# Why does evolutionary psychology get such a bum rap?

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-evolutionary-psychology-get-such-a-bum-rap/524521
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 11, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-evolutionary-psychology-get-such-a-bum-rap/524521 "2010-01-11T16:44:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 94

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2010, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-evolutionary-psychology-get-such-a-bum-rap/524521/94 "2010-02-18T13:16:21Z")

</div>

> [@orcenio](#):
>
> > [@ambushed](#):
> >
> > … For now, I just need to point out that the claim that there is any kind of documented or central or widespread “thing” known as the “scientific method” outside of high-school textbooks can only come from someone whose knowledge of science – especially working science – has not progressed very far from those same high school textbooks. As Bertrand Russell satirically but wisely observed: “Heaven is a place where everything works like it does in the textbooks.”
> 
> Enough hot air for a sauna. Yeah, you’d fit in well with philosophy majors.

So, you somehow imagine _that’s_ a valuable contribution, do you, **orcenio**? That and all the rest of your delightfully simplistic and endearingly naive, sophomoric, far too full-of-yourself for a backwoods community-college student pseudo-pedantry?

How proud the hill folk must be! Why, you probably still have all your own teeth and everything!

[color highlighting my own; the rest is as in the original]

> [@orcenio](#):
>
> You know, I’ve heard of it but I’ve never put more then a glancing thought into EP; of what I read of it, it just doesn’t seem like an interesting field. Anyway, I would just like to declare something that might/might not be relevant to this thread.
> 
> Scientific fields use the _ **Scientific Method** _ while all other fields (philosophy, art, music, economics, etc) use any/every other “tool” at their disposal (pure reason, logic, “mood,” etc).
> 
> **I can’t stress this enough.** Science is the _ **Scientific Method** _ and the _ **Scientific Method** _ is science. The _ **Scientific Method** _ is the only tool, that all scientific fields need or use; without it, it’s not science. Period.
> 
> I hope this clear up some things.

[Oh, yes, **orcenio** ; that it does. Sadly, it very much does indeed.]

> [@orcenio](#):
>
> :smack: I forgot to give a basic run down of the scientific method.
> 
> The Basic Requirements
> 
> 1. You need to _ **directly experience or “observe”** _ something (an act or phenomena or whatever).
> 2. You need to _ **form a hypothesis** _ (an explanation) of that _ **direct thing/event** _.
> 3. You need to _ **use that hypothesis** _ to make a _ **prediction** _.
> 4. You need to test that prediction through a _ **falsifiable experiment** _ (an experiment whose results can prove your prediction wrong, but never prove it correct).
> 5. You need to _ **directly experience or “observe”** _ the results of the experiment.
> 
> now ask yourself “Did the results prove your prediction wrong?”
> 
> a) _ **Yes** _. Customize your hypothesis accordingly (slightly change it or maybe even throw it out and start anew).  
> b) _ **No** _. Jump for joy with glee; make more predictions based on the results; then do more experiments.
> 
> Now, I’ll repeat this. An experiment MUST BE DESIGNED TO CREATE A RESULT THAT PROVES YOUR PREDICTION WRONG; however, no experiment can ever prove it correct. People will come to trust it as correct when/if it survives the onslaught of would-be-famous scientists who want to change/destroy your theory. [!!]
> 
> Oh, and others (following only your instructions) must be able to observe the exact same results. Just in case you didn’t fuck-up the experiment somehow and “proved” that gravity doesn’t really exist.

That’s tellin’ em’, boyo! You sure showed _that_ 5’th grade scarecrow! Why, it will take, like, maybe a whole _3 minutes_ to put all that straw back in 'im! Woo hoo! You must have a Bachelor’s Degree… **IN SCIENCE!!**  
Your snide and abusive comments and arrogance did not much endear yourself to me, as you might have guessed by now. But you’ve got me pegged all wrong, junior. I’m no po-mo relativist or social constructivist nutjob, nor am I the naive little pseudoscience infant you’ve so ludicrously made me out to be. You might want to try to be a little more discerning and judicious in who you decide to attack in the future. Or not, as is your choice to make.

But climb up on daddy’s knee and I’ll try to explain, in little words if possible, why your knavish rant is so utterly juvenile and off-base…

The so-called “scientific method” is very nearly entirely mythical. To paraphrase the title of evolutionary psychologist and philosopher Jerry Fodor’s book refuting evolutionary psychologists’ “massive modularity” thesis (such as that held by Pinker and Tooby, et al.): **“Science doesn’t work that way”**.

The “scientific method” is something we learn about in elementary and high school that presents a fabricated facade of a formal “method” of hypotheses and experimentation and so on that has little or no meaningful equivalent in the real world of science. **It’s mere rote, liturgical nonsense.** Working scientists laugh derisively at the kind of grandstanding spittle you’ve chosen to drown us all in with your arrogant posts in this thread. But I like your spunk, kid (he writes, figuratively patting **orcenio** on the head…)

There are a few popular writers (at least on the Web) who have made something of a career of debunking the bullshit we are so cluelessly taught in science and other primary and secondary school classes and textbooks (and some early college textbooks as well), such as [Alistair B. Fraser’s _Bad Science_](http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html) and [William J. Beaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Beaty) (I can’t reach the web addresses I have for his site at this time – perhaps the provider’s down for maintenance – or I’d include a link).

