[extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience?

[Herb Martin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Damien Broderick
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 1:06 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology = Pseudoscience?
> 
> http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm
> 

The author(s) of this editorial offer little 
criticism that is not true in general of the
vast majority of "psychological research" and
papers on the subject, as opposed to arguments
directly against "evolutionary psychology."

They MAY have a point, but the method was to set
up a straw man (it's admitted the example was
concocted for the article) example and then attack
it.

BTW, the method under attack has also been criticized
in "evolutionary" studies (as opposed the the 
psychological specialty) as well.  

IIRC, 'evolutionary explanations' have been derided
as containing many "just so stories" with little or no
evidence except an appeal to some sort of common sense
notion of what seems, and therefore presumably must, be
true.  [Note:  I entertain this criticism only in
SPECIFIC cases lacking facts, and not to the general
case made by ID or SC advocates.]

None of the above makes the article wrong, but it is
clearly an "editorial" and not itself an attempt to 
follow good scientific principles of argument....

That entire page is curiously skewed politically --
no matter what one's politics it is clearly so -- in
all of it's editorials.

The page even misrepresents the (in)famous comments by 
Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard University, 
"suggesting that biological differences between the sexes
may be one explanation" when it would be more accurate to
indicate that he actually suggested it MIGHT BE WORTH
STUDYING to determine if this exerts an influence.

>From this misrepresentation it proceeds to suggest that
Summers is suffering from possible "brain damage".

Weird "editorial" page for what I remember as being a
credible and interesting scientific news publication 
(from the time when I subscribed to the printed verions.)

--
Herb Martin