One of the most abused words in the English language is "evolution." Now, sure, there are plenty of words that are misused and thrown about, such as "love," "feelings," "communication," all manner of abstract nouns. There is no question about that.
But I believe that this particular term should receive special concern for the reason that so-called scientists are using the word with abandon. Also, the word "evolution" is charged, keg powder volatile, aggravated, with bias from both sides. It is politically stretched to snapping like one of Petrocles' victims.
The field of so-called evolutionary psychology appears to be fraught with corruption, appalling lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers, ___
It is flooded with teeming of what appears to be simple wishful thinking from these psychologists.
I am worried because this nonsense is being sold to the public as "science." Science is a vast, broad field that is supposed to deal only in facts, observable and repeatable data, and conclusions arrived at from those facts and data. I am simply trying to continue on the work of the notable skeptic and debunker, James Randi.
"Slap a new label on it, put it on a lunchbox, and call it --" like Malcolm was saying in Jurassic park.
Crackpot, cockamamie theories. The "experts," the so-called researchers, the people who write these sort of articles and then manage to get them published in peer-reviewed journals are the ones perpetuating this hogwash. It does not seem that they subject this to a whole lot of critical analysis. And unfortunately, the peer reviewers evidently were shadowed by wishful thinking as well.
They have been pulling ridiculous nonsense out of their collective ass.
*The notion that men want to whore around with as many women as possible due to "evolution" and would never dream of settling down because that would harsh his jive and cramp his style, and that women have an evolutionary draw to remain chaste, monogamous, virginal, pure, to never have sex at all other than the three times to produce three offspring, et cetera.
The most important thing to remember is that none of this is true to establish working evolution. If humans wish to move civilization forward and foster a healthy society, they love the one they're with. To keep a species consistently on the forward track in the evolution train, people need to pair-bond. I already covered this topic and debunked it in an earlier article. I have also provided links to researchers who have discredited these unscientific fantasies, so I won't rehash it all.
*A particularly comical theory is the posit that because humans do not have the engorged blue buttocks similar to other primates, that this species required other indicators. Therefore for humans, the butt transitioned to the boobs. Good lord, I wish I were making this up.
Personal opinions and biases are coloring what should be objective observation and critical thinking.
**Just as psychology and philosophy inevitably fall victim to the unfortunate ___
Several people have observed this to be true for some of the arguably greatest thinkers of our era, including Nietzsche, Marx, et al.
It is not necessarily the psychologists' own fault for this peculiar trend. After all, within its very definition, its very nature, the fields of psychology and observational biology are subject to the whims and fancies of the proprietors. The definition of Psychology is the study of human behavior, faults, imperfections.
Like [[[___ some philosopher said,]]]], "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we could not." This is merely an extension of that. We are all human, including the humans that study us and study themselves. Therefore they inevitably fall prey to the same faults to which ALL humans fall prey.
Humans are prone to personal bias. Therefore, of course psychologists, including those that study any and all branches of psychology, are also prone to personal bias.
Blowing a lot of hot air will inevitably happen.
**We have observed this to be true of ordinary people in realms of sociopolitical opinion, social mores, political leanings, religious preferences.
So the [[[[point]]] is, are psychologists and current-day philosophers so arrogant that they do not see themselves as potentially fallible?
As the situation is currently in evolutionary psychology, it is mostly conjecture and opinion. Does no one remember the "Dihydrogen monoxide" experiment, which called for cautionary thinking against junk science?
Correlation does not prove causality. This is a concept that even people that have taken an introductory sociology course can grasp.
--
Read this essay written by a blogger, which states that empathy, compassion, and cooperation are signs of an evolved species, and violent crimes including r-- are not. ____
One might put forth the argument that because this person does not have some sort of degree in psychology, their argument is invalid. I put forth to you this question: why does one necessarily need a degree in psychology to hold a valid, logical argument in psychology? If this were a matter of treating patients, then yes, one would need a medical degree. But evolutionary psychologists are not treating any patients here. They are only making broad generalizations.
This is such a discipline that a person can arrive at as much of a sound conclusion simply by observing human behavior, doing extensive study on one's own, taking one or two classes in any of the social sciences, and informally reading psychology journals -- as by earning a formal degree in it. Quite literally, social science is not rocket science in any way, shape, or form. One does not need an advanced degree to be a skilled psychologist for the same reason that one does not need a veterinary degree to know why a pet dog is not properly laying eggs.
Again, fields like psychology and sociologically inevitably fall prey to human opinion. These are not hard sciences in the way that natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering are. Those are definitives that conclude absolute truths. Something either is or isn't.
