That feeling when you realize that evolutionary psychology has no empirical basis

kys

Going slightly off topic with this but is there any empirical basis in psychology and psychiatry at all?

Epigenetics can verify that as well, but at least it does have empirical grounds.

I was just reading about cultural determinism only to get this fucked up about my core believes.

Behaviorism does have, but I don`t think that rest of that field does.

So, are you saying that genetics has no bearing on an organisms behavior?

Evolution itself has no empirical basis.

No, I`m just saying that alternative theories to evolutionary psychology seem to have better researched basis.

Says (((Who)))?

The (((People))) using germline warfare?

So, are you saying that epigenetics has an effect on behavior, but regular genetics doesn't?

epigenetics regulate regular genetics.

This is bait, but I'm curious, so here's your (You)

Yes, but regular genetics have an effect on an organisms behavior.

We already found genes that correlate with IQ, how far fetched can this be?

Indeed, but unfortunately there is no correlation between that proving evolutionary psychology empirically true.

This is empirically provable unlike sub-field of EP.

OP's thesis doesn't hang on one concept.

Evolutionary psychology is the study of how genetics relate to/control an organisms behavior.

Evolutionary Psychology is a theory, and this means that it is an explanation for a series of observations.

Theories can never be "Empirically True", only the evidence and facts can be empirically true.

Evolutionary Psychology is a theory (an explanation) for a series of observations.

I never said observable differences are not real, only that evo psych is useless to understanding them because a theory that cannot be tested is, by definition, unscientific.
It is psychology, after all. It's always toed the line of what constitutes science, and this particular example crosses it.

Why do newborn turtles move towards ocean?

They have no learnings, why they all do that?

I head feminism dislikes it as much as you do, chirstcuck, just one more thing you guys have in common

I`m not denying evolution here, only the assumption that it has control over humans who seem to be more controlled by cultural determinism.

Could you be more explicit? You seem to be stipulating that the explanation for such behavior must be either innate (nature) or learned (nurture/environment)

Social inclusion is an instinct.

It should be no surprise that most social organisms follow the current social memes of their tribe.

If we DIDN'T have these instincts for social inclusion, you wouldn't see so many sheep following what they BELIEVE is the herds beliefs (what the media tells them)

How would this notion be exempt from an evolutionary explanation - broadly speaking?

No, behavior is both innate, and learned.

Only the most basic behaviors are innate….

Social Inclusion, Pre-Winter binge eating, Fear response, etc…

All of the more complex behaviors are learned from others in our social environment, and accumulate over time (refinement, typically)

There is no instinct for language, but there ARE instincts for "Grooming" (monkeys picking bugs out of eachothers hair and whatnot)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response

ASMR is an example of a near vestigial grooming instinct that remains in some humans.

I bet you believe the apendix is useless too.

Darwinian evolution theory is empirically false and factually retarded.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_cognition

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_ecology

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

No. No it isn't. The whole concept of race is built around monotheism and kikes. There is no "race" in science; there are "populations"

Creationism is a meme created by the jews to keep most americans from recognizing the germline warfare strategy being used on Goy populations.

Genetic dumbing down by removing intelligent people from the gene pool, and subsidizing dumb people to breed more.

Thus, the next generation is dumber than the previous one, and thus easier to deceive.

Not really. Most of the tests cannot be replicated. The Social Sciences are not a "normal science" is Kuhnian terms

MODS PLS DELETE THIS THREAD AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP

PLEASE SAVE US FROM THIS OTHERTHINK MODS

Alright I'm out. Someone finally said it

I second the motion. These lame slide topics that have no actionable or salient results are getting old

you aren't understanding the OPs argument, friend. evolutionary psychology is what is called a "just-so" argument, and those are inherently unscientific

Uh, ever heard of niggers? They're the same all over the planet. Also, haven't there been studies of twins that have been separated their whole lives that ended up having the same or similar careers?

Doubt it. He stated it's not testable, which is false.

It's quite testable. They are able to manipulate and intervene on various independent variables by comparing cognition and genetics across species' behavior and brains. Both comparative cognition, behavioral ecology, and phylogenetic reconstruction allow us to work backwards through the evidence we have and reverse engineer the cognitive traits that humans and their ancestors have. It's not that I don't understand what is going on. It's that Holla Forums in general is utterly ignorant of science, especially psychology.

