"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.
A plausible, rational framework not rooted in fact is either a set of axioms or a doctrine that rests on faith. The tag "pop EP" indicates that this plausible, rational framework is driven into the masses by persuasion rather than the argumentation from undisputed observations. I am not going to be upset that this approach is not working or generating resentment that you dismiss as "politics." What else can be expected? I do not find this approach "wrong" only because it follows the old bad precedent of exposing poorly supported evolutionary ideas before incomprehending public -- well before these ideas gain any currency; I just do not see any merit in it. If every school of thought will try to assert its own truth by public appeal vis-a-vis other schools of thought, nice science we'll get out of such performances. I see more and more of it (not only in the evolutionary sciences: say, string theorists vs. LQG, climate change enthusiasts vs. skeptics, and so on) and the result is pretty dismal. Darwinism would make greater strides towards becoming a widely accepted way of thinking without the proselytizing zeal of its acolytes. When something is true, it is true, and no circus is required to convince the others that it is true. But if something is not quite true, but badly wanted to be true, then, of course, anything goes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
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.
no subject