When I was finishing my PhD in Theoretical Psychology at BYU in 2003, a new psychology class arrived on campus – evolutionary psychology. At the time I was too occupied with completing my dissertation to check out what evolutionary psychology was about. I did my own investigation later on when I had more time. I was not impressed with what I found. 

In a nutshell, evolutionary psychology attempts to explain and predict human behavior using the principles and mechanisms underlying evolution. At a first glance this seems like a justifiable endeavor, especially for evolutionists. However, serious doubts about evolutionary psychology have recently been raised, not only among skeptics like me, but among die hard evolutionists as well.  

The Scientific American January 2009 special edition on evolution contains an article exposing four research fallacies in evolutionary psychology. It even goes so far as to call the new upstart discipline a “pop science”. Being labeled “pop evolutionary psychology” by Scientific American is not a good thing if you are a budding evolutionary psychologist.   

My beef with evolutionary psychology takes a different form. I am concerned that using evolution to explain human behavior reduces human actions to the lowest common denominator in the animal kingdom – hedonism. Hedonism is the idea that everything humans do is driven by the selfish desire to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. Hedonism is closely allied with natural selection because many of the things that bring pleasure contribute to our survival (e.g., food, sex). Indeed, hedonism may be seen as a catalyst for a species to engage in certain behaviors that facilitate its survival in a specific environment.

Here’s the Big Problem, folks: Hedonism combined with natural selection creates a volatile mixture known as Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism originated with the English scholar Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). It is the belief that humanity advances through the principle of “survival of the fittest” (a term coined by Spencer). The crux of Social Darwinism is that in a society with limited resources, for one person to succeed, another must fail. This thinking has its roots in Darwin’s natural selection wherein the weak die and the strong survive. Recent events at a hospital in Illinois suggest that Social Darwinism is present in our society.

Jill Stanek is a registered nurse who worked in labor and delivery at Christ’s hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois.  She “blew the whistle” on acts of barbarity committed against newborn infants in that hospital before an Illinois State Senate Hearing in 2001.  Here is an excerpt from her testimony: 

“I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past 5-1/2 years. Christ Hospital performs abortions during the second and even third trimesters of pregnancy.”
“The abortion method being called into question that Christ Hospital and other Illinois hospitals practice is called ‘induced labor abortion.’ This abortion technique sometimes results in infants being aborted alive. In the event that an infant is aborted alive at Christ Hospital, she or he is given no medical assessments or care whatsoever, but is left to die...and is given what my hospital calls ‘comfort care.’ Comfort care is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until the baby dies, although until recently even this was not always done. The baby is then offered to the parents to hold until he or she dies.”

“If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, as is most often the case, it is left to nursing staff or support staff on the floor to hold the baby until he or she dies.  And, until this past December, when staff did not have time or the desire to hold the baby, the baby was taken to our Soiled Utility Room and left there alone to die.” (Source: Illinois Right to Life Website)

Jill Stanek was fired from Christ’s Hospital for testifying. She described her experience in this videotaped interview with Bill O’Reilly.
The idea that it is acceptable to leave newborn babies to die because they are unwanted or less healthy than other babies is reprehensible to most folks. How can people justify this sort of thing?  It's simple. From an evolutionary standpoint it is natural for a mother cougar to kill some of her kittens (due to limited resources) to ensure the survival of the others. Because humans are just another species in the animal kingdom that is influenced by laws of nature, it is acceptable for humans to kill unwanted offspring to increase the survivability of other humans. This is the type of scholar-babble you get from leading evolutionary psychologists like Steven Pinker who used the same argument to explain why Andrea Yates drowned her five young children in a bathtub in 2001. (Source: The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism.)

A final thought. Christ’s Church is sponsored by the United Church of Christ, a pro-abortion organization that has strongly supported the legalization of abortion since 1971. It is hard to believe that these horrendous acts took place in a hospital named after the Lord. I think the scripture found in Matthew 7:22-23 applies here. 

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

PS. On August 5, 2002, President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants’ Protection Act into Law. Jill Stanek attended the signing ceremony.
PPS. As far as I can tell evolutionary psychology is still alive and well.
 


