slimgrin wrote...
WingsandRings wrote...
PS: Evolutionary psychology is a bunch of bunk with no substantial scientific basis and every good psychologist knows that.
So using evolutionary psychology to back up ANY argument is an immediate [echo]NERDFAIL[/echo]
Try arguing that with Steven Pinker or Richard Dawkins.
Oh, we've frequently read their arguments and torn them apart as part of our assignments.
It's great.
The basic tenet is this: Unlike biological evolutionary theory, the origins for behavior leave no obvious physical trace/fossilized correlate. Therefore, all evolutionary theories of behavior are basically no more than "Just-so" stories (based on the fancifal short stories written by Rudyard Kipling) because they look at CURRENT behavior and try to guesstimate why they evolved in the first place, with no historical/biological evidence to back up how they originally developed or why. In biology, we've seen time and time again that the original reason that certain parts/functions evolved bear almost no resemblance to how we use them now. But we have no physical evidence into the past we can follow for behavior, so the evolutionary psychologists base their hypotheses for ORIGINAL development of behavior on how we use it TODAY. The fact is, scientifically, evidence has shown time and time again that original development of things often have very little today to their current benefits. (And that's often why we have organs -- like the appendix -- or reaction/functions -- like sweating under stress -- that either have no real use in modern times or, in some cases, are actually harmful)
Look, even fraggin wikipedia has a page dedicated to it:
http://en.wikipedia....ogy_controversySo evolutionary psychology is bunk. And you can all tell Richard Dawkins and Steven Pink I said so. In fact, they've probably been told that A LOT.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
