22
Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
(youtu.be)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
22 points (75.0% liked)
Skeptic
1334 readers
1 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I couldn't possibly speculate. Is this hypothetical phrenologist the sort of scientist who adjusts their position based on new evidence?
I guess what I'm getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That's a tough set of criteria, but I think it's required.
The premise upon which it was based was later shown to be false.
Right! So accepted "science" can become pseudoscience once further discoveries are made. I think we all agree on that. The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience. To be clear, I am not proposing we try and guess the future, but to look at the state of the science now and extrapolate that as best we can into the future.
I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I'm not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.
So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?
Respectfully, the point of contention appears to be between the several users who have already concluded it is a pseudoscience and myself who has not.
The fundamental premise on which it lies is evolution by natural selection. Yes, the possibility exists that may one day be falsified but....its pragmatic to continue as if that is unlikely.
That is most welcome.
The premises are fairly robust, and I've not seen a convincing argument against them. Nothing is certain so I wouldn't describe myself as ideologically married to it.
That all works for me. Again, I have no opinion on evopsych itself because I just genuinely know nothing about it. Might read up a bit on the sources from the opposing narratives in the thread if I get time. I don't think you in particular are approaching it from an unscientific or unethical point of view, but it could just be a bit of guilt by association with individuals who are using the topic nefariously. It's not very fair, but it is common and I kinda understand why.
Thank you, I am happy to share some links for further reading if you are interested.
Sure thing, always happy to add to my reading list.
Well an easy intro is misconceptions in evopsych
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/
Which dispatches pretty much all the strawman objections.
Then I'd recommend the followup
Predicting new findings. https://areomagazine.com/2020/10/20/evolutionary-psychology-predictively-powerful-or-riddled-with-just-so-stories/
Contemporary essays that don't shy away from the awkward past.
They are not. They are, however, platforming a virulent racist, as my Rationalwiki link at the top shows.
I've seen you enough Squid to know you're not approaching this in bad faith either, as much as just reacting to what is likely exactly what you say. This is a tough situation because I don't feel that either of you are racist/reactive respectively as much as just sharing info you feel is important. Platforming is weird and nuanced and I do think the other commentor is trying to separate the racist prof from the ideology itself, which could be applied in a non-racist manner. I still think that platforming is open to criticism even if the intent is noble, so that's a valid bone to pick.
Again though, no skin in this game and I have not personally research any of the science or people involved. I just don't want to see what could be a productive argument on a science turn into the rhetoric/semantics debate that online discussions inevitably turn into.
Edit: And also, I'm not trying to approach this from a high and mighty perspective. I just know it's easy to get lost in it when you're passionate. A brief glance at my history would tell you I'm by no means immune to a good internet argument.
How can you separate him from what he says when he is saying it from a racist lens? Even if evolutionary psychiatry is valid science, they are having it presented by a racist (and also a climate change denier).
I think that's a valid take I'd like to see discussion on. For me, I think it's not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I'm certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.
Don't let me get started in what Isaac Newton used to believe. It ought to be a crime that we still teach his laws of motion in school.
Pinker didn't live before 1900. He's alive in 2024 and he's a racist and climate change denier who OP expects to tell us about science.
Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don't know who the guy is yet). I've met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.
I'm not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It's also fully possible I'm getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I'm not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.