>>13146389>Why do some people claim evolutionary psychology is "pseudoscience"?People dislike its implications.
Mostly that much of human behavior is a result of evolutionary "random-walk" processes that simply turned out to be useful.
Humans cannot or are actually very limited in adapting their own behavior to a new environment. Also known as phenotypic variation. There is the dogma that humans can adapt to everything. This simply isn't true. Also known as the myth of human exceptionalism.
>>13147536>It's not scientific, and it conflicts with pretty much everything that we already know about race, gender, etcWhat science are we talking about here? The science that there are no genetic differences between black and white people or that intersex people constitute a separate sex on their own rather than them having a chromsomal abnormality that renders them sterile with non-functional and deformed genitalia?
>>13147548Thank you for summarizing some of the points of Evolutionary psychology.
Most criticism of evolutionary psychology on the surface level is rooted on its dubitable nature. Evolutionary psychology however provides us with a lot of hypotheses that can be tested. In the Popperian sense, this means the possibility to disprove the hypotheses by introducing a counterexample.
People who criticize evolutionary psychology for the most part ignore the issue that any criticism directed at evolutionary psychology can also be directed at evolutionary biology. But the latter is so adored in the scientific community that you will get ad hominem insults and physical attacks upon questioning it, mostly by atheists. Dawkin's active push for the theory of evolution not only as a scientific theory but also as a form of life style and political guide makes it clear that people deliberately promote the theory of evolution to achieve political goals.