This isn't an argument (none of your posts in this thread are).

You don't understand contemporary philosophy of science ([email protected]/* */ Kuhn in your other post, contemporary philosophers of science are so far beyond the Popper-Kuhnian-Lakatos family resemblance positions that it really shows you are some amateur).

The problem with the just-so stories counter-arguments is that it ignores how hypotheses are generated. Firstly, it's basic Bayesianism in terms of generating multiple possibilities across a possibility space (spaces of phenotypes/genotypes). It's a good thing to generate these multiple possibilities that are grounded in plausible assumptions. They are able to be tested through the combination of comparison across species, and reverse engineering and reconstructing the phylogeny. Having multiple hypotheses to test is not a vice. Secondly, it ignores the mechanisms involved that put pressure on the hypotheses, e.g. peer review, experimental testing (as mentioned above), and other areas. Thirdly, it's a local critique that you take as a global critique. Saying something is a just so story, then concluding that human cognitive traits weren't evolved ignores the entire of evolution in general as well as human history.

Reminder also that the "just so" counters and the anti-adaptationist thinking came from the Marxist biologist Lewontin.

You'd have to be stupid to believe that the process of evolution didn't exert profound influence on the behavior of organisms. You are an organism. Your behavior has been influenced by your evolutionary history. This is not to discount nature v nurture - but the fact that you can learn from nurture is due to successfully evolving a "learning" nature.

Ev psych is hypothesizing about the portion of behavior explained by instinct which is explained by physical biological parts which come from genes. You can not prove that a behavior is explained only by nature. You can correctly assume that the more closely related a behavior is to feeding or fucking or fighting, the greater impact nature has on that behavior.

Ignoring the ev psych explanation because other theories are better developed is incorrect thinking. You must use all the paradigms of thought available to analyze a behavior and reject the low probability explanations while continuing to work on the higher probability explanations. Ev psych is, at worst, a 'just-so' story.

However, you can test hypotheses and confirm or deny predictions made by observing behavior in aggregate. Famous example - man staring into the fridge. Woman says you have to move stuff around to find what you are looking for. Man explains in the hunter gatherer past, he was a hunter and was rewarded with food if he was very still and waited for prey. Whereas she was a gatherer and had to move the underbrush around looking for edible plants.
This seems like an untestable just so story. But if you tested hundreds of people with a hidden camera fridge, you might find a distinct difference in food seeking behavior between the sexes. Further analysis might include comparison of eye movement patterns between the fridge starers and hunters, and between the fridge shufflers and people who are looking for berries innawoods, and see if they are reliable comparisons. That's a test of an ev psych hypothesis. It isn't untestable. It's really hard to think of tests and some hypotheses are practically untestable while others are just difficult to test.

you act like culture is not determined in whole or mostly from environment and the evolutionary pressures it places on its human population

Culture is mostly determined by genetics with a minor influence by the environment itself. Where do you think culture comes from?

best wojak ive ever seen

No. You cannot adequately falsify most of the claims of evolutionary psychology. We barely understand how the genes work let alone how they affect complex social behaviors.

kys

wew fucking lad. also you forgot Mr. Against Method

everyone, this is how you identify a shill (or a retard). They spit out a few names and then start "claiming authority" – its right in their handbook. I suggest you all read it if you haven't already
You are literally retarded kys

stopped reading there due to retardation. No one made that claim. Evolutionary psychology is simply not falsifiable and therefore cannot be used as an explanatory/predictive vehicle. It will always come down to some sort of reductionist and functionalist argument. I hope one day they can do better research, but right now there just isn't anything there.

Twinning is a valid falsifialble test. Do two individuals sharing similar DNA act similar?

The answer is yes.

If you hadn't stopped reading there your have found a seemingly untestable hypothesis and a proposed test

*you would have*

My apologies.

...

Not an argument.

You've basically stated: you cannot x most of y. With no sub-arguments for x (no arguments about how your proposed x works, you just repeat the same buzzwords over and over), and no argument about how x quantifies "mostly" over y (what subsets of y are not covered by x).

