Post by Tamrin on May 12, 2013 7:34:42 GMT 10
If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test. - Mary Wollstonecraft
Evolutionary psychology and the nature-nurture debate.
Recently I went to a talk on Mary Wollstonecroft (writer of “Vindications of the rights of women” (1790… ish). The speaker showed how Mary’s book was influenced by the books on Natural History she was reviewing around that time for a radical journal. During contributions from the floor someone insisted that evolutionary psychology was now proven beyond reasonable doubt, was therefore the scientific consensus, and he implied that there were therefore fundamental biological differences between men and women leading to inequality (not just the obvious differences such as who gets to have babies). Afterwards I spoke to the speaker and offered to send her some suggestions for readings on the issue as I knew the contributor from the floor did not tell the whole story. Instead what developed was a short account on the issue of evolutionary psychology and its scientific status, so I decided to put it on the web for anyone who might be interested. Here it is…
Reads more at andyhammondphd.wordpress.com/tag/evolutionary-psychology/
Seems to be a typical strategy. A devotee tries to use Jedi mind tricks on an uninformed audience by asserting so-called Evolutionary Psychology is solid science, beyond doubt. When very real doubts are raised it is conceded to be a controversial field but that there is heaps of proof. When that proof is requested or what is said to be evidence is challenged the devotee turns to personal attack and the challenger is accused of being a creationist and having a political agenda. When the challenger persists in their scepticism the devotee spits the dummy and goes in search of another uninformed audience.
Only one side of the "controversy" is supported by evidence which has withstood scrutiny.