|
|
|
|
|
|
by busyant
1919 days ago
|
|
|
> 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...." |
|
|
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.