I also just gave you a bunch of scientific fields that actually do work on testability (EP work within comparative cognition, behavioral ecology, and phylogenetics). I explained to you on three points on how hypotheses ("muh just so stories") work in these fields (spaces of possibilities, the sieve of scientific practice, and local-global error). It's not that I'm wrong here, it's that you are an ignorant bitch who is not willing to admit you are out of your depth.

Appeal to ignorance. Also irrelevant. The claim was whether EP claims were testable. They are, and scientists do test them.

lmao. Exactly, in the social sciences. rolls eyes. No one in actual contemporary philosophy of science takes them seriously. Most laymen who don't have philosophical backgrounds are like 50 years behind in philosophy of science. They only have had an impact on the &HPS project in conceptual development. The philosopher David Stove blew them the fuck out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stove#Polemics_against_Popper_and_other_.27irrationalists.27 Everyone working on the structure of scientific theories blew them the fuck out. That program pretty much place Popper and his descendants in the syntactic program with claims about falsification, which is mostly discredited (everyone's a semanticist or a pragmatist on theories now, which is the most well-supported positions. They had some influence on these, but not that much).

Who cares, Feyerabend is only taken seriously by sociologists of science and hipster faggot prog grad students.

You are literally retarded kys

No, I'm not spitting out a few names, I'm educating your ignorance on philosophy of science. You were the first one to name drop him. No one takes that family resemblance position in philosophy of science that seriously within philosophy anymore. It's like approximately 60 years ago, and philosophy of science has moved at an incredibly fast pace beyond them. It's like someone saying Hobbes had all there was to say on politics, and solely sticking to Hobbesian philosophy while ignoring the ongoing philosophical conversation throughout the modern period.

Given you weren't able to produce an argument, I think I'm done here. Feel free to respond, but I doubt you'll produce anything of substance.

Agreed.

YOU NEED TO EMBRACE CHRIST

EVOLUTION IS A MYTH! It is a myth made by the synagogue of Satan!

Open your eyes to Christ!

Who told you that garbage? Your "womyn's" studies professor?

TED Talk: Moral behavior in animals by Frans de Waal.

youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

Get your shit together Holla Forums.

Creationism as a theory existed long before the jews even began writing their books in nearly every culture on earth, save for some extremely backwards cultures in Africa and Polynesia that never even examined such questions in the first place.

You're literally shooting explanations out of your ass on the spot so as to appeal to Holla Forums's sensibilities on jews so as to try and tilt the debate in your favor. It's a pathetic tactic. Inheritable intelligence is not only limited to Darwinian Evolution, nothing you spouted had anything to do with Darwinian Evolution.

Natural Selection

these individuals, then, have more viable offspring that pass on their genotype than an individual with, say, genotype "i". Since "i" is not as well adapted to the environment as "g" then "i" will not, as long as environmental conditions remain the same, replace "g" as the center-point of the genotypic spectrum of this species.

And again: Christcucks and Leftists agree on something. What a fucking surprise.

1. Between the Theistic/Creationist model and the Atheistic/Materialist model, which of the two models would predict such a mechanism as Natural Selection?
Well, Natural Selection is primarily a mechanism of conservation. It is not the "engine" of change that is so often claimed for it.

2. Which model would predict a mechanism that would allow for the conservation of a species?
If a Creator did indeed produce a purposeful creation, would not such a mechanism be expected?

3. How shall the Evolutionist explain the origination of the process of Natural Selection?
Clearly the Atheistic/Materialistic model neither predicts it nor can it provide a logical explanation for how it came about. We need not here enter into the discussion of the impossibility of the Evolutionary position to explain the origin of the genetic mechanisms themselves; the point is that the whole spectrum of scientific evidence relative to Natural Selection fits perfectly and without contradiction into the Creationist model.

Though the Evolutionist points to Natural Selection, he cannot do so in the same way as the Creationist. The Evolutionist must instead emphasize the exceptional circumstance rather than the normal circumstance.

TL;DR "Natural Selection" is not remotely good enough to use as an example of "accidental/random natural outcomes due to random/accidental environmental changes"
"Choice", "design", "purpose", etc. are all terminology specifically applicable only to Intelligent Design ie Creationism because these terms denote an awareness of a force capable of conscious decisions to "choose".

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: "nature, unrestrained by [man's theology] has processes that seem like intelligent design, but are not"
Maybe there's a reason nature, from the smallest microbes to the human eye and brain, seem to be designed

R-Selection & K-Selection
Frogs (and most amphibians) would be identified as "R-selectors".

>This alone is sufficient to demonstrate that, for all the sad anti-religious nonsense that predominates in scientific circles today, the Creationist model (the model of Intelligent Design ) is far more compelling and consistent with the scientific evidence before us.
Sadly the domineering Materialistic worldview would eliminate the freedom to think in any way other than the "orthodox" way of Naturalistic Materialism.

An Early Oxidizing Atmosphere

Not only this, but we are now aware that elemental oxygen is formed by the free dissociation of water molecules under ultra-violet radiation; without the ozone layer filtering out wave-lengths below 3000 Angstroms, this dissociation would result in a (relatively) large amount of elemental oxygen - enough, according to J.H. Carver1 to form an ozone layer at 0.01 PAL.

The point being that there is more evidence of an oxidizing atmosphere than there is against it. All current models of abiogenesis eliminate oxygen from the environment.

Indeed, J.C.G. Walker, in his "Evolution of the Atmosphere" said that the "strongest evidence for a reducing (no oxygen) atmosphere is that we know that chemical Evolution took place!"'

Not THAT is circular reasoning!

But neo-myth, double-think and otherwise is normal for Darwinians who pretend to be the arbiters of empirical truth.

>Foreword to The Mystery of Life’s Origin written by Dr. Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University (Book by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen)
>…In this brief summary of the reasons for my growing doubts that life on earth could have begun spontaneously by purely chemical and physical means, there isthe problem of the origin of genetic (i.e. biologically relevant) information in biopolymers :

No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides. Evidence for some degree of spontaneous sequence ordering has been published, but there is no indication whatsoever that the non-randomness is biologically significant. Until such evidence is forthcoming, I certainly cannot claim that the possibility of a Naturalistic origin of life has been demonstrated.

>The authors have addressed nearly all the problems enumerated above and several other important ones as well. They believe, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.

>I suspect that part of the answer is that many scientists would hesitate to accept the authors' conclusion that it is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems. Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would open the door to the possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of life.

I haven't even gotten into the issues of ATP Synthase and the colossal complexity of the human brain.

So you can either dig your head in the sand and keep worshiping that cartoon frog idol, or you can take a day to research the things you actually believe in instead of pretending to be enlightened while regurgitating the same bilge you've been fed by the world since before you realized what was meant by "Holla Forums is always right".

Link: vintage.aomin.org/specialcreation.html
amazon.com/Mystery-Lifes-Origin-Reassessing-Theories/dp/0802224474/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469844157&sr=8-1&keywords=the mystery of life's origin

...

And the concept of race is Jewish. We are taxonomically different and distinct.

Repent

Stop shilling you retarded motherfucker. Go back to 4chan and your retarded thinkdank friends, as i already told you i will bash your heads in.

The thing you retard do not understand that is social sciences use models that have no need to include evolutionary psychology in its general axioms because they operate from a certain complexity just like you the outer shells of sciences like maths=>physics=>chemistry.
You do not need to understand physics to program an app, nor do you need physics to make up a social model, you can simply circumvent it. So for the sake of simplifcation you do not need theoretical physics to describe how to catch a juicy boobcarrier or how to get one. That is the process or fundamentals you do not understand.

There is only one God you fucking heretic

Dubs confirm - there is only one God, and His name is Kek.

For the nonbelievers

Richard dawkins was beat up to make him shitpost about evolutionary psychology not being real? wow.

What really irks me is the false dichotomy set up between atheistic materialism and creationism (usually in the form of christcuck light) . Intelligence doesn't mean wisdom, knowledge or understanding, just capacity to acquire them. I have certain inclinations to attempt to better myself. That's something observable in lower primates, even as they lack consciousness, self-awareness as we understand it. There are ancient tribes that make no difference between living and non-living matter, I swear, they seem wiser than you faggots .

youtube.com/watch?v=55acTFvlL1s

...