|
Post by Smithee on Mar 4, 2012 18:22:21 GMT 10
Evidence has been offered for consideration and discussion. It was met with derision based upon faulty logic and a lack of knowledge. I ask again for you to give an example of this.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 5, 2012 6:34:03 GMT 10
Go back through the list and actually read them.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 5, 2012 16:39:35 GMT 10
Go back through the list and actually read them. Nothing from you then.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 5, 2012 16:46:06 GMT 10
Indeed, it's possible that "history" was a corollary of language, which had facilitated social learning, giving us an alternative to instincts (enabling us to ask "why" and choosing other behaviours). I think you may be onto something. A baby may be able to babble a word or two but it is only when infants start asking why? and saying no! that meaningful communication, social learning and reasoning can really take off.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 5, 2012 18:16:51 GMT 10
Well worth reading. Psycho-Babble on the Right: David Brooks and Twisting Science scienceweek.com/editorials.htm#070422"The politically conservative line of Brooks and others is that if you oppose these ideas you must be anti-biology, anti-evolution, and a Creationist. Well, I'm a professional neuroscientist, biophysicist, and psychologist, and I'm pro-biology, pro-evolutionary biology, and definitely not a Creationist -- and I think these ideas of David Brooks and his crowd are dangerous poppycock and need to be argued against and countered with science and reason any time the public is exposed to them."
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 6, 2012 0:06:40 GMT 10
Clearly Brooks is off his rocker, I have not read or heard any of his stuff. Perhaps Brooks should start with some of the primers available so he won't make stupid statements.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 6, 2012 5:53:03 GMT 10
Clearly Brooks is off his rocker, I have not read or heard any of his stuff. Perhaps Brooks should start with some of the primers available so he won't make stupid statements. For the record, the link shows Brooks to be the evolutionary psychologist whose work was torn apart by Dan Agin, Editor of Science Week magazine.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 6, 2012 13:07:57 GMT 10
The link also shows Brooks has a B.A. in History.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 6, 2012 13:49:11 GMT 10
The link also shows Brooks has a B.A. in History. Which was a point raised by Agin. Are qualifications in Evolutionary Biology or general Psychology prerequisites for Evolutionary Psychology?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 6, 2012 14:16:47 GMT 10
Another editorial by Agin. History Denied: The Central Failure of Evolutionary Psychology scienceweek.com/editorials.htm#070116"On close examination, it becomes apparent that the central failure of evolutionary psychology as an effort to understand human behavior is that it essentially ignores two important corollaries of this major premise concerning universality of behavior across present-day cultures. The first corollary is that any behavior pattern that is NOT universal across cultures is NOT derived from Darwinian evolution, but probably derived from cultural evolution plus individual learned experience. The second and more important corollary is that any behavior pattern within a culture that is not universal across decades, or generations, or centuries, or even millennia is also NOT derived from Darwinian evolution, and more likely derived from cultural evolution plus individual learned experience. On these small time scales, Darwinian evolution just doesn't have enough time to work and cannot be responsible for any behavior changes within a culture."
|
|