Science News

Are Evolutionary Psychology Hypotheses Unfalsifiable? (THE SAAD TRUTH_700)

Comments (20)
  1. nesa1126 says:

    Hey Godfather, I am big fan of your work.

    We had one professor at my uni (I am at psychology master at the moment) that introduced very critical look at science today. Which is fine, main reason why science is good is self correction and skepticism. As you can imagine, one big target was EP because of "claim" (actually straw man if you are correct in your videos) about absolute universality of human behavior. Ofc you need just one tribe somewhere in Papua New Guinea to prove otherwise, and there is always at least one πŸ˜€
    So, there are some criticisms you may want to address (and some you did and are indeed, very similar to topic of your video). I remember reading Conrad Lorenzs explanation of gay ducks and for me it sounded to so far stretched that it could used to justify any behavior as evolutionary valuable. You just need to came up with any situation where that kind of behavior seem to be improving their survivability or chances to mate.
    And criticism that said that EA hypotheses are unfalsifiable is I believe in similar way psychologists once criticized psychoanalytics. They were good at explanation but terrible at prediction. (there was one experiment with type of males and preferation of size of female breasts where psychoanalytics failed (said that they will like big breast and those subjects liked small) so afterwards they said: "AHA! Thats because of reaction formation!" ). In similar way, you could get soon to similar explanation with evolution. That is ofc problem for theory. I don't think that evolution is fake or something ridicules like that. It is almost as that theory is TO GOOD. I believe that methodology of EA that I am not informed enough fixed that ages ago but it could be interested to comment maybe. Thanks for video, and keep up the awesome work!

  2. Terry Ernest says:

    Porn certainly raise something … and at my age 64 taking ace inhibitors I need something to get me in the mood …or I raise my testosterone as well as viagra … or could be just me …! But Science can prove it one way or another.

  3. Andrea C. says:

    Some tenets of EP are criticised by legitimate academics for other than political reasons.
    By listening to this rant it seems that only SJWs or silly lefties don't like EP. I don't think this is accurate.
    EP is a legitimate field of inquiry, but its explanatory value is limited, like any other theory.
    The fact that the theoretical roots of a disciplines are rooted in distal past doesn't make them less scientific, sure,
    but extra caution is needed when we interpret results.

  4. Radio Free Hammerhal says:

    I think a great comparison for post-hoc analysis is climate science. If you want to criticize evolituonaly psychology, you need to call into question climate science too.

    Thanks for the video! This was actually an idea I was thinking about recently id love to see more of a dive into methodology of your work.

  5. Michalis Xenopoulos says:

    Suggestion for a popular text that best demonstrates this case??

  6. Coggdog says:

    So what you're saying is we need more Gender Studies majors producing 'high end' scientific standards of study in the field of evolutionary psychology.

  7. The Memes of Destruction says:

    Wesley is an excellent school!

  8. Leven Pfvast says:

    I am saddened to say this programme presents a kettle calling out pots style of argument: you point at others and call names for they point at you and call names. As a hypothesis Evolutionary (a problematic term from the start) Psychology (already bursting with unnecessary assumptions) should be no more disturbing to human understanding of the terms, principles, and observations offered than Materialist Psychology or Social Psychology, or any other bookside (rather than bedside) analysis. My take so far, is that it is just another ordinary framework on which to hang ideas, data, assessments, propositions, and speculations (on the Character of the Soul = De Anima/ De Parva Natura) – a scholastic affair, rather than a governing programme, and following the best example of the Scholars it is not only open to dispute it invites debate; a principle of empirical science lacking in far too many 'sciences' as taught currently.

    The biggest drawback to an 'evolution' based study of the human soul – and indeed the 'mind' in all animals, especially the reasoning, social, and community kind – rests not on the soul = psyche/ anima but the nature ascribed to evolution. If this merely describes changes as change, well, good enough, but if it entails a notion of in-built 'progress' (e.g. to more advanced, higher, or most worthy states) then an error has already entered in (i.e. the the lion has a bigger soul than the mouse). Note well: moral development, as a rational soul (including humans, both in general and specifically), does provide a set of stations on which to measure any change, whether progressing to something better or regressing to something worse – and there is the crux of your problem, most acceptable notions of evolution specifically preclude a stable moral standard applicable at all times, to all limited rational beings, and unchangeable in their binding character (thus making any measurement impossible).

  9. Wilkersonw1 says:

    When Women's Studies majors explain to a professor how misguided his field is, I am reminded of when my 6 year old believed he had invented arm farts. Adorable in his naive certainty.

