Science denialism at a skeptic conference
The point that isn't addressed in the article above is how it is that having scientific backing for a view that may uphold that men and women have different essential natures can further social development, intellectual sophistication and/or benefit us in terms of knowledge. Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that science has to justify any of its endeavors in moral terms. However, I think it misses the point of RW's criticism of evolutionary psychology not to consider the social relevance of EP, or how it impacts on the popular consciousness. RW did, after all, state that she wasn't presenting her analyses as an expert on the topic, but rather in terms more relevant to feminism. So why not take her at her word, and also address her criticisms in the same vein?
The point that isn't addressed in the article above is how it is that having scientific backing for a view that may uphold that men and women have different essential natures can further social development, intellectual sophistication and/or benefit us in terms of knowledge. Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that science has to justify any of its endeavors in moral terms. However, I think it misses the point of RW's criticism of evolutionary psychology not to consider the social relevance of EP, or how it impacts on the popular consciousness. RW did, after all, state that she wasn't presenting her analyses as an expert on the topic, but rather in terms more relevant to feminism. So why not take her at her word, and also address her criticisms in the same vein?
No comments:
Post a Comment