"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett

***

Humanism Meetup mailing list fun:


A: Well the reason I don't believe in EP [Ed: Evolutionary Psychology] is not because I don't believe in macro evolution(I do believe in intra species variation aka micro evolution.) When I believe in micro evolution , what's the conflict with pyschology or characteristics to evolve?No conflict but I find EP just so stories.Can't be falsified,hence can't be considered as a science.


Me: Do you think the Social Sciences can be considered Sciences?

Here are some falsifiable EP theories:

- Kin selection (us doing favours for relatives)
- Reciprocal altruism (us doing favours for people unrelated to us, but who do us favours in turn)
- Men going for physically attractive women
- Babies are born fearing snakes and spiders, but not electrical sockets or cars
- We like alcohol because it is present in ripe fruit
- Women preferring men with sharper features when they're ovulating
- Female mate choice (men propose, women dispose)
- Incest avoidance mechanisms (we don't fall in love with people we grew up with)
- High rates of obesity among former hunter-gatherers in developed societies (e.g. Hispanics in the American South)
- Men's desire for sexual novelty
- The avoidance of green/blue meat
- A universal grammar
- Women going for rich men
- Task-specific mental modules (e.g. depending on how you frame them, we perform certain tasks better than other otherwise identical ones)
- Religious predisposition
- Men ejaculating more sperm when they've been away from their partner - even if they've masturbated

Note that even if some of them can be falsified, it doesn't mean all of EP is useless - just like String Theory being false does not mean all of Physics is useless.


A: looks like you're falling in love with EP pal! =)


B: A,

You said EP is not falsifiable, and when Gabriel gives you the list of falsifiable hypothesis all you can say is:

“looks like you're falling in love with EP pal!”??????

What kind of an answer is that???


A: that reply its a tongue in cheek comment.No offense B.(and Gabriel if you're offended)


Me: I am not offended by tongue in cheek replies

I AM offended by rampant and wilful stupidity


C: emails from the mailing list are starting to trigger my spam filter LOL

It's all rather entertaining to watch intellects spar (although sparring is pushing the definition) but after a few rounds of this i'm starting to sense a pattern:
1. Scientific claim
2. Non-scientific counter claim
3. Witty observation and further support for 1
4. Illogical response
5. Non-sequiter (optional)
6. Exhaustive logical counter argument
7. Exhaustive fallcious counter counter argument defeating the purpose of 6
8. Snide remark/ witty obervation, followed by appeasing laughter
9. Repeat from 1

I dunno about the rest of the mailing list, but watching people commit intellectual suicide whenever they reply is getting old.

Can someone start a topic that doesn't require too much logical discipline so the not so intellectually inclined can participate?

How about 'the tyranny of intellectualism' or 'Why can't smart people think like the rest of us?':P


A: Sorry, to border on absurdity.

I can give you different psychological explanations on kin selection.

Buddhist psychology : We're all relatives now because we went throught thin and thick in our last lives.

Christian psychology : God creates us with a purpose,and we're relatives for a purpse, so we need to take care of each other.

Needless to say,you can think of many more.

How do you falsify the above?


C: I think you just crossed the border. Run forrest, run.