Streetlights

I couldn't possibly speculate. Is this hypothetical phrenologist the sort of scientist who adjusts their position based on new evidence?

Well I'm not sure what counts as "used correctly" but I can direct you to some highly cited respectable papers

Barrett and Kurzban 2006 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16802884/

Provides an intro to fundamental disagreements around the scope and the mechanisms of adaptions. Long but comprehensive.

(You should he able to find a pdf of it if you don't have journal access)

Curtis et Al 2004

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810028/

Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from disease.

Edit:

I'll add this essay from Laith Al-Shawaf as well. It covers some of the misconceptions and changes the field has gone though over the last 20 years.

https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/

The premises that underpin any science is what separates it from a pseudoscience. Phrenology posits that random bumps on your skull predict mental abilities and behaviours, why? What mechanism could possibly be responsible for such a correlation. It was based on a theory that the brain was a group of muscles and like all muscles if you worked it it got bigger. Easily shown that this wasn't the case.

A bit like chiropractry positing that all diseases are due to the bones/spine being out of alignment.

What's the premise behind evopsych? Evolution. Where does animal behavior originate from? Is it entirely spontaneous? The brain, like every other organ, is subject to evolutionary pressures. Natural selection will produce behaviour that increases survivability, and that's it.

There's no need to be impolite. You seem to basing your opposition to the premise of evopsych entirely on exames where it has been applied badly.

If you accept that behaviour is subject to evolutionary pressures then we are on the same page.

It was in response to your claim that Evolutionary Psychology is the "the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour."

Well it doesn't refute that.

If you want to make that claim you need to support it with some kind of reference.

Well ok, perhaps "only accepted explanation" was claiming too much given that a large proportion of the population believe in souls or pure blank-slatism for human behavior.

For the non-human animals though, it certainly isn't controversial to say evolution is the only explanation for the origin of behaviour. What else could it be?

Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that’s not a criticism.

STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST

He's literally employed as professor of philosophy at City College New York

Maybe take a break from this?

Sorry, you don't get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.

Once again, I must remark upon your talent to insert words in place of other peoles'. At no point did I imply he wasn't a biologist, he is simply better described as primarily a philosopher given his work.

In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering: He has a doctorate in genetics from the University of Ferrara, Italy, a PhD in biology from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in philosophy of science from the University of Tennessee.

I mean he probably does? He's probably got a nicer house than me as well.

Did you read the article you posted where he concluded evopsych wasn't a pseudoscience? I'm not criticising him at all, he's actually supporting my point. I am beginning to suspect you didn't actually read it.

TWO doctorates in biology, but let's just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.

The use of caplocks is really helping get your point across.

Oh, I know, it wasn't a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article.

I can't help you

Give me a fucking break

Gladly, you've been deeply unpleasant and our time is limited.

This is not true. Firstly, Evolutionary Psychology is not involved with "animal" behavior in general, it is specific to human psychology.

Most of the field focuses on primates because, unsurprisingly, that's where we find most of psychology. It is wrong to say it has nothing to do with animals.

Ethology is the general study of animal behavior.

And botany is the study of plants? Every field in biology overlaps with evolution.

Also Evolutionary Psychology is not the only approach to studying human behavior either.

That's not a challenge to the premise of evopsych. If anything it sort of supports it.

Evolutionary psychology at its core twists the concept of genetic inheritence into justifications for racism and sexism, like phrenology before it.

That is not evopysch "at its core".

Again, you may as well describe darwinism as racist at its core.

These two examples are people taking existing science and misapplying them to things they don't have anything to do with.

Misapplying science doesn't make the science wrong.

Ah, so you've read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.

And skimmed the other two and found the same problem i mentioned earlier. Note, you aren't refuting that.

Dishonest.

Lazy maybe.

You dismissed my CFI link because

A correction is not a dismissal.

the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines."

Yes given that author concludes that evopsych has problems but isnt a pseudoscience. Sorry I thought you had read it.

And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you said "well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer" but that wasn't a dismissal of the article.

It's a semantic correction. CfI puts out press releases and policy documents and this was an invited article from a third party, not unworthy of clarification.

It's also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he's some nobody who doesn't know what he's talking about rather than a biologist.

I implied none of what you allege. Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that's not a criticism.

Greed certainly influences a lot of behaviour that we'd otherwise consider....questionable.

Do you tend to find they believe in conspiracy theories and nonsense that benefit them personally?

You didn't answer my question.

Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.

I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.

What was my "ludicrous" claim about the CFI?

Evolutionary psychology does start with a reasonable starting point, that some behaviors are passed genetically,

And that's the entire premise, evolution affects behaviour as well as physical attributes. The brain is not insulated against evolutionary pressures.

but then uses that to give excuses to things that are primarily learned or discourged through social and environmental pressures.

And that's where the (well earned) criticism comes from. As I said, loads of garbage is printed with "just so" stories. That does not make the premise invalid.

It takes something that is reasonable to speculate about as part of being biological but then twists it into justifications for racism and sexism by painting with broad brushes.

That's the same as saying darwinism is garbage because it led to eugenics.

Quantum mechanics isn't a garbage field because Deepak Shopra thinks it can cure baldness.