3 ms·

You seem to be both treading into naturalistic fallacy and brushing up against ad hominem. The latter because you don't know the motives of those who disagree w

You seem to be both treading into naturalistic fallacy and brushing up against ad hominem. The latter because you don't know the motives of those who disagree with you (they could just find your explanation unconvincing) and the former because just because human beings have been phylogenetically classified as apes does not mean you can deploy your syllogism so easily. Note: I am not arguing one way or the other here. Obviously there is competition for mates among human beings. What I'm suggesting is that we be careful when drawing on evolutionary explanations flippantly and simplistically. Lord knows that e.g. "evolutionary psychology" (which this would fall under) is packed with just-so stories.

everdrive 5y ago
>Lord knows that e.g. "evolutionary psychology" (which this would fall under) is packed with just-so stories. I think this has to be admitted, and that any explanation based on evolutionary psychology should be viewed more skeptically than other arguments. However, I think it's absolutely true that genetics do influence our psychology to some degree. And so, there must be some evolutionary psychology claims which can be said to be true. At a very high, and very basic level, some are so self-evident that no one bothers to make them: ie, that sexual attraction exists, is a strong motivator for most people, and must have a basis in evolutionary fitness. Obviously things can get more murky when you want to discuss behaviors with more nuance or complexity. Further, even when a claim is probably true it's quite hard to actually test in a scientific manner. You can isolate the behavior, but not the explanation. How can you truly prove that a behavior is caused by evolution rather than social pressure? That said, I don't think the whole field can be thrown out, despite your accurate claim that the field can be a bit of a mess.

everdrive 5y ago

>Lord knows that e.g. "evolutionary psychology" (which this would fall under) is packed with just-so stories. I think this has to be admitted, and that any explanation based on evolutionary psychology should be viewed more skeptically than other arguments. However, I think it's absolutely true that genetics do influence our psychology to some degree. And so, there must be some evolutionary psychology claims which can be said to be true. At a very high, and very basic level, some are so self-evident that no one bothers to make them: ie, that sexual attraction exists, is a strong motivator for most people, and must have a basis in evolutionary fitness. Obviously things can get more murky when you want to discuss behaviors with more nuance or complexity. Further, even when a claim is probably true it's quite hard to actually test in a scientific manner. You can isolate the behavior, but not the explanation. How can you truly prove that a behavior is caused by evolution rather than social pressure? That said, I don't think the whole field can be thrown out, despite your accurate claim that the field can be a bit of a mess.