Of course I'm being sarcastic. The person I responded to was spouting evo-pshyc nonsense. Evolution has no "goals" or "strategies". What possible explanation could you have for something like this arising? How would you falsify a theory of its existence?
That person spouting nonsense was me! These "intelligent" behaviors arise through random chance and the successful ones stick around. I'm not sure how one could doubt that somewhat complex behaviors could arise through evolution while at the same time accepting that, say, the eye could. It's the same exact process.
An evolutionary "strategy" is simply a behavior that an organism exhibits to enhance its survival. Don't get caught up in the anthropomorphic terminology, its just a convenience to aid understanding. Dawkins uses that exact phrasing in his books.
>An evolutionary "strategy" is simply a behavior that an organism exhibits to enhance its survival.
You're describing a rather complicated behavior (who's actual existence itself is controversial!) and describing how that came to be. That's just fantasy. There's no evidence that this happened, it's pure speculation. If the behavior even exists, it could have come about some totally other way.
>say, the eye could.
I accept that the eye exists and that it got there somehow. I'm not convinced that the arm chair speculation of how that might have happened is true. If we actually made one that would be stronger but still wouldn't conclusively prove that it happened that way.
>Dawkins uses that exact phrasing in his books.
Dawkins' books are also largely philosophical in nature, not scientific (which is why he gets blasted in the philosophical community, since his philosophy isn't even always sound and ignores tremendous bodies of work).
I swear no one knows a thing about science these days. People are so disconnected that they think "science" only happens in a sterile lab by guys in lab coats.
The behavior of a female mating with a more "alpha" male while at the same time deceiving her mate has been observed in a plethora of animal species. That this behavior exists is without question.
What Evolutionary Psychology does is provide an explanation for a behavior given what we know about evolution, biology, economics, game theory, etc. It is quite scientific. Many EP theories are very much testable, albeit usually impractical. Science is always a game of probabilities and finding the best explanation for an observation given known facts.
>Dawkins' books are also largely philosophical in nature, not scientific
His first (biology) book, The Selfish Gene, which established him as a leader in the field, is 100% science. An Ancestors Tale is also purely science.
>I swear no one knows a thing about science these days.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
>What Evolutionary Psychology does is provide an explanation for a behavior given what we know about evolution, biology, economics, game theory, etc.
It provides a guess on what could have happened based on those fields. To be science you need to be able to form theories and for an assertion to be a theory it must be falsifiable. An assertion to explain the modern woman's behavior toward mating in terms of evolution can not be falsified, so it doesn't qualify as a theory. Doesn't sound much like science to me.
As far as I know, you're in a pretty small minority with your claim that Evo Psych is science. A lot of people debate Psychology itself being science, but Evo Psych. Wow, may as well put homeopathy, voodoo and everything else in.
>His first (biology) book, The Selfish Gene, which established him as a leader in the field, is 100% science.
Nice. You imply that I know nothing about science yet you say a book that is largely speculating on what might have happened and why it might have happened is 100% science.
I'm sorry but you're really under- and mis-informed here. Evolutionary Psychology is a bit of a misnomer, it doesn't attempt to explain the mechanisms by which genes act on the mental to influence or create behaviors. It simply provides an explanation for the set of selective pressures and economic interactions that result in certain behaviors. It very much side-steps the question of psychology altogether. It is similar to the behavioral model of psychology in that it studies behaviors (and their likely genetic basis) rather than trying to divine mental states.
EP as a field is very much testable and falsifiable. Take the study that showed human women in economically depressed areas choose more masculine mates compared to more economically well-off areas. An EP theory would be that in an environment of scarcity and uncertainty, it is beneficial to mate with stronger males for the sake of protection and competition. Such an environment could be set up that controls for scarcity of food, level of testosterone in the males, etc. We could then measure the economic benefit of such a mate choice and the resultant improvement in selection fitness. The theory could be validated/refuted based on that. Of course, its applicability to humans would still be in question, but if animal models match the observed patterns in humans, that would be strong evidence in itself.
EP is based on a few assumptions, all of which have a preponderance of evidence in their favor. That genes influence behavior and that gene selection follows laws of economics.
I really don't understand most people's grief with EP. Perhaps you could explain it to me? Is it the fact that its theories aren't directly observable? Well, so is much of every scientific result. Evolution itself has been proven by the massive amounts of indirect evidence in its favor. Do you dislike the fact that EP removes some of our autonomy? Well, science has been slowly chipping away at that for decades. EP simply provides a framework to understand our behavior outside of the (dying) view of pure free-will.
>You imply that I know nothing about science yet you say a book that is largely speculating on what might have happened and why it might have happened is 100% science.
Please, explain to me what about The Selfish Gene is unscientific. If you honestly call the content of this book "speculating on what might have happened", then you either didn't read it or didn't understand a bit of it. The book provided a (mostly new at the time) look on a gene-centric view of selection and provided a framework that better explained the behaviors of various organisms that we see today. It is not speculation: it is informed, testable and falsifiable. Science is a framework for understanding the world; not studies and soundbites. It is a process of refining these frameworks in the face of new evidence and new ideas. E=MC^2 is much more than just the soundbite people have made it out to be; it was an entirely new look at the universe and how matter and energy are intimately connected. It's a shame that the vast majority of people only see it as a soundbite, and as a consequence think soundbites are the entirety of science.
