"What surprises me is your suggestion to be upset about the reluctance of people to treat sociobiology or EP as a set of axioms or unquestionable facts proved by experiment." I am surprised that you read this in my unassuming comments, there was nothing of the sort there. A "set of axioms" is simply irrelevant. A set of "unquestionable facts" EP certainly is not. To me (as an evolutionary biologist), it is a plausible, rational conceptual framework to explain the evolution of the "mind", no more but no less either. What I did find offensive (not personally, of course, but as an argument to be used in a discussion) was the tag "pop EP". The fact that certain scientists write highly readable popular books on dedicated to a particular concept neither detracts nor, of course, adds to the plausibility of the concept.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 01:06 am (UTC)I am surprised that you read this in my unassuming comments, there was nothing of the sort there. A "set of axioms" is simply irrelevant. A set of "unquestionable facts" EP certainly is not. To me (as an evolutionary biologist), it is a plausible, rational conceptual framework to explain the evolution of the "mind", no more but no less either. What I did find offensive (not personally, of course, but as an argument to be used in a discussion) was the tag "pop EP". The fact that certain scientists write highly readable popular books on dedicated to a particular concept neither detracts nor, of course, adds to the plausibility of the concept.