This is not the case with psychology and sociology. Social science by definition is not an absolute discipline. It is fluid, ___ elusive, ever-changing,
It is impossible
This is an unavoidable truth of these disciplines.
draw parallels, hypotheses__
Examples:
Social Darwinism
Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that Gottfredson's research "... is being done in the name of white supremacy... the Pioneer Fund supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."[1]
1. "Delaware Reaches Accord On Race Studies" By Ron Kaufman The Scientist 6[14]:1, Jul. 06, 1992
Now, I want to clarify that it is most certainly possible to be rational, unbiased, and truly analyze with an [[[__unbiased__]]] eye. However, this would require tremendous self-control, a capacity that most humans do not possess.
Are so-called evolutionary psychologists actually trained to handle their job with professionalism and courtesy? I mean in their college courses, are they trained to put aside their own personal prejudices when observing and analyzing human behavior? In order for a professor to do this, he/she would have to provide realistic examples. They must mention real-world situations that might have happened to people, to which students can relate. They have the professional responsibility to bring up real-world instances that are common sources of error, and to demonstrate how to weed out personal desire from social theory. There is taint. They only see what they want to see.
--[[[[ and most impr, we have morals. We have self-restraint____
** we have have the ability to refrain from committing criminal acts.
** we have the capacity for self-restraint [[[restrain ourselves from succumbing to violent, primitive urges.]]]]]
]]]]]]]]
We are sentient beings. [[[[As members of the specie Homo sapiens, we have consciousness. We are capable of consciously controlling our actions. We have the capacity to think about our actions before [[[doing,, carryijg them out]]]. We can think bef we speak, and we can think bef we act.
We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of certain decisions. We have the ability to guess the consequences of any potential action we consider doing. We can extrapolate into the future and determine what the most likely outcome would be of a hypothetical situation.
___pigs dogs apes if physiccal__. if that's all they've got going for them, then yeah __physicla designations would be an indicator of evolutionary fitness.
Hovew we homo sapiens are a higher order of being. We are a higher life form.
-----
*mentin difference between abstarct nouns ans concrete nouns. A simialr ___ exists-Same thing with human behavior and psycholoy. There are concrete [[__descriptors of that exist within the physical universe ((realm))_]]] such as biology. These are easily quantifiable and measurable in terms of pure [[[[physicalit???__]]
*there are also abstract behavioral patterns such as conscience and consciousness. [[[aspects of the human experience]]]
But I believe that this particular term should receive special concern for the reason that so-called scientists are using the word with abandon. Also, the word "evolution" is charged, keg powder volatile, aggravated, with bias from both sides. It is politically stretched to snapping like one of Petrocles' victims.
The field of so-called evolutionary psychology appears to be fraught with corruption, appalling lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers, ___
It is flooded with teeming of what appears to be simple wishful thinking from these psychologists.
I am worried because this nonsense is being sold to the public as "science." Science is a vast, broad field that is supposed to deal only in facts, observable and repeatable data, and conclusions arrived at from those facts and data. I am simply trying to continue on the work of the notable skeptic and debunker, James Randi.
"Slap a new label on it, put it on a lunchbox, and call it --" like Malcolm was saying in Jurassic park.
Crackpot, cockamamie theories. The "experts," the so-called researchers, the people who write these sort of articles and then manage to get them published in peer-reviewed journals are the ones perpetuating this hogwash. It does not seem that they subject this to a whole lot of critical analysis. And unfortunately, the peer reviewers evidently were shadowed by wishful thinking as well.
They have been pulling ridiculous nonsense out of their collective ass.
*The notion that men want to whore around with as many women as possible due to "evolution" and would never dream of settling down because that would harsh his jive and cramp his style, and that women have an evolutionary draw to remain chaste, monogamous, virginal, pure, to never have sex at all other than the three times to produce three offspring, et cetera.
The most important thing to remember is that none of this is true to establish working evolution. If humans wish to move civilization forward and foster a healthy society, they love the one they're with. To keep a species consistently on the forward track in the evolution train, people need to pair-bond. I already covered this topic and debunked it in an earlier article. I have also provided links to researchers who have discredited these unscientific fantasies, so I won't rehash it all.
*A particularly comical theory is the posit that because humans do not have the engorged blue buttocks similar to other primates, that this species required other indicators. Therefore for humans, the butt transitioned to the boobs. Good lord, I wish I were making this up.
Personal opinions and biases are coloring what should be objective observation and critical thinking.
**Just as psychology and philosophy inevitably fall victim to the unfortunate ___
Several people have observed this to be true for some of the arguably greatest thinkers of our era, including Nietzsche, Marx, et al.