Comments

djinn

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 1:16:09 pm

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Evolutionary Psychology somehow equals hedonism; there's plenty of reasons to actually dislike the subject, but that's not one. Actual Evolutionary Psychologist spend lots of time talking about why people are nice to each other and the associated benefits that accrue. Here's Darwin himself on the subject:

"The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them."

Social darwinism is not the same as evolutionary theory of any stripe; you may recall that it's mostly ben used as an excuse for cut-throat 19th century. capitalism.

Finally, using Jill Stanek as proof of something, anything--not still sure how this works into your dislike of evolutionary psychology unless you're accusing Stanek's co-workers of being EPists--does not lead credence to your arguments.

Illinois thoroughly investigated her claims and could find no evidence at all that there was any truth to them. More recently she has accused the Chinese of considering human fetuses a delicacy.

 

Stan

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 1:23:12 pm

I've read a few books on evolutionary psychology. They were interesting, but seemed to be floating in space without any real data to support them. It may be an interesting yet weak science.


I don't know why you would connect the study of behavior based on evolution to dead babies and hedonism. Is it because people may use the questionable findings to justify their own behavior? Does that or any other reason invalidate the study of behavior from an evolutionary perspective? If it's good science it will stand on its own, if not it will change or fall by the way.

 

S.Faux

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 2:37:32 pm

Dave C:

Darwin's theory of sexual selection is not going away anytime soon. It is the foundation of evolutionary psychology.

I assure you that evolutionary psychologists are NOT advocating Social Darwinism, the murder of babies, or anything of the like. Further, they are VERY aware of the naturalistic fallacy of making moralistic conclusions from natural observations. The Hanuman Langur may commit infanticide, but that does not make it right for humans.

Side note: Much of psychological theory describes human beings in hedonistic terms, such as the Law of Effect. Are you throwing out the Law of Effect as well?

There is indeed weak published evolutionary psychology, but it makes little sense to condemn the entire field. Your reaction to evolutionary psychology and Steven Pinker reminds me of how some outsiders react to Mormonism.

I would really like to see your version of theoretical psychology, as it seems to me (based upon your writings) that you have thrown out most of what exists.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 2:54:51 pm

Stan,

RE: "I don't know why you would connect the study of behavior based on evolution to dead babies and hedonism."

Evolutionary psychologists like Steve Pinker has explained the behavior leading to infanticide as a biologic imperative, which is to say that the mothers who kill do not have a choice - they are driven by their evolutionary biology to do so.
This attitude has spilled over into society where in an Illinois hospital it was once accepted to let a life fetus from a botched abortion just die because it was not wanted (i.e., the parents did not have the resources or energy to carry the child to full term and raise it up. "Raising kids, especially handicapped ones is hard work. We can't put ourselves through those child rearing difficult times. No! We need to live a life of pleasure rather than sacrifice to raise a child." Smells a bit like hedonism to me.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 3:05:35 pm

S. Faux,

RE: "Further, they are VERY aware of the naturalistic fallacy of making moralistic conclusions from natural observations. The Hanuman Langur may commit infanticide, but that does not make it right for humans."
--Yet humans and animals are subject to and driven by the same evolutionary processes. They share the same biological imperatives according to the great evolutionary psychologist, Steve Pinker.

Re: "Side note: Much of psychological theory describes human beings in hedonistic terms, such as the Law of Effect. Are you throwing out the Law of Effect as well?"
-- We are all hedonistic to a certain extent. It's just that I have not seen much discussion among evolutionary pscyhologists on how our moral values and altruism *evolved*. These qualities are what make us uniquely human.

Re: "I would really like to see your version of theoretical psychology, as it seems to me (based upon your writings) that you have thrown out most of what exists."
-- I am a product of the great thinkers in my program such as Brent Slife, Rich Williams, and Edwin Gantt. All of us agree that science is not fully aware of the theoretical assumptions underlying many of its theories. This is not to suggest that science is bad in any way - it just means that scientists are making truth claims without recognizing the core tenets embraced by their theories. Many truth claims and assumptions are at odds with everyday human experience and gospel doctrine. These should be acknowledged.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 3:20:14 pm

djinn,

Thanks for your comment. I think it is important for readers to know that there are always those who think differently about these issues.

