I don't have the time for a more specific reply, but please understand that the epistemic uncertainty related to anthropology, evolutionary biology and psycholo

I don't have the time for a more specific reply, but please understand that the epistemic uncertainty related to anthropology, evolutionary biology and psychology ought to be always high. This is very different from physical/natural sciences where a single experiment can often determine to very low epistemic uncertainty (or at least with bounded model error) some working model. This evidence may exist (say with uncontroversial genetic evidence and uncontroversial say neural models), but for most discussions in those fields it's usually not available (and would be very costly). This is why you have to take it as an ongoing discussion and everything as a hypothesis. You can't say "Human language evolved to argue, not to make better decisions", or any similar assertions, with almost any certainty. It's a point of an ongoing conversation. The hypotheses themselves don't always lend themselves to formalization the same way as the natural sciences. Of course any science strives for as much precision as possible though! Simply in practice anthropological and psychological phenomena are even harder or impossible to formalize in the sense of mathematical precision, at least non-trivial observations; the little I understand of those fields they go to great lengths to reduce and communicate uncertainty (this includes History as well, where it seems a core concept of the canonical research methodology[1]). Because part of the reason we develop those theories and those fields in those places is to better understand ourselves and put them to practical use, particularly in practical use (when thinking about thinking, or how to interact with people, etc.) this uncertainty shouldn't be forgotten -- more as an inspiration than strict guidelines for human behavior. I took me a while to understand this, and the subtle differences between the different fields of study! [1] In history research, I believe you rarely hear "Such and such happened..." (unless there's overwhelming evidence), and more likely hear "According to [e.g. some Greek historian] in [such account], such and such happened...", historical records are understood to be unreliable.