Beware of the Ad Hoc Fallacy of "Evolutionary Explanations."

[Uber Genius]

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)

 

[Sanoy]

It's far too easy to construct specious narratives which acquire the observable end. Instead of accepting such narratives we should ask, "how is the end expected from your beginning?"

 

[gaara4158]

It is not wise to go out of one's way to propose an evolutionary explanation for which there is no evidence, but as a response to attempts at "X is best/only explainable by Y" arguments where Y is someone's pet hypothesis, it is perfectly valid to point out when evolution is one possible explanation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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)

Now you're stepping on my toes, Uber! Actually, this is a substantive post, so like others around here, I'll have to give it more than just a once-over in an act of attentive reading and get back to you.

Good post! (It's probably the reason no one else other than @Sanoy has attempted to respond to it. )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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)

...oh, I spoke too soon. There's @gaara4158!

 

[gaara4158]

...oh, I spoke too soon. There's @gaara4158!

I can't help but think he created this thread because of me, since he's attacked me twice this week for this

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can't help but think he created this thread because of me, since he's attacked me twice this week for this

Oh, I see. The plot thickens! Well, I guess you'll be giving him the opportunity to make the 3rd time a charm.

(Juuuuuuuust kidding!)

 

[Moral Orel]

It is not wise to go out of one's way to propose an evolutionary explanation for which there is no evidence, but as a response to attempts at "X is best/only explainable by Y" arguments where Y is someone's pet hypothesis, it is perfectly valid to point out when evolution is one possible explanation.

How, pray tell, is the explanation for the origin of anything not going to be post hoc?

 

[Uber Genius]

I can't help but think he created this thread because of me, since he's attacked me twice this week for this

No need to guess, I did.

But only because it has been awhile since I had to deal with the fallacious nature of the appeal.

 

[durangodawood]

Ad hoc evolutionary explanations are fine as sort of educated conjecture.

 

[Uber Genius]

It is not wise to go out of one's way to propose an evolutionary explanation for which there is no evidence, but as a response to attempts at "X is best/only explainable by Y" arguments where Y is someone's pet hypothesis, it is perfectly valid to point out when evolution is one possible explanation.

Well put now lets examine what I am criticizing.

Namely, "evolution has created the false belief that there are objective morals and duties." "We don't have these duties in the real world, as we have an evolutionary explanation of how they arose."

A. if God exists and moral facts exist as a function of his nature and
B. God used evolution knowing that it would produce rational man who could intuit the objective truth of math, logic, and moral facts through self-evident intuition,

Then your evolutionary explanation does nothing to engage the existence of objective moral values or duties at all. So your discussion of evolutionary mechanisms that lead to development of human rationality and perception of the world used to deny the premise that there are such things as objective moral values is just a genetic fallacy.

Now you could avoid the genetic fallacy if you claim that we all operate deterministically based on evolution and so our beliefs are a function of this evolutionary determinism and therefore false, but how do you stop the damage?

That is on this second explanation you have undercut our belief that we are properly perceiving these objective morals, but you have to poison the wells to our belief forming warrant to do it.

Since rationality is not what neodarwinian standard theory suggests as conferring new function, survivability is alone playing that role, you have just given us a defeater for our rationality.

This is seems is an self-refuting argument:
men have evolved to have false beliefs about the nature of morals
men have evolved to have false beliefs
men have evolved to survive not to maximize true rational beliefs.
therefore there is no reason to believe that this argument is rational or not filled with false beliefs.

Louise Antony (Atheist professor at U of Mass) says,

"I am more confident in my perception of objective moral values and duties than I am in the premises for any argument for nihilism."

"atheist Peter Cave argues that: "whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound… Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop."

So the example of evolutionary psychologizing about such things as objective moral values doesn't have to commit the genetic fallacy, but to avoid it seems to put the arguer in a place where they are giving and explanation for why evolution has misinformed our rational understanding of the external world, but strangely, the arguer is exempt from this impingement of his or her rationality.

 

[gaara4158]

No need to guess, I did.

But only because it has been awhile since I had to deal with the fallacious nature of the appeal.

Consider the well poisoned, friend

 

[Uber Genius]

Ad hoc evolutionary explanations are fine as sort of educated conjecture.

We don't want to equivocate my claim. I am referring to claims that are catch-all but offer no evidentiary support.

The bottom line with ad-hoc responses however, is that simply making up potential reasons why a claim could be dubious or false doesn't actually show that it is the case.

There are some great possibilities on the horizon that go beyond descriptive science and demonstrate new function by showing how new functional proteins arise with an increase in complexity. Further we could then show how certain populations were more moral due to these common genetic features (containing genes tied directly to moral beliefs). But we are far from that level of understanding.

So you have seen theists respond, " Well God just did it," to just about any request for explanatory priors. That would be ad hoc. In the same way that our current understanding or lack there of in evolution is ad hoc in terms of explaining psychological moral beliefs and their morphology.

Evolution can explain why we take on genetic features of our parents. Evolution can explain the oscillation of populations of finches with large beaks as opposed to small.

But explaining how false belief occur in culture over time. Again, what evidence, what study, and if true, what other rational features that enabled the studiers to make that conclusion are equally destroyed by evolution?

 

[durangodawood]

....Namely, "evolution has created the false belief that there are objective morals and duties." "We don't have these duties in the real world, as we have an evolutionary explanation of how they arose."....

