Rod Hetzel wrote:
> Hi TIPSters:
>
> I heard someone say today that evolutionary psychology is not a science because it
>does not allow for the development of testable or falsifiable hypotheses. I'm
>curious how the evolutionary psychologists on our list would respond to this
>statement.
>
Well, first, science is not a unitary discipline. There are many different
sciences, each characterized by different methods, assumptions, modes of analysis, and
so forth. Trying to find the common scientific thread behind physics (which does
experiments by eliminating extraneous variables) psychology (which does experiments by
equalizing the effects of extraneous variables) astronomy (which doesn't do _any_
experiments but collects alot of data) and history (no experiments - and only bits
and pieces of data) is a challenge. But I agree with the implied assumption that being
able to falsify hypotheses (or theories) is quite basic, and without it the science
isn't worth much.
David Buss discusses this issue in Chapter 2 of his text _Evolutionary
Psychology_. Following his outline, he starts with general evolutionary theory,or
inclusive fitness. This is taken as fact, and it is difficult to argue that
evolutionary forces
were not at work creating life forms. But he does suggest some facts that might
disprove it - e.g. creation of life forms too rapidly for evolution to occurm, or
adaptations that benefited _others_. These have never been observed. He next moves
down to
middle-level evolutionary theory, an example being Triver's parental investment (PI)
theory - consistent with the general inclusive fitness idea, that the gender that
invests more in offspring will be more selective with mates. This is easily
falsifiable. One just studies different species, noting parental investment as well as
sexual choosiness. In most species, females have more PI and are more choosy. But
there are some species where the male shows more PI - the Mormon cricket, the
pipefish seahorse, and poison arrow-frog. In all cases the male cares more for
offspring. And, in all cases, the males are more sexually picky _and_ it is the
females who compete amongst themselves for the stand-off-ish males. Triver's theory is
consistent with general evolutionary theory, but is not inevitably derived from it.
And, it is testable, and has been tested, and has held up well. Buss then discusses
specific hypotheses. He gives the example of women hypothezied to have developed (an
adaptation) a desire for men who are willing and able to contribute resources to their
offspring. Specific hypotheses include desire for money, status and prestige in men,
desire for men willing to share (indicated by their gift giving), and so forth.
This is testable with cross-cultural research. In general, they have been supported
(though if someone quibbles with the cross-cultural data - saying it doesn't support
this specific hypothesis - we have the strongest case of evolutionary hypotheses
capable of being refuted by data!). I don't see in Buss' Ch 2 another example, which
is the culutural counter-argument that women do not prefer wealthier men as an
adaptation, but as cultural training. The counter-argument says that women are poorer
and
so forth, therefore they are forced to seek wealthy men. Interestingly, this is
somewhat testable by looking at women of _varying_ means. The cultural hypothesis
predicts less interest in wealthy men in women themselves wealthy, but one sees the
opposite! (I can find references later). Yet another cultural counter-argument can
maneuver around this data as well - but if it does it opens itself up to the same
charge - that no matter _how_ the data comes out, my theory is correct!! So, the bottom
line is, the general evolutionary idea is not easily testable (what general ideas
are), but the specific theory and hypotheses alaigned with it are. And if the specific
theories and hypotheses start running into contrary data, ther entire general
evolutionary push will lose its vigor. This has not happened. The general evolutionary
push has been invigorated, it seems, by the data.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig
Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468
Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Kane to kal� ke r�chto sto yal�."
(Do a good deed and cast it to the sea)
Ancient Greek saying
------------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
