|
Post by Smithee on Feb 1, 2012 19:12:05 GMT 10
Because there appears to be little if anything to distinguish Evolutionary Psychology from agenda driven pseudosciences such as eugenics and sociobiology. A superstition which pretends to be scientific creates a much greater confusion of thought than one which contents itself with simple popular practices Johan Huizinga(Died this day 1945)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 2, 2012 13:36:01 GMT 10
Sure the ball is in my court. That happens when there is a rejection of any empirical evidence. What relevant and valid empirical evidence has been rejected? Unlike agendas, science advances by increments. We accrue knowledge by study and discrimination. According to Kuhn, science advances by paradigm shifts. If, in the end, there is no human nature making us absolutely unique in this world then I will accept that. The evolutionary line leading to humans appears to be distinguished by less and less reliance on fixed instincts and more and more reliance on flexible social learning. A heuristic model of these trends would suggest that where social learning is adequate, instincts would become a liability, losing out during natural selection. We have passed that tipping point. The question remains as to whether or not our loss of instincts occurred one by one or if the loss was general. Peanut gallery attacks on strong evidence doesn't constitute a response. Thus far you have provided NO relevant and valid evidence (let alone "strong evidence") of human instincts beyond primitive reflexes. That is what is wanting in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 2, 2012 14:13:21 GMT 10
Having read Kuhn I am sure that you mean that science accrues evidence and then shifts. It isn't that it simply continues on one path and then one day changes for no reason and with no antecedents.
Where do you think "flexible social learning" comes from? To avoid any misattributions, do you believe that humans, unique amongst all animals, lack an inherent nature?
BTW, the evidence that I have provided was not developed willy-nilly and was the result of long, hard work. One piece, from Yerkes, was dismissed because monkeys aren't people. Yet they are people enough to provide us with the necessary testing that is used to make medicine that any of us would prefer if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 2, 2012 14:39:50 GMT 10
Having read Kuhn I am sure that you mean that science accrues evidence and then shifts. It isn't that it simply continues on one path and then one day changes for no reason and with no antecedents. Within a scientific paradigm both details and contradictions slowly accumulate. Once it loses productivity (predictability) and contradictions (falsifications) become more and more evident, the shift to a new paradigm is relatively fast. Where do you think "flexible social learning" comes from? Society. To avoid any misattributions, do you believe that humans, unique amongst all animals, lack an inherent nature? The evolutionary line leading to humans appears to be distinguished by less and less reliance on fixed instincts and more and more reliance on flexible social learning. A heuristic model of these trends would suggest that where social learning is adequate, instincts would become a liability, losing out during natural selection. We have passed that tipping point. The question remains as to whether or not our loss of instincts occurred one by one or if the loss was general. BTW, the evidence that I have provided was not developed willy-nilly and was the result of long, hard work. One piece, from Yerkes, was dismissed because monkeys aren't people. Yet they are people enough to provide us with the necessary testing that is used to make medicine that any of us would prefer if needed. Where the thesis being challenged is that of humans having evolved beyond instincts (apart from primitive reflexes) to rely on social learning, evidence of innate behaviours in other animals is not relevant. I guess where long, hard work has thus far been unproductive your burden of proof will be heavy indeed.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 2, 2012 14:50:35 GMT 10
The paradigm shift is only fast for those that are not watching.
Society, where does society come from?
What would it take as far as evidence is concerned?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 2, 2012 14:51:47 GMT 10
So that I understand your stance correctly, you believe that humans have grown beyond instinct?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 2, 2012 15:00:10 GMT 10
So that I understand your stance correctly, you believe that humans have grown beyond instinct? Basically, yes. I am open to valid, relevant evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 2, 2012 15:05:26 GMT 10
yes
Doing data entry tonight, just taking a break. More to follow. To direct my limited free time, what do you consider valid? In asking I mean what is the threshold of evidence to be considered valid?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 2, 2012 15:07:35 GMT 10
The paradigm shift is only fast for those that are not watching. True. It is especially slow for those who have been developing the alternate paradigm. Society, where does society come from? Society. What would it take as far as evidence is concerned? Valid, reliable and relevant evidence of instinctual behaviours among humans. A bonus would be to show such differences between groups (e.g., races and genders) as asserted by Evolutionary Psychologists.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 2, 2012 15:19:00 GMT 10
So that I understand your stance correctly, you believe that humans have grown beyond instinct? Basically, yes. I am open to valid, relevant evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?yes
Doing data entry tonight, just taking a break. More to follow. To direct my limited free time, what do you consider valid? In asking I mean what is the threshold of evidence to be considered valid? I have no idiosyncratic standard of validity.
|
|