I'm glad that some of the more extreme conclusions of evolutionary psychology are being challenged, though not for political reasons. Their conclusions never really bothered me, because I never thought that an evolutionary incentive for immoral behavior gave a "free pass" in any way whatsoever.
What I dislike about evolutionary psychology is that it often tries to use the word "scientific" for explanations that are really "just so." I suppose it's an improvement that the explanation made to fit "just so" fits with a vaguely scientific worldview rather than consulting the bones, tea leaves, tarot, or astrological charts. But a just so explanation that fits with science is not! scientific reasoning, and that's where the evo-pysch folks got themselves in trouble.
I think evo-pysch is a great idea, but it needs to be scientific. And you know, some of it probably is - though those studies probably haven't produced the same sensationalistic headlines, and as a result aren't defining the field. "Just so" isn't scientific, but evo-psych certainly could be.
I think the word 'scientific' is one of the most abused or confused words around. Should it only be used for areas where relative certainty can be established or should it also encompass logical and evidence-based speculation on things that cannot currently be tested well? It doesn't matter what the 'true' definition of the word is when the majority of people use it differently.
From one direction calling evo-psych 'scientific' can fool others into believing there is more evidence than there really is. From the other side a well-reasoned argument with incomplete evidence like 'smoking causes cancer (in the 60s)' can be made to look like astrology by using the word 'unscientific'.
Perhaps a new words need to be invented so that people can talk about these things more clearly.
>>I think the word 'scientific' is one of the most abused or confused words around.
Agreed, it is misused. But note that some of the research in any field will be of bad quality (the book on rape was probably one) -- and some will be good. You will have probabilities in all active research areas (see e.g. diet advice...).
Note that ideologically motivated people argue that researchers in all evolutionary biology are in a conspiracy or complete idiots.
Many of the critics of evolutionary psychology are obviously also ideologically motivated, but sure... they could be closer to the target than the creationists.
(Marxists and religious people have problems with lots of behavior being built in; don't ask me about the specifics. Don't tell me either, I don't really care).
(And note, most researchers in two fields -- intelligence and evolutionary psychology -- would have to be in a conspiracy for Gould to be honest... :-)
Note that ideologically motivated people argue that researchers in all evolutionary biology are in a conspiracy or complete idiots.
Note that alternative medicine, evolutionary psychologists, and creationists/intelligent designers will argue that the "establishment" scientists are in a conspiracy or complete idiots.
I agree with the "just so" problem, but evolutionary psychology is still proposing testable ideas. You can look for the DNA that would cause the trait and you can simulate the history. Granted, simulations are imperfect and the article's simulation ignores rape of the concurred vs intra tribe rape and age factors etc, but it's still testing the hypothesis.
I read the link, and I think it's fair to say that evo-psych shouldn't be dismissed as "just-so". However, much of what I've read about evo-psych in pop science clearly is "just-so".
I recall one claim (in psychology today or something like that) that women in Scandinavia developed blond hair because it was a way to attract attention in spite of the thick clothing that would be required in cold weather... makes sense, right? In a just so way, sure. However, I haven't been reading scientific journals. For all I know, this claim was scientifically tested and validated.
So some of the "just-so" accusations may be the result of how evo-psych is presented in the mainstream media. A journalist may present solid science as a "just-so" narrative, because it makes for a more entertaining story, leaving out all the boring parts.
Yeah, lots of the popular criticism is of low quality. I don't really know if there is any high quality criticism of evolutionary psychology.
I have read up a bit on the subject, but the really interesting thing for me is the question: "why is the attacks both so ferocious and dishonest?".
Evolutionary psychology breaks some ideological basis for marxism and for religion. After seeing a few similar debates in other areas, one of my few certain opinions is:
idealists lie.
I've seen some other theory about blonde hair. :-) It is probably some sexual selection (if there were something with snow reflection or heating, it ought to be known by now.)
What I dislike about evolutionary psychology is that it often tries to use the word "scientific" for explanations that are really "just so." I suppose it's an improvement that the explanation made to fit "just so" fits with a vaguely scientific worldview rather than consulting the bones, tea leaves, tarot, or astrological charts. But a just so explanation that fits with science is not! scientific reasoning, and that's where the evo-pysch folks got themselves in trouble.
I think evo-pysch is a great idea, but it needs to be scientific. And you know, some of it probably is - though those studies probably haven't produced the same sensationalistic headlines, and as a result aren't defining the field. "Just so" isn't scientific, but evo-psych certainly could be.