Science denialism at a skeptic conference | Incredulous
I also listened to her speech via YouTube and I didn't go away with the impression that she was misrepresenting Evolutionary Psychology. I thought the presentation was very well put together. I think what is missing from the criticism of her presentation is precisely what has to be addressed --- that is, what constitutes the "misuse" of EP, under any circumstances, indeed if it is possible to "misuse" it.
The argument that there are experiments that are less scientifically verifiable than others can certainly be made. That is the purpose of the scientific method: to assure consistency on the basis of verifiability.
What science maybe cannot do immediately is to always provide objective grounding as to what it means to use or misuse the findings: -- i.e. how they are used by people in society. This is even more of an issue in the case of EP, where the "findings" have already been established on the basis of certain philosophical presuppositions, that may not have been examined.
If I were to conduct some research that allowed me to conclude that men tend to masturbate when there is a full moon, would it be a legitimate use or misuse of these "findings" to assert that full moons make men horny? The simple facts or statistics -- which let us say, for the sake of the argument, correlate a higher degree of masturbatory activity with full moons -- do not, in turn, furnish us with the means to interpret these statistics. That is science. Skepticism sticks to the facts and doesn't assert meanings that go beyond the facts.
RW's critique shows the generally speaking EP is not skeptical, and therefore that it isn't scientific. The statistical data does not speak for itself, but needs an interpretive framework. Now, perhaps this framework could be valid. Nobody is saying it couldn't be. If it were based in archaeology, or anthropological evidence, we would start to get close to developing a valid framework for SOME of the propositions of EP. Of course, to remain in the realm of science, these propositions would always remain hypotheses or theories, subject to correction and reevaluation.
RW is pointing out that EP does not remain in the realm of science in these ways, but is framed by popular expectations, and not scientific facts about gender differences.
I also listened to her speech via YouTube and I didn't go away with the impression that she was misrepresenting Evolutionary Psychology. I thought the presentation was very well put together. I think what is missing from the criticism of her presentation is precisely what has to be addressed --- that is, what constitutes the "misuse" of EP, under any circumstances, indeed if it is possible to "misuse" it.
The argument that there are experiments that are less scientifically verifiable than others can certainly be made. That is the purpose of the scientific method: to assure consistency on the basis of verifiability.
What science maybe cannot do immediately is to always provide objective grounding as to what it means to use or misuse the findings: -- i.e. how they are used by people in society. This is even more of an issue in the case of EP, where the "findings" have already been established on the basis of certain philosophical presuppositions, that may not have been examined.
If I were to conduct some research that allowed me to conclude that men tend to masturbate when there is a full moon, would it be a legitimate use or misuse of these "findings" to assert that full moons make men horny? The simple facts or statistics -- which let us say, for the sake of the argument, correlate a higher degree of masturbatory activity with full moons -- do not, in turn, furnish us with the means to interpret these statistics. That is science. Skepticism sticks to the facts and doesn't assert meanings that go beyond the facts.
RW's critique shows the generally speaking EP is not skeptical, and therefore that it isn't scientific. The statistical data does not speak for itself, but needs an interpretive framework. Now, perhaps this framework could be valid. Nobody is saying it couldn't be. If it were based in archaeology, or anthropological evidence, we would start to get close to developing a valid framework for SOME of the propositions of EP. Of course, to remain in the realm of science, these propositions would always remain hypotheses or theories, subject to correction and reevaluation.
RW is pointing out that EP does not remain in the realm of science in these ways, but is framed by popular expectations, and not scientific facts about gender differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment