Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Evolutionary Psychology

Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:25:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
While I like Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) seems to be an exercise in rationalization, rather than an empirically testable field of science. Certainly, psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.

One of the positive traits that EP might have is predictability. If such a behavioral trait can be predicted based on evolutionary principles, beforehand, and then tested for, then does this lend some credence towards EP being an empirical field of science? One of the problems with this is that humans are diverse enough where a great many behavioral traits can be identified.

Here's some criticism on EP from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org...

My question is: do you think that Evolutionary Science can be legitimately considered an empirical field of science?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 7:39:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(
Not so! I was just busy cycling over the weekend. I found your post interesting and thoughtful. I'd formulated the bones of a response in my mind, but hadn't had time to research, write and post it because I wanted to think through which connections I wanted to draw with what, and how to support them with links.

So here's a hasty sort of off-the-cuff response, sans links. :)

psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.
Yes, it is conjectural, because all scientific theories begin as conjectures. That's fine if they subsequently progress toward hypothesis and falsifiability.

But the problem currently besetting evolutionary psychology is that turning conjecture into hypothesis requires some transparency of mechanism, and Ev Psych seems to lack such transparency at the moment. And while that's lacking, you're right to be suspicious, and you're not alone. :)

From my last reading in the area (which isn't current because I rushed this post :D):

The mechanisms for evolution are largely mapped, and are now traceable down to the gene level. Theoretically, the brain evolves because all organs do, so if the mind is a function of brain then it can also evolve. Unfortunately the missing mechanisms revolve around how the brain actually produces mind. In particular, which functions and predispositions of the human mind are influenced by the organic development of the brain, and which are shaped by the individual's experiences, education and social influences?

Until neurology is able to map this out, psychology in general must make do with behavioural analyses, but Ev. Psych struggles in particular, because evolution is an indirect process, and evolution of brain function has only limited fossil and other indirect, historical evidence.

That doesn't stop questions being asked, and conjectures being formed in answer. But I think they're somewhat ahead of the methods they need to test their conjectures, and that risks Ev. Psych drifting into pseudoscientific dogmatism.

Another area similarly vulnerable is cognitive linguistics, and we have a recent thread on that too. [http://www.debate.org...] It suffers for precisely the same reason: it needs a strong neurological foundation to detail its mechanisms and ensure it delivers significant, specific, testable prediction.

The questions on my mind, which I wanted to read about more before posting are:

1) Is it even valid as a science?
I feel I need to read more, but expect that at core it's valid, if only because you can explore the behavioural psychology and neurological function of other primates for comparison.

2) Is it progressing toward better falsifiability?
Again, I need to read more and see how it's coming along. But neurology is advancing, so Ev. Psych should be.

3) Is it producing significant, specific predictions likely to advance other sciences and be testable by them?
Eventually, it ought to! It ought to be enormously valuable to behavioural psychology and psychotherapy in general, and sociology in particular -- once it knows what it's talking about. :)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 2:06:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 7:39:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(
Not so! I was just busy cycling over the weekend. I found your post interesting and thoughtful. I'd formulated the bones of a response in my mind, but hadn't had time to research, write and post it because I wanted to think through which connections I wanted to draw with what, and how to support them with links.

Ah, I didn't mean to force a response like that; my comment was based more on other past threads. A weekend of cycling should always take precedence over responding to threads, here. :)

So here's a hasty sort of off-the-cuff response, sans links. :)

psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.
Yes, it is conjectural, because all scientific theories begin as conjectures. That's fine if they subsequently progress toward hypothesis and falsifiability.

But the problem currently besetting evolutionary psychology is that turning conjecture into hypothesis requires some transparency of mechanism, and Ev Psych seems to lack such transparency at the moment. And while that's lacking, you're right to be suspicious, and you're not alone. :)

One of the problems I foresee with formulating testable hypotheses is that since much of human (and animal) behavioral tendencies have already been pretty well identified. mapped, and researched through traditional psychology, it would be difficult to find "new territory" in which to form and then validate predictions. Otherwise, I feel the hypotheses would appear to be more Ad Hoc.