Re: "any animal...would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man."
--Would anyone care to tell us the mechanism by which morality ensues from evolution? I mean, really. Evolution fails miserably when it comes to explaining where our uniquely human characteristics of morality and kindness come from (Source: Beyond Evolution by Anthony O'Hear).

Re: "Social darwinism is not the same as evolutionary theory of any stripe; you may recall that it's mostly been used as an excuse for cut-throat 19th century. capitalism."
-- Herbie Spencer created Social Darwinism from evolutionary theory! I'll take cut throat capitalism over cut throat socialism any day, comrade.

Re: "Illinois thoroughly investigated her claims and could find no evidence at all that there was any truth to them."
-- Okay. Let's see the evidence of the investigation (a link will do).

 

Jeff G

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 3:29:31 pm

My goodness. There are so many gaps in the post it is tough to know where to start, although it would seem most points of contention have been covered. But still:

1) How, exactly, does evolutionary psychology entail hedonism?

2) What evolutionary psychologist has ever tried to reduce ALL human behavior to biologically innate, and selected modules? All evolutionists accept that SOME humans behaviors should be reduced and exactly zero think that ALL human behaviors should be reduced. The only difference I can see is one of degree.

3) Other than the cheap guilt by association, what logical connect has ever been soundly drawn between evolution by natural selection and social darwinism? The "is" of natural selection entails exactly zero "oughts" of any kind at all. Neo-Darwinism neither justifies nor condemns any (im)moral action at all.

4) "By their fruits ye shall know them" is basically the fundamental premise underlying every anti-Mormon book ever written. What makes your use of that verse in this context any different from the antis' use of it in their books? Why do you get to discredit their use of it while at the same time expecting others to accept your use of it?

 

Stan

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 3:41:11 pm

"Would anyone care to tell us the mechanism by which morality ensues from evolution? I mean, really. Evolution fails miserably when it comes to explaining where our uniquely human characteristics of morality and kindness come from "

Oh me! Me! Pick me! Ok, I only know a little about this, but game theory can explain altruism and self sacrifice in an evolutionary context. Also 'The Selfish Gene' goes into this a little bit. Basically game theory states that an optimal equilibrium for an individual can be reached using a tit for tat strategy in a group. In other words, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, but if you cross me I will retaliate until equilibrium is reached again. There are several books explaining the existence of altruism from an evolutionary perspective. You can google 'altruism evolution' as well and read some useful articles. You will find that altruism is not uniquely human either, as you would expect with evolution.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 4:14:10 pm

Jeff,

Thank you for attempting to fill in the gaps. Now may I show you where your puddy is cracking?

Social darwinism and "survival of the fittest" are allied concepts. If an oragism is driven to survive it is looking out for number one, so to speak. It is driven by those things that enhance its survival like food and sex. Anti-hedonism concepts such as delay of gratification, altruism, and moral agency are not common in the animal kingdom. Seeing the connection between hedonism and survival isn't a big jump.

Re: "What evolutionary psychologist has ever tried to reduce ALL human behavior to biologically innate, and selected modules? All evolutionists accept that SOME humans behaviors should be reduced and exactly zero think that ALL human behaviors should be reduced. The only difference I can see is one of degree."
-- I would like to see evolutionary psychology literature that doesn't attempt to reduce human behavior to evolutionary principles or mechanisms. Perhaps evolutionary psychology is intellectually bankrupted from the get go because it cannot account for behaviors that makes us uniquely human.

Also, I think neo-darwinian evolution should distance itself from social darwinism, and it has to a certain extent. The former is good science; the latter is bad science because it leads to the sort of thing we witnessed in Illinois.

Re: "By their fruits ye shall know them" is basically the fundamental premise underlying every anti-Mormon book ever written."
-- I am sorry. I don't know what your talking about. May I politely suggest you stay away from the anti literature?

