I had to use google to find
quote:
Evolutionary Psychology continues to pop up in various threads regarding human behavior. This is particularly true for explanations of human sexuality, or attraction.
These explanations are not usually supported with evidence from science, or (rarely) when papers are mentioned, that a critical examination of their contents take place. And yet these explanations are treated by posters as if acceptable or accepted by both evolutionary theorists and psychologists alike... despite conflicting evidence presented on this matter.
this.
I cant see how things would have changed to where I would differ from what Holmes wrote here(declining to agree or not towards the end of the second section etc). Well before this post I discussed evopsych with Holmes and came to some amount of agreement about how wrong it was being taught (for me at Cornell)or used. So I really did not have much to disagree with Holmes about in the areas of most interest to me.
In this topic angle I can say that on reading
Lloyd’s book more closely since, that whatever agreement Holmes and I might create it would only amount to arguments against the audience that Lloyd asserts is Dawkins’ target. Thing is not only is this not my target I think Dawkins is wrong. I dont see much of need for a great debate on that.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