But since I can’t provide a link, I’ll make every effort to avoid breaking the fair-use provisions and quote his words on this specific issue reasonably sparingly [all bold emphasis is my own]:

> [@William J. Beaty](#):
>
> The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow **The Scientific Method** [or, as **orcenio** might put it, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD], or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the “Scientific Method” used by all scientists. **Supposedly, if you don’t follow the rigidly defined “Scientific Method” listed in K-6 textbooks, then you’re not doing science.** (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. **After all, where’s the “experiment” in these?** )
> 
> Unfortunately this is **wrong** , and there is no single “Scientific Method” as such. Scientists don’t follow a rigid procedure-list called “The Scientific Method” in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn’t make it any more real. **“The Scientific Method” is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done.**

Here’s a quotation from the great scientist Peter Medawar:

> [@Medawar](#):
>
> Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare.

Here’s Beaty again:

> [@William J. Beaty](#):
>
> Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
> 
> > [@Isaac Asimov](#):
> >
> > The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny…’
> 
> This suggests that lots of important science comes **not** from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling “informed messing around,” or unguided play. **Yet the “Scientific Method” listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with “form a hypothesis.” As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and “messing around” is sometimes dealt with harshly.**

You were saying, **orcenio** and **DanBlather** and **Chum** and **Nametag** and (sheesh) **BigT** – but mostly **orcenio**?

Rejecting or even dismissing something on the grounds that it’s justifiably pseudo-scientific is one thing, but inventing your own arbitrary, smug, grammar school textbook-based hard-edged binary criteria for assertion that _this_ **is** science but _that_ **isn’t** is just plain puerile, supercilious twaddle. To call it “unsophisticated” is far too kind.

To the **orcenio** ’s of the world, a “science” pretty much springs full-born around the 18’th or even 19’th century, as if from the head of Zeus. One of the things you hear from such people is that before the common era, or at least before about the time of the Italian Renaissance or so, there was no astronomy / chemistry – it was all astrology / alchemy. In this infantile “model” of the history of science, since the ancient Egyptians weren’t following **THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD** , what they did couldn’t _possibly_ be doing science, _ **by definition** _. After all, they hadn’t attended 5’th grade science class in the United States in the mid 20’th century to learn from **orcenio** that:

> [@orcenio](#):
>
> Science is the Scientific Method and the Scientific Method is science. The Scientific Method is the only tool, that all scientific fields need or use; without it, it’s not science. Period.

The **orcenio** ’s of the world would taunt them all thusly: “Where are your “hypotheses”? Where are your “falsifiable experiments”? Na na - na na - na na! There!! We’ve run rings around you logically!”

According to such a sophomoric view, Eratosthenes was just an astrologer.

So, you may wish to ask me, how do _you_ define “science”? Like this, as I’ve done for decades (it’s my own definition):

**Science is any set of empirical, epistemological heuristic methods that can be successfully employed to limit self-deception in reducing the error in our knowledge of the world** (or whatever it is that gives rise to our sensory percepts)

(The parenthetical portion is a hedge against **orcenio** -hated ontological philosophers, of course).  
A genuine new science can begin with a single thought “experiment”, even without “direct observation” or “hypotheses” or “falsifiable experiments”. I know it’s a tough word to say, little fella, but let’s try it anyway, okay? “S Y N T H E S I S”, pronounced “Sin, th’ Sis!” (something I suspect your might have encountered back in the hills). That’s the funny little word to describe “informed messing around” by cogitating on existing scientific theories and systems and observations and playfully engaging in thought experiments with the eventual plan of branching off a new science from existing ones. Kinda like “_Your_ Evolutionary Biology and Natural Selection got in _my_ Behavioral Neuroscience! Let’s sell candy!”

**orcenio** and other smug scoffers, that delicious Reeses-like combination of [Evolutionary biology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology) and [Behavioral Neuroscience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychobiology) and a few other scientific sub-fields is called “Evolutionary Psychology”. Papa is a science and Mama is a science and little baby is a science, too.

But no science is ever born full-grown and perfectly respectable! Lots of work and growth and internal debate and strife is going to occur before full adulthood is reached. You EP-scoffers are like someone looking at a 3 year old and saying: “Can’t cook, can’t clean, can’t even bring home minimum wage! What the fuck _good_ is it!” It’s akin to saying that since Jabir ibn Hayyan didn’t create the Periodic Table or develop the Roothaan equations, he was just coming up with amusing, but unscientific, “Just So” fables of no account whatsoever.

Sheesh!

Well, **orcenio** , you prolly got to get back to all them possum hides, so I won’t bother instructing you on all the sophomoric silliness I highlighted in blue when I quoted your posts above, but let me just say two things so I can get on with far more important things for now:

(1): You kept going on about “direct” observations, which is pretty damn funny. Yep, if’n ya’ cant seeum witch yer’ own bare eyeballs, 'dem Pie Messons 'n shit arnt’t scientific, donsha 'no".

(2): There is no such thing as “proof” or “disproof” in science. The concept of proof is only valid outside of science entirely, such as in formal systems like mathematics and logic and algorithms.

But you new 'dat, didnsha.

[I know, **Tom** or other mod, I know. I know. But it just isn’t fair that others can dish it out without hindrance but I can’t reply in kind. But a warning is unnecessary, really it is. I’ll straighten up and fly right next time. But **Malthus** is the last poster I’ll try to respond to in this thread, and he/she deserves – and will receive – my humble respect.]

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-evolutionary-psychology-get-such-a-bum-rap/524521)._