May 2002


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 9 May 2002 10:17:07 -0500
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Networking for Democracy
Ivan Handler <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (69 lines)
I have no idea why this was posted on a list that is in full agreement
with the Roses.  In fact  Science for the People was the organization
that was used to launch most of the arguments against sociobiology
(which "evolved" into evolutionary psychology).  If someone want to
debate these issues, that is fine, let's find an appropriate forum to
further expose the bigoted just-so stories and other anti-scientific
claptrap contained within this anti-scientific tradition that constantly
finds new clothes almost as quickly as the old set is torn off exposing
its naked biases over and over again (yikes!).  This list is a forum for
Science for the People.  If I may suggest to the moderator, it looks
like these weird postings are just some petty harassment from someone
who is not even willing to come out and directly challenge this list
himself.  If that is the case, I would recommend banishment from the
list.  While the list activity is generally small, I don't need to
receive a slew of off the wall items from this list.  I can turn on TV
for that any time.

-- Ivan

Ian Pitchford wrote:

>The Human Nature Review  2002 Volume 2: 99-109 ( 14 March )
>URL of this document
>Essay Review
>Alas Poor Evolutionary Psychology:
>Unfairly Accused, Unjustly Condemned
>By Robert Kurzban
>Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology
>edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose.
>Jonathan Cape, London, 2000.
>In "Alas Poor Darwin" (hereafter APD), Steven and Hilary Rose and the other
>contributors to this edited volume accuse evolutionary psychologists of sins
>both scientific and political, in prose filled with self-righteous rage, smug
>dismissals, and unremitting invective. Evolutionary psychologists, they say,
>are wedded to genetic determinism, a view simplistic in conception, fatalistic
>in outlook, and flatly mistaken. Further, they argue that evolutionary
>psychologists indulge in post-hoc, "Just-so" story-telling, the seediest kind
>of scientific promiscuity. If evolutionary psychology were guilty of the sins
>of which it was accused, the Roses and their contributors could be considered
>to have produced an important work, helping to prevent the spread of flimsy
>science and distasteful politics.
>Full text
>Other reviews at
>LETTERS TO THE EDITOR should be addressed to [log in to unmask]

Ivan Handler
Networking for Democracy
[log in to unmask]

Ivan Handler
Networking for Democracy
[log in to unmask]