Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Chomsky and Kropotkin
The quote by Chomsky introduced with Linguist and activist Noam Chomsky has said that evolutionary psychologists often ignore evidence that might harm the political status quo:
doesn't seem to support that summary to my eye. Daask (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Science vs Philosophy, and Natural vs Human Sciences, discrepancies.
Ethics as science and ethics as moral philosophy discern. Only the latter is prescriptive.
Evolutionary psychology is a subfield of biology, a hard science, and also consequently makes no prescription of right or wrong, as well as any axiological hipotetization.
"My" argument only ruminates on Pinker as a source, deconstructing in detail the matter and his statements.
Statements about natural phenomena have no relationship at all with moral conclusions.
The discussion on the entry fell into infinite regress due to fallacy fallacy fallacy based on this erroneous interpretation that biological fitness has anything to do with "rightness" from exclusive human science perspectives.
We are not dealing with humans as subjects, but with humans as animals, as any other animal, in the topic.
Also, psychology in general is not limited to human mind, nor evolutionary psychology.
Why are you mixing things up? They do no mix.
This is a natural science, not philosophy of science. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Your statements above are not relevant. Read WP:No original research. I had to revert your last string of edits because it was full of stuff that was not cited to any source. All material must be cited to a source. Read WP:V and WP:Cite your sources. Also, do not add material in front of an existing source that does not come from that source, thus making it look like it is supported when it is not. A bit of your material did have sources, so only that may be re-added if every point in it is supported by those sources. Also, when it comes to conflicting viewpoints from sources, keep WP:NPOV in mind. We as editors do not decide which side is right and which wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) You also need to write more simply and clearly. Stuff like "only the latter axiological/value prescriptive, and in concepts and arguments absolutely nontangent due to the indiscretion in between natural and human sciences" is not plain English as required by WP:MOS. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Pinker is the source. All of them posit the same argument.
The supposed "critics" are using is-ough problem to attack the idea on moral grounds in place of attacking the rationale behind the idea, which would be the correct atitude in dealing with a natural science.
There is no axiology proper on a biological approach. If they want to discuss ethics they can discuss ethics, but is has nothing to do with the validity of EP Claims. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems you are the ones decidiny to talk politics in place of english proper.
The current state of this topic is misleading. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC) ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
NPOV
This topic is misleading.
The "ethics" discussion revolves around political positions and concerns belonging to pure philosophy and to human sciences but not to natural sciences.
The discussion on ethics uses a fallacy fallacy to attack EP, and naturally since it is fallacious also the whole matter falls into infinite regression.
Editors are pushing views under the allegation a reliable source has not been presented to necessary edits, when it was, however initially mischaracterized.
Prescriptive, not descriptive, ethical positions do not concern natural sciences. EP doesn't make or promote prescriptive ethics or values.
If third parties make prescriptive claims utilizing EP the third parties themselves should be addressed, an not EP on malicious, unrelated and incompatible philosophical grounds. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of continually making vague complaints like this, both here and at Talk:Evolutionary psychology, you need to get specific. Either add reliably sourced material - and only such material - or else make a case that existing material is WP:UNDUE or misrepresents the source. I am by no means anti-evolutionary psychology; but you need to stick to what sources say. Editors' personal opinions are not relevant. Crossroads -talk- 22:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It was pinker position, not mine. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Science vs Philosophy, and Natural vs Human Sciences, discrepancies.
Science vs Philosophy, and Natural vs Human Sciences, discrepancies.
Ethics as science and ethics as moral philosophy discern. Only the latter is prescriptive.
Evolutionary psychology is a subfield of biology, a hard science, and also consequently makes no prescription of right or wrong, as well as any axiological hipotetization.
"My" argument only ruminates on Pinker as a source, deconstructing in detail the matter and his statements.
Statements about natural phenomena have no relationship at all with moral conclusions.
The discussion on the entry fell into infinite regress due to fallacy fallacy fallacy based on this erroneous interpretation that biological fitness has anything to do with "rightness" from exclusive human science perspectives.
We are not dealing with humans as subjects, but with humans as animals, as any other animal, in the topic.
Also, psychology in general is not limited to human mind, nor evolutionary psychology.
Why are you mixing things up? They do no mix.
This is a natural science, not philosophy of science. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your statements above are not relevant. Read WP:No original research. I had to revert your last string of edits because it was full of stuff that was not cited to any source. All material must be cited to a source. Read WP:V and WP:Cite your sources. Also, do not add material in front of an existing source that does not come from that source, thus making it look like it is supported when it is not. A bit of your material did have sources, so only that may be re-added if every point in it is supported by those sources. Also, when it comes to conflicting viewpoints from sources, keep WP:NPOV in mind. We as editors do not decide which side is right and which wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- You also need to write more simply and clearly. Stuff like "only the latter axiological/value prescriptive, and in concepts and arguments absolutely nontangent due to the indiscretion in between natural and human sciences" is not plain English as required by WP:MOS. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Pinker is the source. All of them posit the same argument.
The supposed "critics" are using is-ough problem to attack the idea on moral grounds in place of attacking the rationale behind the idea, which would be the correct atitude in dealing with a natural science.
There is no axiology proper on a biological approach. If they want to discuss ethics they can discuss ethics, but is has nothing to do with the validity of EP Claims. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems you are the ones decidiny to talk politics in place of english proper.
The current state of this topic is misleading. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Your statements above are not relevant. Read WP:No original research. I had to revert your last string of edits because it was full of stuff that was not cited to any source. All material must be cited to a source. Read WP:V and WP:Cite your sources. Also, do not add material in front of an existing source that does not come from that source, thus making it look like it is supported when it is not. A bit of your material did have sources, so only that may be re-added if every point in it is supported by those sources. Also, when it comes to conflicting viewpoints from sources, keep WP:NPOV in mind. We as editors do not decide which side is right and which wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) You also need to write more simply and clearly. Stuff like "only the latter axiological/value prescriptive, and in concepts and arguments absolutely nontangent due to the indiscretion in between natural and human sciences" is not plain English as required by WP:MOS. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Pinker is the source. All of them posit the same argument.
The supposed "critics" are using is-ough problem to attack the idea on moral grounds in place of attacking the rationale behind the idea, which would be the correct atitude in dealing with a natural science.
There is no axiology proper on a biological approach. If they want to discuss ethics they can discuss ethics, but is has nothing to do with the validity of EP Claims. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems you are the ones decidiny to talk politics in place of english proper.
The current state of this topic is misleading. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC) ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't copy and paste the comments that are already on the page. It's clutter. See WP:Citing sources. Doesn't matter if sources have the same ideas as you. You need to cite your sources. Crossroads -talk- 23:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)