Question by WasatchLake: Are evolutionary psychologists pseudo scientists? Also evolutionists who say we should eat paleo diets?
I was wondering what everyone thinks about this:
An important part of Science is falsification (testability, you can’t prove but rather “have the possibility of logically disproving”). It seems like evolutionary psychologists go on nature hikes and then come up with hypotheses, not to be tested. Before Isaac Newton’s time, you would make observations and come up with a theory, or use philosophy and think real hard to come up with a theory. Then Newton said you have to actually test your theory. Aristotle, for example, said that women have less teeth than men because they’re smaller. However, he was wrong, women have the same amount of teeth, and many use him as an example of why you need to test your ideas.
It’s obvious that the scientific fact of evolution by common descent follows the scientific method, but does evolutionary psychology? An example of evolutionary psychology, many say that the reason why we have depression and mental issues is because we stopped evolving 30,000 years ago, but our cultural evolution continued. Geneticists who study evolution say genetically we’re evolving faster than ever (fossil record says we split from chimps 6 million years ago and DNA evidence or molecular clock says 5 mya, so obviously we’re evolving faster right now than the fossil record). Those who dig up human bones say bones from the Chinese race in Asia from 10,000 years ago look different than they do today. Etc, etc. Also, some nutritionists will say that we need to eat a diet from 30,000 years ago, because that’s how we evolved. It sounds more like they’re stuck with the philosophy before Newton’s time in testing their hypotheses. Dietitians often say the reason why they weren’t obese back then wasn’t because of their specific diet but rather calories.
Another example I was thinking about, evolutionary psychologists say the reason why men mistake women’s friendly behavior as sexual advances is because men are sexual in nature. However, there was an experiment where both men and women would rate facial expressions of women in pictures, on if they were being friendly or sexually advancing. The men were much more likely than the women to rate the “friendly” facial expression pictures as “sexual advances”. However, they were also more likely to rate the “sexual advance” pictures as “friendly” than the women would. If the real reason is men are just more sexual, we would reasonably expect that the sexual advance facial expressions would be just as likely to be rated that way compared to what the women rated them as.
Then evolutionary psychologists say that true altruism doesn’t exist, but won’t propose testable hypotheses/predictions. They just engage in philosophical debate. No matter the outcome, they say, “That proves there is no such thing as true altruism”. The rest of psychology comes up with testable hypotheses, so why don’t I notice evolutionary psychologists?
I get the impression that evolutionary psychologists and evolutionists saying we should eat paleo diets are just going on nature hikes, and are at best pseudo scientists because they don’t falsify (different than the scientific fact of Evolution by Common Descent, which is very falsifiable).
Does anyone have any input on this?
Best answer:
Answer by mr_fartson
I would suggest reading some behavioral ecology, which will give you a better grasp about scientific investigation of evolutionary influences behavior than the examples you give. (There is a history of overgeneralization to humans in the area, especially in the related discipline of sociobiology.)
Keep in mind that it often is not possible to utilize tightly controlled studies and ‘testable hypotheses’ in a science in which the world constitutes the lab. It is an observational science.
I personally prefer lab based science, but that does not mean evolutionary studies are invalid.
What do you think? Answer below!