Posted: Apr 20, 2018 10:49 am
by SpeedOfSound
Rumraket wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
zoon wrote:Unlike you, PZ Myers doesn't say anywhere that he would like to see more funding for evolutionary psychology, or that he makes a distinction between the useful and the harmful variety.

If what EvPsych has on offer are glib rationalizations, from an evolutionary perspective, 'explaining' (e.g.) how we come to like sitting down and eating sugar, then no, I don't want to see more funding for evolutionary psychology, either. Psychology already contributes a lot of research of dubious value to anyone with a couple of extra neurons to rub together without looking deep into the past to come up with something to tell the creationists.


Evolutionary biology isn't just story telling. We want some actual evidence that supports those stories. That means comparative genetics data must support the stories. Any idiot can sit and just invent adaptive explanations for why humans do X. But it's supposed to be a science.

Some new thinking in psychology would be good. I think a few respiration sensors glued to the subject are worth about a dozen psychologists and statisticians in figuring out what is actually going on. Most of our 'rational' thinking is actually observable as increased respiration and blood sugar variations. :what: