Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(33,688 posts)
22. Actually it is not hard to imagine an experiment
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:12 AM
Jul 2012

that would be most interesting if not exactly practical. There are peoples in the world who have had virtually no contact with the modern world. Examining their responses to the sorts of images/inputs used by the scientists in the study cited in the OP would at the very least provide an interesting control or baseline.

One either accepts the scientific method or one doesn't. If one does not accept the validity of the scientific method and its applicability to the investigation of phenomena in the universe, one is inhabiting the same intellectual (and I use that word loosely and advisedly) world as the cretins responsible for the creation museum.

No reputable scientist in any field starts with a conclusion, for this is antithetical to the scientific method and deductive logic. All real science starts with a hypothesis of the "Might there be a connection between X and Y, and if so, how might it operate?" Such a hypothesis fulfills the first, and most important principle of real science: Is the hypothesis falsifiable? If such a hypothesis is not shown to be false, it is then subject to further and deeper investigation. This is the basis for every advancement in knowledge humankind has made since at least the Renaissance in every field from physics and astronomy to medicine to psychology. Even something as abstract as philosophy is bound to the iron rules of logic and reason.

Lastly, while I have only a nodding acquaintance with evolutionary psychology and will argue neither for or against it, it seems entirely possible that certain pathways are hard-wired in to the human brain. Any reputable evolutionary biologist will tell anyone willing to listen that virtually everything about humans and their ancestors has changed, via the process of Darwinian natural selection, over many millennia. It does not seem at all far-fetched that certain behavior and perceptions patterns may be embedded in the depths of the brain, which neuroscience is only beginning to understand. To say that there is no case to be made, on what are essentially ideological grounds, for saying that certain behavior and perception patterns may not have contriuted to the process of human evolution seems to me to be short-sighted and close-minded. Further investigation is definitely merited. Let the chips fall where they may, but let science and its methods make that determination.

Science is what it is. It has rules, embodied in the timeless principles of the scientific method, the first of which is that nothing can be precluded unless it has been subject to experiment and falsified thereby. One either accepts and respects those rules or rejects them; however, they remain true whether or not one accepts them. As a matter of pure logic, that is simply the way it is.

Science, no, ideology yes. hifiguy Jul 2012 #1
Uh, yeah... I can read, thanks. redqueen Jul 2012 #5
Peer-reviewed science is what it is. hifiguy Jul 2012 #6
Do you understand what those words mean? redqueen Jul 2012 #8
I certainly do. hifiguy Jul 2012 #10
Her methodology is sound I'm sure. redqueen Jul 2012 #12
There is no abusive language and the parallel is appropriate. hifiguy Jul 2012 #17
" you sound like a climate-change denier?"" I am being thoroughly civil here." ah, no. seabeyond Jul 2012 #14
do you have the fainist idea how much you sound like an evo babbler??? seabeyond Jul 2012 #9
The one and ONLY pont I made in post #1 hifiguy Jul 2012 #13
you have made it clear since it made "peer-reviewed academic journal" it is valid. seabeyond Jul 2012 #15
Your statement is faith-based hifiguy Jul 2012 #18
you would be wrong, but dont let that stop you. nt seabeyond Jul 2012 #19
How do you infer Evo? One_Life_To_Give Jul 2012 #2
This part: redqueen Jul 2012 #3
totally amazing tying evo babble to this when from the day girls and boys are born they are taught seabeyond Jul 2012 #11
Actually it is not hard to imagine an experiment hifiguy Jul 2012 #22
there is plenty of documentation that challenges this. you obviously did not read any of it. to me, seabeyond Jul 2012 #23
Actually, I read that link, and most of the comments. hifiguy Jul 2012 #24
unilaterally attack Evolutionary Psychology is to deny that there is any part of human behaviour seabeyond Jul 2012 #25
Jeezus. hifiguy Jul 2012 #26
i can say the same right back at you. so why bother? i have no desire to converse with a person seabeyond Jul 2012 #27
I "throw out insults" hifiguy Jul 2012 #34
I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych MadrasT Jul 2012 #4
In addition to the comment quoted in post three, there's this... redqueen Jul 2012 #7
Ahhhhhhhhh MadrasT Jul 2012 #35
evo babble dismisses all of history for the first moment in time. they ignore conditioning, nurture, seabeyond Jul 2012 #16
Explain this: pscot Jul 2012 #28
see... this is exactly the crap i am talking about. you define it thru this period of time seabeyond Jul 2012 #29
Peer reviewed it may be ismnotwasm Jul 2012 #20
there are many explanations about the issues with evo psych. here are 6 major, not even the minor seabeyond Jul 2012 #21
Like clockwork... redqueen Jul 2012 #30
this would be a never ending process we do with women. but hell, lets not consider seabeyond Jul 2012 #31
I guess that writer at iO9 had no problem seizing onto the evo psych angle. redqueen Jul 2012 #32
"the media is probably a prime suspect." seabeyond Jul 2012 #33
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»An example of junk scienc...»Reply #22