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]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041101/5b1d0f40/attachment.htm
Locked
