All --
Another subject that came up on Friday was about what is wrong with
Evolutionary
Psychology, or at least evolutionary psychology as practiced by some. The
problem, as I see it, is some EP=ists treat the field as if its goal was a
case by case
explanation of the peculiarities of human behavior rather than a
comprehensive
account of the design (and lack of it) in human behavior. This
understanding makes
the field either stultifying boring or viciously circular or both. Some
evolutionary
psychology is decidedly NOT that way and this work is usually rooted in
knowledge
about the special conditions of the Pleistocene or in some really good
contemporary Ethology or anthropology. My own point of view is laid out in
a series
of papers on the perils of circularity in evolutionary explanation. I have
posted two,
Toward a Falsifiable theory of Evolution and The Misappropriation of
Teleonomy.
The essay, Shifting the Natural Selection Explanation to the Group Level,
also has
some reflections on this point. The basic point is that EP research is
best when
Darwinian explanations are preceded by comparative design analysis and
historical
evolutionary description.
Honestly, I don't expect anybody to read all this stuff. In fact I am
already startled that
a few people have read some of it. My basic purpose is to put stuff up
where people
who share my interests can find it quickly (if such exist) so that the
short time I have to
be here will not be wasted.
All the best, and my apologies for gumming up the listserv if indeed I am.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
[hidden email]
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/[hidden email]
Locked
