Evolutionary psychology (early 1990s) is a rebranding of sociobiology (1975).

Evolutionary psychology (early 1990s) is a rebranding of sociobiology (1975).

[some consider evolutionary psychology as an improvement upon sociobiology, saying sociobiology was too simplistic but others say they’re identical]

This little summary I found I think does a nice job of summing it up:

They say that the gene’s mission of maximum reproduction produces thoughts and urges that could lead to certain behaviors, but that we are free to act on these desires or not. Critics say that evolutionary psychologists don’t account enough for how different cultures produce different human behaviors and that they tend to selectively cite evidence in animal and human studies that support stereotypical sex roles.

So, herein seems to lie the division in thinking.

—————————

Bad hypothesis and bad conclusion can make a sandwich containing great scientific method in the middle.

EP requires extra skepticism because the very field has a build-in inherent danger of taking observed present-day behaviors and attributing it to causes that *may* be ultimately unable to be proven.

That doesn’t mean it’s a “bad field” although I freely criticize (since there are a lot of crackpot ideas using the name). I’m sure there is some _excellent_ work being done in evolutionary psychology.

—–

Do you have some examples of well performance studies in Evolutionary Psychology?

I know that’s how the scientific method is supposed to work but it’s not something commonly done in any of the sciences. [because there’s not enough time/money/interest in replicating other studies usually].

====

 

I’m sure there’s a journal. There may be several journals. But you mentioned replication in particular. I rarely see replication performed anywhere, although there’s been a trend of “meta studies” substituting statistical analysis for replication.

It sounded like you were aware of particularly well done studies.

====

There’s references of course. But replication of a study is uncommon where you specifically set out to duplicate another’s work.

You set up the same criteria, the same conditions, the same everything.

It’s very rare.

====

It’s unfortunate that replication is so uncommon because replication is one of the things about the sciences that gives them a stronger claim upon comprehension of reality than other methodologies.

Replication is implicit in Industry (actually explicit really)  for example. One of the things I love about engineering and chemistry for example, is there is a lot of replication that goes on. You can depend on engineering and chemistry for having very strong truth value for this reason.

Earth Physics is also very consistent and easy to replicate experiments.

Biology gets more complicated because of variety but there’s good successes in biology.

Beyond biology, things start getting a little more difficult to replicate, so often there’s a shift to statistical methods to help give credence to results, for some studies just can’t be replicated in many sciences. One can do similar studies, but similar isn’t replication.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine × 5 =

Leave a Reply