 

Dave C.

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 4:21:31 pm

Stan,

Yes, there are evolutionary explanations for altruism. (I am afraid I won't be reading Dawkins anytime soon.) If you have correctly represented Dawkins' views on altruism, then he does not truly understand altruism, or at least he thinks it is an illusion (just like God).

Altruism is doing something kind for someone else without expecting anything in return. Doing something kind because it makes us feel good doesn't even qualify as being altruistic. It is doing something for the sole reason of wanting to help another, without expecting personal gain. Thus "tit for tat" behaviors are not altruistic. This leads me to think that Dawkins sees altruism as being an mere illusion.

 

djinn

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 4:37:02 pm

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune investigated Jill Stanek's allegations. This is what he found (as written in a published email to her):

"As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.

Why?

"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."

Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."

Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations."

Found <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200808200003?f=h_top">here</a>.

As to altruism, there's tons and tons of ongoing research on the subject in humans and other species. Your (loudly trumped) ignorance of the field really isn't an argument against it (and I wouldn't call you out if you haven't stated, such ignorance, twice now, as proof that no such evidence exists).

There's an entire field of EP devoted to studying, uh, "the mechanism by which morality ensues from evolution." As a single example, <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050196">here's a study</a> showing altruism in rats. There's lots more where that one came from.

As to your original point, there's a book by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy called "Mother Nature" that discusses many many historical examples of infanticide. If you read it, you could write a much more scholarly post **against** Evolutionary Psychology.

 

djinn

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 4:40:06 pm

Dave C, there's ongoing research showing that "Anti-hedonism concepts such as delay of gratification, altruism, and moral agency" do exist and are more common than we thought "in the animal kingdom."

You're not going to win this argument, for the simple reason--forgive me, but really--you haven't shown that you know anything at all about the field.

 

Jeff G

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 4:44:00 pm

Okay, but as I'm sure you have read in many sources "survival of the fittest" is, at best, a misleading description of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. If this is the strongest link you can find between it and social darwinism, you're gonna be hard pressed to persuade anybody.

"I don't know what your talking about. May I politely suggest you stay away from the anti literature?"

Ha! Don't worry, while I am roughly familiar with that "literature" (scare quote intended in the most derisive tone imaginable), I have no intention of bring up any particulars.

My point was that as badly reasoned as the anti-Mormon literature is, you are following the exact same line of reasoning. This reasoning is as follows:

The anti tract goes something like the following:
"Brigham Young/Joseph Smith said/did the following obviously false/evil thing. By your fruits you shall know them. Therefore, Mormonism is false/evil. QED."

You are doing the exact same thing with evolution here, just substitute BY/JS's names with that of Darwin, Spencer or Dawkins.

You know that Neo-Darwinian evolution does not entail Social Darwinism. You know it doesn't entail hedonism. You know it doesn't entail atheism. But you still keep bringing them up.

If you brought these things up as a way of steering people away from misrepresentations of Neo-Darwinism, as S. Faux and Steve P. do, that would be just dandy. But that is clearly not what you are doing.

 

djinn

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 5:04:42 pm

I just saw this:

"Also, I think neo-darwinian evolution should distance itself from social darwinism, and it has to a certain extent. The former is good science; the latter is bad science because it leads to the sort of thing we witnessed in Illinois."

"Social Darwinism" has nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory except for a sequence of nine letters (hint it begins with a "d") in a phrase coined by Joseph Fisher in 1877. (Thank you Wikipedia.) Your insistence (with noticed hedging) that "Social Darwinism" and evolutionary theory have some deeper sort of relationship is, I'm sorry to say, more proof that this is not a subject that you have studied to any great depth.

Oh, that remark I made about social darwinism and 19'th century capitalism is history; though your follow-up comment indicates that you may be closer to a social darwinist yourself (for the born) than I suspect you'd care to admit.

 

djinn

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 6:04:12 pm

Here's a story (and a video) of a dog behaving completely altruistically.

http://www.sonnyradio.com/herodog.html

 

Stan

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 6:28:18 pm

"Altruism is doing something kind for someone else without expecting anything in return"

That's one definition. Here's another from Webster online...
"behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species"

Since we're talking about evolution I think that is the most appropriate definition. I think I would extend this to include benefits to other species as well in some cases.

