I've recently been arguing with some internet morons who were claiming that their inalienable right (as 40-something-year-old men) to lech at young women was down to biology. At the time, I found this, which is not strictly anti ev-psych, but is kind of telling about how this particular human behaviour is not really linked to biological determinism.
I think the main point (scientifically) is that virtually every claim made by ev-psych proponents has not been properly subjected to tests in order to see if it can be falsified. There is a huge lack of controlled experiments (ones with an actual control, not 'rigidly organised', although that's probably also true) and poor use of statistics plus lack of elimination of confounding factors in virtually all gender-difference studies that I've read.
I hate that Pinker gets to claim any knowledge in the biological sciences; he's a psychologist, which is a completely different field, and he doesn't honestly seem to know much about genetics, evolution or developmental biology.
Thanks, good post.
I think the main point (scientifically) is that virtually every claim made by ev-psych proponents has not been properly subjected to tests in order to see if it can be falsified. There is a huge lack of controlled experiments (ones with an actual control, not 'rigidly organised', although that's probably also true) and poor use of statistics plus lack of elimination of confounding factors in virtually all gender-difference studies that I've read.
I hate that Pinker gets to claim any knowledge in the biological sciences; he's a psychologist, which is a completely different field, and he doesn't honestly seem to know much about genetics, evolution or developmental biology.