, and then tries to infer the cognitive adaptations that must have evolved to solve them. (3) The claim that these cognitive mechanisms are adaptations not for solving problems prevalent in our modern environment, but for solving recurrent adaptive problems in the evolutionary environment of our ancestors. (4) The idea that our mind is a complex set of such cognitive mechanisms, or domain-specific modules. (5) The claim that these modules define who we are, in the sense that they define our universal human nature and ultimately trump any individual, cultural or societal differences." A primer which goes over old ground without adding anything new but tries to cover its arse about not producing testable hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 19:08:59 GMT 10
Please do not just flood the discussion with irrelevancies. Exercise some rational discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 26, 2012 23:10:33 GMT 10
Even rats can get out of a maze. Start with an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 27, 2012 5:33:33 GMT 10
Even rats can get out of a maze. Obfuscation is a characteristic of many pseudosciences. But maintain a healthy skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 27, 2012 5:46:09 GMT 10
Take your pick.
Most are not even behaviours. Play: Not a specific behaviour in and of itself. Rather it is a description applied to countless behaviours performed for enjoyment. Had "work" also been listed it would have given the game away.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 27, 2012 5:49:31 GMT 10
First a theory must provide testable hypotheses or it simply isn't science. If there is nothing testable it is outside the realm of science and belongs in the same camp as religion, a matter of faith. What testable hypotheses has EP produced? What evidence supports them?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 27, 2012 14:13:36 GMT 10
I have started and maintained a skeptical stance. For instance, I recognize that the body does exist and it is more than a problem that I must keep clean. I don't buy into the religious argument that humans amongst all animals are super special and separate from all other animals. I don't buy into the flawed idea that human behavior is so varied that there are no universals. (This is your cue to rush in and demand evidence of universals that will be ignored because somebody had lipstick on). I don't buy into wiki articles as the be all end all of the corpus of scientific knowledge. I am not a radical fundamentalist with an agenda to advance.
If humans did evolve, which some can say that they didn't or stopped, then they should be keyed to certain types of cognitive behavior that should exhibit during change detection. What do you think the results were? I don't wish to disprove evolution by natural selection. I will leave that to those that have declared a jihad to go fight the idea everywhere it is mentioned. It is the strongest theory that we have, one day it could be overturned, that would be an interesting day.
Is anyone really going to suggest that marriage is not a behavior? Are you married?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 27, 2012 16:02:00 GMT 10
I have started and maintained a skeptical stance. For instance, I recognize that the body does exist and it is more than a problem that I must keep clean. Yes and it comes with abilities and disabilities which we psychologically accomodate and as we acquire further abilities through technology or whatever or further disabilities though accident or whatever we psychologically adapt to them. I don't buy into the religious argument that humans amongst all animals are super special and separate from all other animals.Not religious. Not super special. Not separate. Our evolutionary line is characterized by decreasing reliance on genetic instincts and increasing relying on memetic learned behaviour. The mainstream position is that fixed instincts have both benefits and liabilities and that where we have developed sufficient capacity to rely entirely on learning then fixed instincts lose out in natural selection. We appear to have crossed the line and left fixed instincts behind. This brings with it a new set of problems. I don't buy into the flawed idea that human behavior is so varied that there are no universals. (This is your cue to rush in and demand evidence of universals that will be ignored because somebody had lipstick on).How dare I expect you to provide relevant evidence. I don't buy into wiki articles as the be all end all of the corpus of scientific knowledge.Who does? I am not a radical fundamentalist with an agenda to advance.You do a good impersonation. If humans did evolve, which some can say that they didn't or stopped, then they should be keyed to certain types of cognitive behavior that should exhibit during change detection.This would only follow if we were still subject to instincts. That is the issue here. What do you think the results were? I don't wish to disprove evolution by natural selection. I will leave that to those that have declared a jihad to go fight the idea everywhere it is mentioned. It is the strongest theory that we have, one day it could be overturned, that would be an interesting day.Genetic and memetic evolution by natural selection got us to where we are now. Is anyone really going to suggest that marriage is not a behavior?It is certainly a cultural institution. Please describe it as a specific behaviour. Do you consider it to be universal? None of your business.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 27, 2012 16:03:36 GMT 10
First a theory must provide testable hypotheses or it simply isn't science. If there is nothing testable it is outside the realm of science and belongs in the same camp as religion, a matter of faith. Second the hypotheses must satisfy those tests.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 27, 2012 21:58:01 GMT 10
Even rats can get out of a maze. Start with an open mind. Remember I saw your maze for what it was. Amazing only for its fanatical construction.
|
|