Jay Hanson wrote: > Evolutionary psychology is quickly becoming the ONLY psychology.
me: > Man, is that arrogant! Remember that 100 years ago or so, Freudianism > quickly became the ONLY psychology. Then, behaviorism quickly became Jay responds: > Only time will tell Jim. The difference is that EP is not a social science, > it a true science. EP can even explain why social scientists are so afraid > of it. <G> This response merely proves my point, especially since Jay didn't even try to answer any of my criticisms. It should be noted that "EP" is just one of several theories (including phrenology and sociobiology) over the last two centuries whose acolytes have claimed will replace social science with "true" science. As a social scientist, I'm not "afraid" of EP at all.[*] Instead, I think that EP is yet another dead end, a misleading program of biological reductionism which will be eventually replaced by another "true science" fad. (Is "true" science like the "true" religion?) Biological reductionism embraces the idea that human beings and our societies can be understood totally in terms of biology (of one sort or another). As usual with such programs, its adherents claim much too much for their theories (which incidentally makes the valid parts of their theories look bad). Further, these folks don't actually study the social sciences that they claim that they are replacing, which BTW doesn't reflect a scientific attitude.[**] Somehow, the biological reductionists again and again reject the idea that society has some sort of independent role -- without presenting any logical or empirical argument for this dismissal. I recommend that Jay do some reading -- rather than always telling others on pen-l to read tracts about his chosen belief system (or rather, the belief system that his biology chooses for him). For example, he should look at Levins & Lewontin's THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST. Both of these authors know biology really well (much more than I do). The take-home story: the "parts make the whole and the whole makes the parts" as part of a dynamic system. That is, concerning the topic at hand, there's a "two step" dance. Individual people (and their biologies) create social institutions and society (including language) as a whole as part of an historical process. Then, those social institutions limit and shape individual actions and consciousness, causing the way they create society to change. Ad infinitum. BTW, the EP types should chew on the advances of epigenetics: it turns out that some acquired characteristics _can_ be inherited, contrary to the Darwinian orthodoxy. So social institutions can influence biology, rather than the causation always going the other way. Even without epigenetics, biology has been highly influenced by society, as when some profit-seeking corporation decides to manipulate the genes of some plant. Even earlier, it was people who bred corn so that it was edible. Human breeding habits -- such as preferring mates with the same skin color -- also affects biology, e.g., by exaggerating any preexisting genetic differences. The reason why self-styled "true" scientists always want to replace social science seems to be that they don't like how fuzzy or inconclusive the latter is.[***] Paraphrasing Henry Higgins, they lament "Why can't sociology or economics be like physics or biology?" But the problem is that the job that social science faces is more difficult than that of biology in many ways. I'm not referring to the technical side (e.g., knowing organic chemistry and the like). Rather, social science is more difficult because we're studying it from the inside, as participant-observers, at the same time actual human beings and our societies tend to be pretty unpredictable. Making matters worse, ideology -- such as sociobiology and the dogmatic EP that Jay presents -- always creeps in. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] this reminds me of crude Freudianism: we _know_ why people are afraid of the theory of the Oedipus complex. It's because you have an Oedipus complex! Karl Popper would laugh. [**] It's like Gary Becker's "economic imperialism," in which there's a totally one-way flow of information from Friedmaniac economic theory to the realms of other social sciences, with no learning from sociologists, political theorists, psychologists, etc.) [***] No biological or psychological explanation for this dislike is required. Social science _is_ too fuzzy in many cases. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
