- Aug 13, 2016
- 2,919
- 1,243
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
This post is not an attack on the theory of evolution. Nor is it a discussion of the philosophy of science in that field. It is rather to poison-the-wells to ad hoc psychological catch-all explanations for human knowledge and human behavior.
"A major concern is the apparent willingness of evolutionary psychologists to generate a plethora of seemingly untestable and post hoc explanations for any given psychological phenomenon. According to this view, Psychological Inquiry Copyright © 2000 by 2000, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1–21 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. evolutionary explanations are infinitely flexible “stories” that can be constructed to fit any set of empirical observations and can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed by data. This criticism was forcefully articulated by Gould and Lewontin (1979): We would not object so strenuously to the adaptationist program if its invocation, in any particular case, could lead in principle to its rejection for want of evidence. But if it could be dismissed as failing some explicit test, then alternatives could get their chance. Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such definable rejection for two reasons. First, the rejection of one adaptive story usually leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of explanation might be required.… Secondly, the criteria of acceptance of a story are so loose that they may pass without proper confirmation. Often, evolutionists use consistency with the data as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. (pp. 587–588)
From:Are Evolutionary Explanations Unfalsifiable? Evolutionary Psychology and the Lakatosian Philosophy of Science Timothy Ketelaar Department of Communication Studies University of California, Los Angeles Bruce J. Ellis Department of Psychology University of Canterbury
My further claim is that not only are these evolutionary explanations of say how we tend to agree cross-culturally on a small set of moral truths, not a defeater since they are just so stories unproven and unsupported by the data (go try and find any research that supports the origin of moral beliefs to be described by evolution despite the hundreds of times you have heard this repeated). But this putative false belief is also self-refuting!
Since evolution that produces false beliefs in things like objective moral values and duties would be equally destructive of the underlying rational faculties as individuals that outcompete their fellow species get to pass on their genetics. So one simple thought experiment would suffice, would the chess club out compete the football team?
So there is no reason to think we could limit the rational damage in these evolutionary arguments to just eliminate those beliefs we find inconvenient but allow us to maintain a cogent worldview except it that area.
Genetic fallacy is describing how someone came to believe something in order to dodge engaging in the argument. Now surprisingly, in the case of immediate knowledge we may have an exception. Evolutionary arguments against proper function of our rational faculties could possibly only produce false beliefs in one area (our moral intuitions) yielding an accurate view of our world with special pleading of the data (I mean an exception in just one area). So why logically not impossible, we would need to see the studies that evolution causes these false moral beliefs in order to accept such an unlikely event. Further, one would need a study that isolates evolution from environment.
Disclaimer: I am not discounting the field of evolutionary psychology either, just the sloppy nature of research in that field and the ever-increasing ad hoc use as a defeater for knowledge such as moral facts, facts about beauty (used to explain away transcendent arguments from beauty and awe), facts about fear (used to explain away the no atheist in foxholes argument)
"A major concern is the apparent willingness of evolutionary psychologists to generate a plethora of seemingly untestable and post hoc explanations for any given psychological phenomenon. According to this view, Psychological Inquiry Copyright © 2000 by 2000, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1–21 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. evolutionary explanations are infinitely flexible “stories” that can be constructed to fit any set of empirical observations and can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed by data. This criticism was forcefully articulated by Gould and Lewontin (1979): We would not object so strenuously to the adaptationist program if its invocation, in any particular case, could lead in principle to its rejection for want of evidence. But if it could be dismissed as failing some explicit test, then alternatives could get their chance. Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such definable rejection for two reasons. First, the rejection of one adaptive story usually leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of explanation might be required.… Secondly, the criteria of acceptance of a story are so loose that they may pass without proper confirmation. Often, evolutionists use consistency with the data as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. (pp. 587–588)
From:Are Evolutionary Explanations Unfalsifiable? Evolutionary Psychology and the Lakatosian Philosophy of Science Timothy Ketelaar Department of Communication Studies University of California, Los Angeles Bruce J. Ellis Department of Psychology University of Canterbury
My further claim is that not only are these evolutionary explanations of say how we tend to agree cross-culturally on a small set of moral truths, not a defeater since they are just so stories unproven and unsupported by the data (go try and find any research that supports the origin of moral beliefs to be described by evolution despite the hundreds of times you have heard this repeated). But this putative false belief is also self-refuting!
Since evolution that produces false beliefs in things like objective moral values and duties would be equally destructive of the underlying rational faculties as individuals that outcompete their fellow species get to pass on their genetics. So one simple thought experiment would suffice, would the chess club out compete the football team?
So there is no reason to think we could limit the rational damage in these evolutionary arguments to just eliminate those beliefs we find inconvenient but allow us to maintain a cogent worldview except it that area.
Genetic fallacy is describing how someone came to believe something in order to dodge engaging in the argument. Now surprisingly, in the case of immediate knowledge we may have an exception. Evolutionary arguments against proper function of our rational faculties could possibly only produce false beliefs in one area (our moral intuitions) yielding an accurate view of our world with special pleading of the data (I mean an exception in just one area). So why logically not impossible, we would need to see the studies that evolution causes these false moral beliefs in order to accept such an unlikely event. Further, one would need a study that isolates evolution from environment.
Disclaimer: I am not discounting the field of evolutionary psychology either, just the sloppy nature of research in that field and the ever-increasing ad hoc use as a defeater for knowledge such as moral facts, facts about beauty (used to explain away transcendent arguments from beauty and awe), facts about fear (used to explain away the no atheist in foxholes argument)