"This leads me to think that Dawkins sees altruism as being an mere illusion."

I think it's unfortunate that you shun his writings. They are quite good. Other than 'The God Delusion' and other books focused on slamming religion, his writings on evolution, though I admit I haven't read them all, have harsh words for creationists, not religion specifically, which I agree with. To dismiss so much good science because of faith based belief isn't logically sound. At least you can come to the understanding that your belief conflicts with science and that doesn't necessarily invalidate one or the other. They don't reconcile as far as we know, and that's OK. Isn't that what faith is? Of course that same reasoning can justify belief in a flat Earth. =:)

 

djinn

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 6:56:59 pm

Elephants are also altruistic to other elephants and even other species, using your definition. You can google it, or read about it here. http://www.andrews-elephants.com/elephant-altruism.html

 

S.Faux

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 4:09:23 am

Dave C:

You said:

"I have not seen much discussion among evolutionary psychologists on how our moral values and altruism *evolved*. These qualities are what make us uniquely human."

A great proportion of the field of evolutionary psychology is devoted to how moral values and altruism evolved. In fact, the issue is central. Sounds like you have some homework to do.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 7:47:21 am

S.Faux,

Re: " great proportion of the field of evolutionary psychology is devoted to how moral values and altruism evolved. In fact, the issue is central. Sounds like you have some homework to do."

While evolutionary psychology may attempt to account for these characteristics, their explanations are woefully inadequate. Or in the case of Dawkin's selfish gene theory they misunderstand true altruism or consider it an illusion. "Beyond Evolution" by Anthony O'Hear delineates the limits of evolutionary explanation. Homework done professor ;)

 

djinn

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:29:34 am

Anthony O'Hear is a philosopher. He's in the wrong field; it doesn't appear that he looked at the scientific work on altruism at all. Plus, the book "Beyond Evolution" was written 12 years ago. I suggest you update your research by at least glancing at some current research by some actual scientists before considering your homework finished, or even started, for that matter.

For a sample of scientific work being done, try this reference which uses an MRI to observe changes in the reward processing centers of the brain during altruistic behaviors:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12160756

I really don't under your very narrow definition of altruism. Are you saying that doing something nice because you think you'll be rewarded in the afterlife isn't actually altruistic because a reward is expected? Then, what is the place of religious instruction in your life?

 

Dave C.

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:46:47 am

djinn,

"Your (loudly trumped) ignorance of the field really isn't an argument against it (and I wouldn't call you out if you haven't stated, such ignorance, twice now, as proof that no such evidence exists).

-- You are resorting to ad hominem attacks. This is a common tactic among evolutionists who do not wish to engage, in a logical fashion, people who hold contrary viewpoints.

"You're not going to win this argument, for the simple reason--forgive me, but really--you haven't shown that you know anything at all about the field."

--More ad hominem attacks. I never think I am going to win an argument on these matters because it implies proving someone wrong. What you fail to realize is that there is a body of literature which supports many of the ideas I am advancing.

You are wrong to suggest that I know nothing about the field. I have read and taken graduate classes which covered altruism and hedonism. I have also written a book that covers moral agency. You are like Steve Peck who accusses me of knowing nothing about science even though I have a PhD, have written about science and do science.

You, sir, apparently do not understand scholarly debate. If you did, you would not resort to ad hominem attacks just because someone does not agree with you.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:54:45 am

Jeff,

"You know that Neo-Darwinian evolution does not entail Social Darwinism. You know it doesn't entail hedonism. You know it doesn't entail atheism. But you still keep bringing them up."

I agree that neo-darwinism does not entail social darwinism. In fact many biologists reject "survival of the fittest" as making a meaningful contribution to their understanding of evolution. This post is not a diatribe against evolution - it is an attack on social darwinism which is closely allied with evolutionary psychology.