It is not necessarily the psychologists' own fault for this peculiar trend. After all, within its very definition, its very nature, the fields of psychology and observational biology are subject to the whims and fancies of the proprietors. The definition of Psychology is the study of human behavior, faults, imperfections.
Like [[[___ some philosopher said,]]]], "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we could not." This is merely an extension of that. We are all human, including the humans that study us and study themselves. Therefore they inevitably fall prey to the same faults to which ALL humans fall prey.
Humans are prone to personal bias. Therefore, of course psychologists, including those that study any and all branches of psychology, are also prone to personal bias.
Blowing a lot of hot air will inevitably happen.
**We have observed this to be true of ordinary people in realms of sociopolitical opinion, social mores, political leanings, religious preferences.
So the [[[[point]]] is, are psychologists and current-day philosophers so arrogant that they do not see themselves as potentially fallible?
As the situation is currently in evolutionary psychology, it is mostly conjecture and opinion. Does no one remember the "Dihydrogen monoxide" experiment, which called for cautionary thinking against junk science?
Correlation does not prove causality. This is a concept that even people that have taken an introductory sociology course can grasp.
--
Read this essay written by a blogger, which states that empathy, compassion, and cooperation are signs of an evolved species, and violent crimes including r-- are not. ____
One might put forth the argument that because this person does not have some sort of degree in psychology, their argument is invalid. I put forth to you this question: why does one necessarily need a degree in psychology to hold a valid, logical argument in psychology? If this were a matter of treating patients, then yes, one would need a medical degree. But evolutionary psychologists are not treating any patients here. They are only making broad generalizations.
This is such a discipline that a person can arrive at as much of a sound conclusion simply by observing human behavior, doing extensive study on one's own, taking one or two classes in any of the social sciences, and informally reading psychology journals -- as by earning a formal degree in it. Quite literally, social science is not rocket science in any way, shape, or form. One does not need an advanced degree to be a skilled psychologist for the same reason that one does not need a veterinary degree to know why a pet dog is not properly laying eggs.
Again, fields like psychology and sociologically inevitably fall prey to human opinion. These are not hard sciences in the way that natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering are. Those are definitives that conclude absolute truths. Something either is or isn't.
This is not the case with psychology and sociology. Social science by definition is not an absolute discipline. It is fluid, ___ elusive, ever-changing,
It is impossible
This is an unavoidable truth of these disciplines.
draw parallels, hypotheses__
Examples:
Social Darwinism
Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that Gottfredson's research "... is being done in the name of white supremacy... the Pioneer Fund supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."[1]
1. "Delaware Reaches Accord On Race Studies" By Ron Kaufman The Scientist 6[14]:1, Jul. 06, 1992
Now, I want to clarify that it is most certainly possible to be rational, unbiased, and truly analyze with an [[[__unbiased__]]] eye. However, this would require tremendous self-control, a capacity that most humans do not possess.
Are so-called evolutionary psychologists actually trained to handle their job with professionalism and courtesy? I mean in their college courses, are they trained to put aside their own personal prejudices when observing and analyzing human behavior? In order for a professor to do this, he/she would have to provide realistic examples. They must mention real-world situations that might have happened to people, to which students can relate. They have the professional responsibility to bring up real-world instances that are common sources of error, and to demonstrate how to weed out personal desire from social theory. There is taint. They only see what they want to see.
--[[[[ and most impr, we have morals. We have self-restraint____
** we have have the ability to refrain from committing criminal acts.
** we have the capacity for self-restraint [[[restrain ourselves from succumbing to violent, primitive urges.]]]]]
]]]]]]]]
We are sentient beings. [[[[As members of the specie Homo sapiens, we have consciousness. We are capable of consciously controlling our actions. We have the capacity to think about our actions before [[[doing,, carryijg them out]]]. We can think bef we speak, and we can think bef we act.
We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of certain decisions. We have the ability to guess the consequences of any potential action we consider doing. We can extrapolate into the future and determine what the most likely outcome would be of a hypothetical situation.
___pigs dogs apes if physiccal__. if that's all they've got going for them, then yeah __physicla designations would be an indicator of evolutionary fitness.
Hovew we homo sapiens are a higher order of being. We are a higher life form.
-----
*mentin difference between abstarct nouns ans concrete nouns. A simialr ___ exists-Same thing with human behavior and psycholoy. There are concrete [[__descriptors of that exist within the physical universe ((realm))_]]] such as biology. These are easily quantifiable and measurable in terms of pure [[[[physicalit???__]]
*there are also abstract behavioral patterns such as conscience and consciousness. [[[aspects of the human experience]]]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment