[DoofusOfDeath]

I agree with your criticism.

Still, I'm trying to figure out exactly what my issue is with evo-psych claims that I don't have with e.g. physics claims.

There seem to be some commonalities between the two fields: developing models to explain empirical data. And when working with their models, they're willing to assume a certain degree of causality.

I wonder if my issue is that evo-psych is a lot more like history than like physics, in that it's really hard to do repeatable experiments to vet their theories? So when we hear an evo-psych theory stated with confidence, it discredits the speaker?

[busyant]

> Still, I'm trying to figure out exactly what my issue is with evo-psych claims that I don't have with e.g. physics claims.

Can you give an example of an analogous claim in physics that you have an easier time accepting?

Not flaming. Just trying to understand a similar situation that might arise from physics.

One of the main issues I have with evo-psych is that you can't run rigorous control experiments, so my "analysis" of the claims amounts to "Well, that seems like a reasonable explanation. But so do a hundred other models...."

[DoofusOfDeath]

Again, I'm just trying to understand why my BS detector squeals at evo-psych and not physics.

Regarding an example: I was thinking along the lines of physics models that, in daily use, physicists treat as genuinely true. This includes concepts that are somewhat problematic, like true causality. (E.g., Newtonian mechanics as taught in high-school.)

But after some more thought, I think my real issue is how the two communities vet their theories. My simplistic take on it is:

The physics community has a healthy focus on refutability. IIUC, the community has little tolerance for someone even posing an unrefutable theory, let alone espouse it as likely truth.

The evo-psych community (and I could be mistaken) is much more tolerant of people advancing theories that are (practically speaking) untestable as though they were genuinely true.