  10. David Guffey says:

    Obviously you can find evidence to support that men prefer hourglass figures. You can also prove that women are more likely survive childbirth if they have wide hips. But is it possible to prove in a scientifically rigorous way that men like hourglass figures because they help women survive childbirth? That is, can science realistically answer the "why" questions of evolutionary psychology?

  11. LD Saunders says:

    While I agree with the statement that EP has claims that can be falsified, I'm not following the claim that EP is more falsifiable than other disciplines. More so than physics? Biochemistry? How can that be?
    I also think, although I admit I am not an expert on this topic, and invite someone to correct me if I am wrong, that the claim that EP is not falsifiable is not addressing specific claims discussed in this video, but, rather the larger claim that human behavior is based on evolution. After all, no matter the result of specific claims, like those in this video, the claim is still that the result is due to evolutionary history of humans. What specific evidence would actually cause this claim to be abandoned? I'm not sure there is any. After all, if evolution made us flexible, then non-universal behavior does not refute this claim. So, what could?

  12. Zachary Millunchick says:

    Eh, unfalsifiable drivvle. And here I thought that Gad had reformed and become a great defender of peace-loving religion, [REDACTED]. Guess not. Won’t watch any more of his junk!

  13. chocobonita says:

    Also artificial selection in arab/muslim countries. The people who questioned the religion or left it were killed for blasphemy/apostasy and therefore the ones who were left to procreate were the ones who never questioned anything and went along with the status quo.

  14. Negative Man says:

    Ban gender studies courses, they are so stupid

  15. Rick D. says:

    Creating an answer from axioms or rules of the game; Achilles can never overtake the tortoise because of infinite regress or Achilles will always overtake the tortoise given enough time because Achilles will always cover more distance than the tortoise in the same unit of time.

  16. b ro says:

    The word you seem to repeat quite a few times in your first couple of minutes is "theory". I know Richard Dawkins has attempted to alter the meaning of the word Theory, and I'm sure a large number of Theorists would agree with him. I find it laughable that one needs to alter a long understood meaning of a word to prove their theory as fact. I'm sure your vested interest in theoretical science makes it difficult to admit the nature of your "Science" , but the fact remains there is no definitive evidence for evolution. I can see all you indoctrinated believers and initiates into the secret societies known as intellectuals pulling out your hair and in some cases laughing, in some cases screaming, at my ignorance toward their expertise but I feel no remorse for bringing a basic fact to the table. You may point me toward The Museum of Natural History, and I would say filling a building with bones that may or may not be associated, plaster sculptures and diagrams does not constitute fact, just a badly put together theory. The omission of facts that do not fit the narrative is a long standing modus operandi for most modern sciences, so there is nothing new in denying the obvious to believe "The Norm". If you have definitive proof of your theory, it becomes fact, and unfortunately for you this is not the case.

  17. Sand Theb says:

    Most of what I see being tested in Evo Psych is about a biological response to certain stimuli, (because that is all they can actually test scientifically in that field) and after that change is measured, they draw a far reaching conclusion about how this was because our caveman ancestors, wanted to mate.

    In reality, the most fair and scientific thing they can do is, notice a weird trend in human's response to certain stimuli and then draw a conclusion based on what the experiment tells them, in most cases it's: "We don't know what that means, but we should experiment more to hopefully find out."

  18. IntrospectivePest says:

    you need to mirror your video horizontally, either that or the poster on the top left is written backwards ironically πŸ˜›

  19. J Hitchcock says:

    I sat in a college lecture hall this last semester and listened to a professor (of History) say, "Evolutionary Psychology is a weapon of the Alt-Right". This was followed by a member of the Office of Civility and Community Standards instruct these undergrads on how to anonymously report "those who demonstrate intolerance" to the office for investigation. These were guest panelists in an intro of sociology class. I taught a lab for that class and these people basically told my students that I was a bad person because I believe the findings of evolutionary science. smh

  20. Joseph Mason says:

    Is history (my subject) a science? It too deals with the past, but as a field of study it does not deal in hypotheses, at least not in a scientific way. It is narrative not theoretical, and the scientific method sits ill with the practice of history. Certainly great historical works have been written that are based on a view of events that embodies a theory; I instance Macaulay's History of England. He was the great Whig historian of the 19th century. But to dismiss the theory does not invalidate the history. If this were a science would not this dichotomy between the history and the theory behind it be impossible? To disagree with Macaulay's politics is not to disprove it as you would a scientific theory. So I contend that history is not a social science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *