= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Polling Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (118)
That may or may not be so, but ev-psych explanations are no more than post factum just-so stories, nothing but handwaving. They are useful to humans because humans have a need to have things explained, but they are not science.
Honestly, your comment appears to consist of a bunch of non-sequiturs. In case I'm missing something could you explain whether you think this is equally true of any evolutionary explanation. If not what's so special about ev-psych?
Basically, yes, "evolutionary explanations" are narratives and not science.
Ok, what about evolution itself, or the theory of the big bang? Basically, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "no more than post factum just-so stories, nothing but handwaving".
Evolution is a mechanism that can trivially be shown to work. Evolution can be demonstrated in species with short reproduction cycles. The Big Bang theory makes predictions about what you should see and what you should not see in reality. So far its predictions were correct.
So does ev-psych. If you mean that ev-psych rarely makes predictions as opposed to explaining existing data, the same appears to be true of the big bang.