I cant even figure out what that means.

Are you sure you intended it to come out how it sounds?

 

[gaara4158]

Well put now lets examine what I am criticizing.

Namely, "evolution has created the false belief that there are objective morals and duties." "We don't have these duties in the real world, as we have an evolutionary explanation of how they arose."

A. if God exists and moral facts exist as a function of his nature and
B. God used evolution knowing that it would produce rational man who could intuit the objective truth of math, logic, and moral facts through self-evident intuition,

Then your evolutionary explanation does nothing to engage the existence of objective moral values or duties at all. So your discussion of evolutionary mechanisms that lead to development of human rationality and perception of the world used to deny the premise that there are such things as objective moral values is just a genetic fallacy.

Now you could avoid the genetic fallacy if you claim that we all operate deterministically based on evolution and so our beliefs are a function of this evolutionary determinism and therefore false, but how do you stop the damage?

That is on this second explanation you have undercut our belief that we are properly perceiving these objective morals, but you have to poison the wells to our belief forming warrant to do it.

Since rationality is not what neodarwinian standard theory suggests as conferring new function, survivability is alone playing that role, you have just given us a defeater for our rationality.

This is seems is an self-refuting argument:
men have evolved to have false beliefs about the nature of morals
men have evolved to have false beliefs
men have evolved to survive not to maximize true rational beliefs.
therefore there is no reason to believe that this argument is rational or not filled with false beliefs.

Louise Antony (Atheist professor at U of Mass) says,

"I am more confident in my perception of objective moral values and duties than I am in the premises for any argument for nihilism."

"atheist Peter Cave argues that: "whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound… Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop."

So the example of evolutionary psychologizing about such things as objective moral values doesn't have to commit the genetic fallacy, but to avoid it seems to put the arguer in a place where they are giving and explanation for why evolution has misinformed our rational understanding of the external world, but strangely, the arguer is exempt from this impingement of his or her rationality.

The position you’re tilting against isn’t exactly one I would defend. If you’re interested in hearing what is, you can let me know. I have no interest in picking through a post of this length correcting what I find inaccurate or incorrect, and the last time I went down this road it got pretty ugly.

 

[Uber Genius]

This may help:

 

[Uber Genius]

I cant even figure out what that means.

Are you sure you intended it to come out how it sounds?

I have posted a video that will build it out for you.

 

[durangodawood]

We don't want to equivocate my claim. I am referring to claims that are catch-all but offer no evidentiary support.

The bottom line with ad-hoc responses however, is that simply making up potential reasons why a claim could be dubious or false doesn't actually show that it is the case.

There are some great possibilities on the horizon that go beyond descriptive science and demonstrate new function by showing how new functional proteins arise with an increase in complexity. Further we could then show how certain populations were more moral due to these common genetic features (containing genes tied directly to moral beliefs). But we are far from that level of understanding.

So you have seen theists respond, " Well God just did it," to just about any request for explanatory priors. That would be ad hoc. In the same way that our current understanding or lack there of in evolution is ad hoc in terms of explaining psychological moral beliefs and their morphology.

Evolution can explain why we take on genetic features of our parents. Evolution can explain the oscillation of populations of finches with large beaks as opposed to small.

But explaining how false belief occur in culture over time. Again, what evidence, what study, and if true, what other rational features that enabled the studiers to make that conclusion are equally destroyed by evolution?

Lets not forget that biology isnt the only force influencing behavior. There's also human culture which has a degree of independence from biology, and evolves according to fitness criteria (among other things).

Morals are coded in the culture as well as in the genome.

 

[durangodawood]

This may help:

Oh my.

Well I have to go to one rehearsal and set up for another. So I cant express how completely bonkers that argument is right now....

 

[Uber Genius]

The position you’re tilting against isn’t exactly one I would defend. If you’re interested in hearing what is, you can let me know. I have no interest in picking through a post of this length correcting what I find inaccurate or incorrect, and the last time I went down this road it got pretty ugly.

Here is what you wrote in your opening argument from The Moral Argument (Revamped)

Moral facts are a part of the battery of myths we have adopted as a society in order to justify cooperation at the cost of individual selfish gain. There are obvious practical benefits to cooperation, and moral behavior is heavily incentivized by our innate sense of empathy, but the myth of moral facts comes in handy when the individual benefits aren’t so obvious.

P1 - Moral facts are "myth" - ALSO KNOWN AS FALSE BELIEFS
p2 - we have adopted as a society in order to justify cooperation
p3 - There are obvious practical benefits to cooperation
P4 - but the myth of moral facts comes in handy when the individual benefits aren’t so obvious

FOUR CLAIMS:
But what other false beliefs are a result of the adaptations ad hoc explanation that follow in p2- p4? What evidence do you have of such things actually being studied and verified, studied in a way that could be falsified?

Further help the rest of us out here understand how you were able to become immune to these forces so as to shed your false beliefs and see the light.

No evidence that is from a possibly falsifiable methodological study in points P1-P4 they are just asserted.

No evidence of immunity from underlying false beliefs equally caused by evolution.

So we see that I was exactly engaging your point. And not creating a strawman as you misrepresented. Which is why I have put you on "ignore" in the past. I hoped to have an honest discussion. I am still open to it but you will have to amend the quote above that started this discussion. If your position has changed in the last week please inform us of how rather than suggesting that is not your position.