I know of a few evolutionary psychologists (such as Gad Saad, who publishes articles for Psychology Today), and I have used EP explanations in the past a few times to support arguments. I think I'll refrain from citing such explanations that go beyond the normal bounds of psychology.

From my last reading in the area (which isn't current because I rushed this post :D):

The mechanisms for evolution are largely mapped, and are now traceable down to the gene level. Theoretically, the brain evolves because all organs do, so if the mind is a function of brain then it can also evolve. Unfortunately the missing mechanisms revolve around how the brain actually produces mind. In particular, which functions and predispositions of the human mind are influenced by the organic development of the brain, and which are shaped by the individual's experiences, education and social influences?

Until neurology is able to map this out, psychology in general must make do with behavioural analyses, but Ev. Psych struggles in particular, because evolution is an indirect process, and evolution of brain function has only limited fossil and other indirect, historical evidence.

Right. The only evidence we have of soft-tissue elements, like organs, don't fossilize. This leaves us only with indirect lines of evidence; fossilized skulls (indicative of brain size) and artifacts (which allow us to draw conclusions about cognitive potential).

That doesn't stop questions being asked, and conjectures being formed in answer. But I think they're somewhat ahead of the methods they need to test their conjectures, and that risks Ev. Psych drifting into pseudoscientific dogmatism.

Another area similarly vulnerable is cognitive linguistics, and we have a recent thread on that too. [http://www.debate.org...] It suffers for precisely the same reason: it needs a strong neurological foundation to detail its mechanisms and ensure it delivers significant, specific, testable prediction.

The questions on my mind, which I wanted to read about more before posting are:

1) Is it even valid as a science?
I feel I need to read more, but expect that at core it's valid, if only because you can explore the behavioural psychology and neurological function of other primates for comparison.

2) Is it progressing toward better falsifiability?
Again, I need to read more and see how it's coming along. But neurology is advancing, so Ev. Psych should be.

3) Is it producing significant, specific predictions likely to advance other sciences and be testable by them?
Eventually, it ought to! It ought to be enormously valuable to behavioural psychology and psychotherapy in general, and sociology in particular -- once it knows what it's talking about. :)

Thank you for your valuable input, Ruv! If I'm off base or incomplete in any of my thoughts, above, I'd be happy to hear your input!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 2:55:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:25:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
While I like Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) seems to be an exercise in rationalization, rather than an empirically testable field of science. Certainly, psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.

One of the positive traits that EP might have is predictability. If such a behavioral trait can be predicted based on evolutionary principles, beforehand, and then tested for, then does this lend some credence towards EP being an empirical field of science? One of the problems with this is that humans are diverse enough where a great many behavioral traits can be identified.

Here's some criticism on EP from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org...

My question is: do you think that Evolutionary Science can be legitimately considered an empirical field of science?

You're first going to have to prove that the human perception of empiricism is accurate, and I don't know how you'll evaluate that using anything other than human perception.

Reminds me of "the nine mile walk", for some reason: "Give me any sentence of ten or twelve words," he said, "and I"ll build you a logical chain of inferences that you never dreamed of when you framed the sentence." The analog here being that all evolutionary science is built on the unlikely premise that an evolved amoeba can traffic in objective truth. http://www.101bananas.com...
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 3:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 2:55:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:25:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
While I like Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) seems to be an exercise in rationalization, rather than an empirically testable field of science. Certainly, psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.

One of the positive traits that EP might have is predictability. If such a behavioral trait can be predicted based on evolutionary principles, beforehand, and then tested for, then does this lend some credence towards EP being an empirical field of science? One of the problems with this is that humans are diverse enough where a great many behavioral traits can be identified.

Here's some criticism on EP from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org...

My question is: do you think that Evolutionary Science can be legitimately considered an empirical field of science?

You're first going to have to prove that the human perception of empiricism is accurate, and I don't know how you'll evaluate that using anything other than human perception.

You're conflating "empiricism" and the adjective, "empiric". It's not the same thing.

Reminds me of "the nine mile walk", for some reason: "Give me any sentence of ten or twelve words," he said, "and I"ll build you a logical chain of inferences that you never dreamed of when you framed the sentence." The analog here being that all evolutionary science is built on the unlikely premise that an evolved amoeba can traffic in objective truth. http://www.101bananas.com...

I found the link amusing, but the analogy is weak, and is based on a mischaracterization of evolutionary science.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:32:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 3:21:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/27/2016 2:55:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:25:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
While I like Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) seems to be an exercise in rationalization, rather than an empirically testable field of science. Certainly, psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.

One of the positive traits that EP might have is predictability. If such a behavioral trait can be predicted based on evolutionary principles, beforehand, and then tested for, then does this lend some credence towards EP being an empirical field of science? One of the problems with this is that humans are diverse enough where a great many behavioral traits can be identified.

Here's some criticism on EP from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org...

My question is: do you think that Evolutionary Science can be legitimately considered an empirical field of science?

You're first going to have to prove that the human perception of empiricism is accurate, and I don't know how you'll evaluate that using anything other than human perception.

You're conflating "empiricism" and the adjective, "empiric". It's not the same thing.


lol. The things people find to disagree on!

But I'm quite sure you miss the point entirely, and I was pretty sure you would when I typed it. You probably wouldn't be an evolutionist if you did get it, or at least you'd be a far more tentative enthusiast. So what can you infer from that bit of insight into my psyche, I wonder...
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:10:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:32:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/27/2016 3:21:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/27/2016 2:55:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:25:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
While I like Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) seems to be an exercise in rationalization, rather than an empirically testable field of science. Certainly, psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.

One of the positive traits that EP might have is predictability. If such a behavioral trait can be predicted based on evolutionary principles, beforehand, and then tested for, then does this lend some credence towards EP being an empirical field of science? One of the problems with this is that humans are diverse enough where a great many behavioral traits can be identified.

Here's some criticism on EP from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org...

My question is: do you think that Evolutionary Science can be legitimately considered an empirical field of science?

You're first going to have to prove that the human perception of empiricism is accurate, and I don't know how you'll evaluate that using anything other than human perception.

You're conflating "empiricism" and the adjective, "empiric". It's not the same thing.


lol. The things people find to disagree on!

But I'm quite sure you miss the point entirely, and I was pretty sure you would when I typed it. You probably wouldn't be an evolutionist if you did get it, or at least you'd be a far more tentative enthusiast.

You referred to empiricism as a noun and other than that, I didn't perceive a relevant point. Could you rephrase/restate, please?

Just 'cuz...
Empiricism : The theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. [Oxford]

Empirical : Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. [Oxford]

So what can you infer from that bit of insight into my psyche, I wonder...

Unless a person is explicitly and obviously demonstrating a particular psychological tendency, then I will not psychological analyze any individual because psychology represents overall behavioral tendencies of humanity, which are far from uniform for all humans. So, no worries, there. :)
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:50:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 7:39:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Hi Ruv! Interesting an insightful posts, as usual. :)
Another area similarly vulnerable is cognitive linguistics, and we have a recent thread on that too. [http://www.debate.org...] It suffers for precisely the same reason: it needs a strong neurological foundation to detail its mechanisms and ensure it delivers significant, specific, testable prediction.
If you'll allow me to make a slight correction, cognitive linguistics doesn't refer to the field of language cognition but rather to a specific school or paradigm within it. It is led by linguists like Lakoff, Talmy and Langacker, who explain linguistic meaning and form in terms of domain-general cognitive processes. That's why they frequently invoke image schemas, metaphors, force dynamics, etc. They are vehemently opposed to 'essentialist' thought on Chomsky's side, which focuses on the study of the language faculty, a purported cognitive module that is largely domain-specific.

BTW, language cognition has made friends with evolutionary psychology in recent years. :P The psychologists in this interdisciplinary field are divided largely on the same lines that divide linguistics...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 10:36:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:25:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
While I like Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) seems to be an exercise in rationalization, rather than an empirically testable field of science. Certainly, psychological trends can be tested, but the attribution of these to evolutionary principles seems conjectural.

One of the positive traits that EP might have is predictability. If such a behavioral trait can be predicted based on evolutionary principles, beforehand, and then tested for, then does this lend some credence towards EP being an empirical field of science? One of the problems with this is that humans are diverse enough where a great many behavioral traits can be identified.

Here's some criticism on EP from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org...

My question is: do you think that Evolutionary Science can be legitimately considered an empirical field of science?

No, not an empirical field because there's no evidence to examine. It's all speculative, as you say. It's important to think about evolution in relation to what the mind is, what it does, what knowledge is, etc., but that's theoretical rather than empirical.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 10:41:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:50:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/26/2016 7:39:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Hi Ruv! Interesting an insightful posts, as usual. :)
Hoy, DC!

Another area similarly vulnerable is cognitive linguistics, and we have a recent thread on that too. [http://www.debate.org...] It suffers for precisely the same reason: it needs a strong neurological foundation to detail its mechanisms and ensure it delivers significant, specific, testable prediction.
If you'll allow me to make a slight correction, cognitive linguistics doesn't refer to the field of language cognition but rather to a specific school or paradigm within it.
You're right that it's a referent for a paradigm, DC, and that's the way we were both using it in the other thread. However, the same issue is turning up in Ev Psych: a popular paradigm is becoming conflated with the question it is meant to solve.

As you rightly discerned, I meant the question (which should be around for a long while) rather than a putative frame for answering it (which might well change much sooner), but should have clarified my intention.

BTW, language cognition has made friends with evolutionary psychology in recent years. :P The psychologists in this interdisciplinary field are divided largely on the same lines that divide linguistics...
I'm unsurprised to hear it because now that my Ev Psych reading is starting to catch up, they seem to be waiting on precisely the same kinds of neurological data. :) I'm not sure how much value there is in a multidisciplinary collaboration where both sides lack critical data. It might end up becoming the deaf yelling at the blind how to lead them -- but nevertheless I wish them well. :)
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 12:04:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 10:41:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:50:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Another area similarly vulnerable is cognitive linguistics, and we have a recent thread on that too. [http://www.debate.org...] It suffers for precisely the same reason: it needs a strong neurological foundation to detail its mechanisms and ensure it delivers significant, specific, testable prediction.
If you'll allow me to make a slight correction, cognitive linguistics doesn't refer to the field of language cognition but rather to a specific school or paradigm within it.
You're right that it's a referent for a paradigm, DC, and that's the way we were both using it in the other thread. However, the same issue is turning up in Ev Psych: a popular paradigm is becoming conflated with the question it is meant to solve.
I think, if my understanding of EP is correct, that the two situations are not exactly analogous. Cognitive linguistics is not the mainstream paradigm in studies of language cognition; if any one paradigm can be said to be the mainstream, it is Chomsky's, which is pretty much the opposite end of the scale. Nobody really thinks of 'cognitive linguistics' as the same as the field of language cognition; it has always been exclusively a paradigm, despite its name. On the other hand, evolutionary psychology seems to be the dominant paradigm in its field (studying the phylogeny - and perhaps, as a result, ontogeny - of cognitive processes, through the lens of evolution).
As you rightly discerned, I meant the question (which should be around for a long while) rather than a putative frame for answering it (which might well change much sooner), but should have clarified my intention.

BTW, language cognition has made friends with evolutionary psychology in recent years. :P The psychologists in this interdisciplinary field are divided largely on the same lines that divide linguistics...
I'm unsurprised to hear it because now that my Ev Psych reading is starting to catch up, they seem to be waiting on precisely the same kinds of neurological data. :) I'm not sure how much value there is in a multidisciplinary collaboration where both sides lack critical data. It might end up becoming the deaf yelling at the blind how to lead them -- but nevertheless I wish them well. :)
I haven't looked that deeply into evolutionary linguistics to be honest, though I think that currently, the trend is to use computational modelling to test the plausibility of different hypotheses. I don't know how fruitful the line of enquiry will turn out to be, though :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 1:36:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Yeah, and if you're talking about creationism, you're talking about human nature. And who really cares about love and hate and beauty and jealousy and stuff like that, right? Let's stick with neurons, leave that boring abstract metaphysical stuff to the creationists.
This space for rent.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 4:46:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 1:36:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Yeah, and if you're talking about creationism, you're talking about human nature. And who really cares about love and hate and beauty and jealousy and stuff like that, right? Let's stick with neurons, leave that boring abstract metaphysical stuff to the creationists.

Sorry. That came across as more dismissive than I intended. It's more like, because I don't believe in God, the arguments about creationism are not relevant to me. Because I'm studying science, occasionally I'm interested in scientific topics. But actually, only sometimes. It's beginning to alarm me how often science is boring. I think because I don't like the ways people engage with it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:20:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 4:46:02 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/28/2016 1:36:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Yeah, and if you're talking about creationism, you're talking about human nature. And who really cares about love and hate and beauty and jealousy and stuff like that, right? Let's stick with neurons, leave that boring abstract metaphysical stuff to the creationists.

Sorry. That came across as more dismissive than I intended. It's more like, because I don't believe in God, the arguments about creationism are not relevant to me. Because I'm studying science, occasionally I'm interested in scientific topics. But actually, only sometimes. It's beginning to alarm me how often science is boring. I think because I don't like the ways people engage with it.

Maybe you should try engineering.
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:02:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Thanks. Yes, that's a common topic, as well as the validity of evolutionary theory. I was concerned about this thread turning into such a discussion. In any case, although I don't claim to be significantly literate in a scientific sense, I have independently studied a large spectrum of psychological topics. Unfortunately, the few threads I've authored in the past didn't really go anywhere.
NinaZarechnaya
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:41:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I wouldn't say EP is an empirical science, though of course, its theoretical nature makes it no less interesting or useful. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn with theoretical physics (my own scientific inclination), in that both fields seek to theoretically explain and rationalise certain phenomena or properties and judgement of their explanations is based to a degree on agreement with empirical data.

At 6/28/2016 1:36:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Yeah, and if you're talking about creationism, you're talking about human nature. And who really cares about love and hate and beauty and jealousy and stuff like that, right? Let's stick with neurons, leave that boring abstract metaphysical stuff to the creationists.

I'm not sure what creationism in the loosest sense has to do with human nature; if none of the postulated creator's attributes are taken into account, nothing at all is inferred about human nature.

(Sorry for the derailment :/)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:46:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:02:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Thanks. Yes, that's a common topic, as well as the validity of evolutionary theory. I was concerned about this thread turning into such a discussion. In any case, although I don't claim to be significantly literate in a scientific sense, I have independently studied a large spectrum of psychological topics. Unfortunately, the few threads I've authored in the past didn't really go anywhere.

Well, "Evolutionary Psychology" is pretty close to an oxymoron. "Psyche" is defined as "human soul, mind, or spirit". If a human actually has a soul, mind, or spirit, it cannot have come into existence by evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution has to claim all of these are a sort of illusion. The brain is a machine, and if you want to call certain behaviors 'soul' or the like, the behaviors are still just machine function.

And of course the evolutionist doesn't believe the last two sentences any more than I do. I'm just continuously fascinated that the evolutionist cannot see this dissonance and is able to function in spite of it. Then again, maybe it does gnaw at you, and that's why evolutionists are always trying to dismiss the creationist.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:41:34 PM, NinaZarechnaya wrote:
I wouldn't say EP is an empirical science, though of course, its theoretical nature makes it no less interesting or useful. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn with theoretical physics (my own scientific inclination), in that both fields seek to theoretically explain and rationalise certain phenomena or properties and judgement of their explanations is based to a degree on agreement with empirical data.

At 6/28/2016 1:36:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Yeah, and if you're talking about creationism, you're talking about human nature. And who really cares about love and hate and beauty and jealousy and stuff like that, right? Let's stick with neurons, leave that boring abstract metaphysical stuff to the creationists.

I'm not sure what creationism in the loosest sense has to do with human nature; if none of the postulated creator's attributes are taken into account, nothing at all is inferred about human nature.


Exactly. Walk your thought backwards. If man IS nature, he doesn't HAVE a nature.
This space for rent.
NinaZarechnaya
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 7:54:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:49:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:41:34 PM, NinaZarechnaya wrote:
I wouldn't say EP is an empirical science, though of course, its theoretical nature makes it no less interesting or useful. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn with theoretical physics (my own scientific inclination), in that both fields seek to theoretically explain and rationalise certain phenomena or properties and judgement of their explanations is based to a degree on agreement with empirical data.

At 6/28/2016 1:36:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Yeah, and if you're talking about creationism, you're talking about human nature. And who really cares about love and hate and beauty and jealousy and stuff like that, right? Let's stick with neurons, leave that boring abstract metaphysical stuff to the creationists.

I'm not sure what creationism in the loosest sense has to do with human nature; if none of the postulated creator's attributes are taken into account, nothing at all is inferred about human nature.


Exactly. Walk your thought backwards. If man IS nature, he doesn't HAVE a nature.

Naturalism =/= belief that humans are nature. It follows from a naturalist description that humans are natural, and have no supernatural components, but this does not make them equal to all of nature.

Also, human nature means something along the lines of "basic human condition" in this context. Creationism at base says nothing about whether or not this exists, and nor do any other descriptions of the universe.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:46:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:02:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Thanks. Yes, that's a common topic, as well as the validity of evolutionary theory. I was concerned about this thread turning into such a discussion. In any case, although I don't claim to be significantly literate in a scientific sense, I have independently studied a large spectrum of psychological topics. Unfortunately, the few threads I've authored in the past didn't really go anywhere.

Well, "Evolutionary Psychology" is pretty close to an oxymoron. "Psyche" is defined as "human soul, mind, or spirit".

The word "psychology" evolved from such a meaning, but that doesn't reflect what the concept is, today (http://www.etymonline.com...). This is in the same sense that people say, "from the heart", in that, the intended concept is not literally represented by the phrasing.

If a human actually has a soul, mind, or spirit, it cannot have come into existence by evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution has to claim all of these are a sort of illusion. The brain is a machine, and if you want to call certain behaviors 'soul' or the like, the behaviors are still just machine function.

And of course the evolutionist doesn't believe the last two sentences any more than I do. I'm just continuously fascinated that the evolutionist cannot see this dissonance and is able to function in spite of it. Then again, maybe it does gnaw at you, and that's why evolutionists are always trying to dismiss the creationist.

I would prefer this thread not turn into another evolution vs. creationism thread, so please, for the sake of this discussion, the evolutionary principles shall be assumed to be true within the confines of this thread. As such, I shall refrain from responding to the rest of your post, here.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:08:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 7:54:22 PM, NinaZarechnaya wrote:
...

Also, human nature means something along the lines of "basic human condition" in this context.

And how can man have a 'condition' - ? This is still an evaluation made from a frame of reference outside of the human condition. So you're back to admitting to an external reality, no matter how hard you try to steer around it.

Creationism at base says nothing about whether or not this exists,

Creationism implies an external frame of reference, at the least. Perhaps other non-theist worldviews do as well, but I'm not aware of them.
This space for rent.
NinaZarechnaya
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:12:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:08:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:54:22 PM, NinaZarechnaya wrote:
...

Also, human nature means something along the lines of "basic human condition" in this context.

And how can man have a 'condition' - ? This is still an evaluation made from a frame of reference outside of the human condition. So you're back to admitting to an external reality, no matter how hard you try to steer around it.

Creationism at base says nothing about whether or not this exists,

Creationism implies an external frame of reference, at the least. Perhaps other non-theist worldviews do as well, but I'm not aware of them.

I don't know what you mean by external; external to what?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:05:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:46:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:02:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Thanks. Yes, that's a common topic, as well as the validity of evolutionary theory. I was concerned about this thread turning into such a discussion. In any case, although I don't claim to be significantly literate in a scientific sense, I have independently studied a large spectrum of psychological topics. Unfortunately, the few threads I've authored in the past didn't really go anywhere.

Well, "Evolutionary Psychology" is pretty close to an oxymoron. "Psyche" is defined as "human soul, mind, or spirit".

The word "psychology" evolved from such a meaning, but that doesn't reflect what the concept is, today (http://www.etymonline.com...).

Yes, this is what I mean by 'a sort of illusion'. But I think very few people today realize how much of such post-modern science is built on a language of analogy. And I don't think you'd do that if our meaning-world words weren't the only suitable ones.

If a human actually has a soul, mind, or spirit, it cannot have come into existence by evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution has to claim all of these are a sort of illusion. The brain is a machine, and if you want to call certain behaviors 'soul' or the like, the behaviors are still just machine function.

And of course the evolutionist doesn't believe the last two sentences any more than I do. I'm just continuously fascinated that the evolutionist cannot see this dissonance and is able to function in spite of it. Then again, maybe it does gnaw at you, and that's why evolutionists are always trying to dismiss the creationist.

I would prefer this thread not turn into another evolution vs. creationism thread, so please, for the sake of this discussion, the evolutionary principles shall be assumed to be true within the confines of this thread. As such, I shall refrain from responding to the rest of your post, here.

And you'll hope that will keep me from continuing to point out that you're operating from an incoherent starting position, right?

By all means, ignore the pesky engineer who wants you to spend more time getting the foundation right. The important thing is to start laying those blocks.
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:20:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:15:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:05:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:46:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 7:02:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 11:16:54 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/26/2016 6:03:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Dang. I take it that no one is inclined towards psychology, here? :(

I am but I don't come on the science forum much because it's always about creationism. This is really interesting question.

Thanks. Yes, that's a common topic, as well as the validity of evolutionary theory. I was concerned about this thread turning into such a discussion. In any case, although I don't claim to be significantly literate in a scientific sense, I have independently studied a large spectrum of psychological topics. Unfortunately, the few threads I've authored in the past didn't really go anywhere.

Well, "Evolutionary Psychology" is pretty close to an oxymoron. "Psyche" is defined as "human soul, mind, or spirit".

The word "psychology" evolved from such a meaning, but that doesn't reflect what the concept is, today (http://www.etymonline.com...).

Yes, this is what I mean by 'a sort of illusion'. But I think very few people today realize how much of such post-modern science is built on a language of analogy. And I don't think you'd do that if our meaning-world words weren't the only suitable ones.

If a human actually has a soul, mind, or spirit, it cannot have come into existence by evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution has to claim all of these are a sort of illusion. The brain is a machine, and if you want to call certain behaviors 'soul' or the like, the behaviors are still just machine function.

And of course the evolutionist doesn't believe the last two sentences any more than I do. I'm just continuously fascinated that the evolutionist cannot see this dissonance and is able to function in spite of it. Then again, maybe it does gnaw at you, and that's why evolutionists are always trying to dismiss the creationist.

I would prefer this thread not turn into another evolution vs. creationism thread, so please, for the sake of this discussion, the evolutionary principles shall be assumed to be true within the confines of this thread. As such, I shall refrain from responding to the rest of your post, here.

And you'll hope that will keep me from continuing to point out that you're operating from an incoherent starting position, right?

By all means, ignore the pesky engineer who wants you to spend more time getting the foundation right. The important thing is to start laying those blocks.

Not at all. It's just that I have a specific intention for this thread. I will happily engage in this conversation in a separate thread. I'll extract this and start a new thread soon.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:36:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:20:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

Not at all. It's just that I have a specific intention for this thread. I will happily engage in this conversation in a separate thread. I'll extract this and start a new thread soon.

Well, don't do it for me - I'm done. Not sure why I jumped in anyway.
This space for rent.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 8:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 8:36:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2016 8:20:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...

Not at all. It's just that I have a specific intention for this thread. I will happily engage in this conversation in a separate thread. I'll extract this and start a new thread soon.

Well, don't do it for me - I'm done. Not sure why I jumped in anyway.

Dang! I just finished typing the response out! ;p

No problem, I'll talk to you again in the future. :)