I would argue that evolution does entail atheism. At least Richard Dawkins is being theoretically consistent when he acknowledges that evolution entails atheism. At the same time, however, I acknowledge that there is a theistic evolutionary movement afoot that counters Dawkins' viewpoints.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:11:39 am

Thanks everyone for your comments. It has been very educational (seriously).

It seems that some of us hold differing views on the definition of altruism. As I understand it, we cannot identify altruism by action alone. It requires an understanding of the motives underlying the altruistic act. If someone does something nice for someone else, the person's intentions may be self serving (hedonistic). If someone displays the same nice behavior, his motives may be altruistic. I don't think science has reached the point of getting into the minds of animals. We know very little about their higher order processing (scanning technology only shows an active brain in localized regions). So research on animals displaying altruism, although important and intriguing are plagued by our inability to postulate in any credible way how/what animals think.

In the next post I am going to take a close look at Scientific American's January 2009 scathing review of evolutionary psychology.

 

S.Faux

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:06 am

Dave C:

I look forward to the next series of criticisms from Sci. Am. Jan. 2009. However, please remember that it is easier to tear down a barn than to construct one. That's the Iowan coming out in me.

 

djinn

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 2:20:23 pm

Those weren't ad hominem attacks, which requires that I say I dislike your argument for no other reason than I dislike you; they were asides that had no bearing on my argument. What do you think of the examples of altruism in animals that I gave?

 

djinn

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 2:28:19 pm

Isn't your definition of altruism self-defeating? How do we know that any human behaved altruistically? Because someone asked? They could be lying. The altruistic dog that dragged the hit dog off the freeway did that action at risk of his (or her) own life. If that isn't seen by you as altruistic, then I can't see how you can define any human action as altruistic either.

 

Jeff G

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 3:45:40 pm

I see Dave's views regarding altruism as being very closely related to his views about evolutionary psychology. EP is able to explain fairly well the creation of "altruism" towards kin as well as reciprocal "altruism" among non-related individuals.

The question is whether EP can take us beyond "altruism" to full blown Altruism and Dave wants to hold out for. Dave suggests that it cannot.

One response would be to suggest that there is no difference between the two; the Altruism that we see in humans just is the "altruism" of EP and that there is nothing left to explain. I, however, am not terribly comfortable with this. Like Dave, I'm not convinced that all forms of human altruism fits neatly within these two categories.

Where I get off the boat with Dave is when he goes on to say that perhaps "evolutionary psychology is intellectually bankrupted from the get go because it cannot account for behaviors that makes us uniquely human." This is a HUGE jump for which he provides no justification whatsoever.

Indeed, the only way that I can see him making such a jump is if, in his mind, EP claims to fully explain ALL types of human behavior. But as I said yesterday, EP makes no such claims. No evolutionary biologist claims that EP explains ALL human behavior, just as no evolutionary biologist claim that EP explain no human behavior at all.

What EP does accomplish, however, is getting us to a point where the gap between "altruism" and Altruism is relatively small and can easily be bridged by other naturalistic processes such cultural learning.

Does EP explain it all? Of course not, but why should it have to for it to be perfectly legit?

 

Dave C.

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:09:45 am

Jeff,

"perhaps evolutionary psychology is intellectually bankrupted from the get go because it cannot account for behaviors that makes us uniquely human."

Thank you for pointing out that EP does not claim to explain every aspect of human behavior. Just because it fails at explaining a few things, it does not follow that it is a failed discipline. I suspect that it may have some success in explaining certain behaviors.

 

Jeff G

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:04:10 pm

Dave,

I don't know if you've read Jerry Fodor's relatively recent criticisms of Darwinism or not. If not, just google "Fodor Darwinism" and you'll be led to all sorts of material.

What's interesting about Fodor's perspective is that he is a full blown naturalist who believes in evolution but thinks Darwinism is conceptually flawed and as such launches a philosophical criticism of the idea.

I thought you'd find it interesting if only because it elevates Darwinism debates above the typical Creationism/Intelligent Design debate that just seems to go round and round without anybody ever changing their mind about anything.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 9:24:35 am

Thanks Jeff. I am going to take a look.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics