Jag håller med om att hon har rätt här, mer eller mindre. Inte av bra anledningar, ju, men rätt.
Mina svar på svaret på RW på "SkepticInk":
The problem is that Watson is not a very articulate critic of what is mostly bad science.
The evidence for a physiological basis for "mental modules" (and frequently very nitty-gritty ones like "cheater detection") is lacking and given the coarse lines along which most human neurodevelopment proceeds (see: reaction-diffusion), it is not likely to exist at all.
Connectionist researchers (inter alia), who tend to be more aware of these issues, bristle at this sort of ignorance, but their criticisms are rarely taken into consideration. (E.g. Steven Pinker's claim in the The Blank Slate that connectionist models can't handle recursion, something that had been untrue for over a decade at the time of its publication in the form of Recursive Auto-Associative Memory a.k.a. RAAM.)
But EP doesn't just run up against physiology as such, it also runs up against other findings in psychology. For instance, EP posits that creativity is an adaptation to leave behind more offspring by analogy with creatures like the bower bird when it is generally accepted that psychopathological traits that impair social functioning undergird creativity.
Also, whether Satoshi Kanazawa is "disgraced" is sort of besides the point. I don't really care whether the outcomes of his work, or any other EP work, is "sexist" or "racist". I care about the fanciful abductions in his research. This style of thinking is entirely common to EP in general; he only got kicked out of the club because he was making everyone else look bad.
Så jag är tvungen att hålla med RW. Inte pga att hon har "justified true belief". Och jag känner den här Ed Clint med. Han är en skitstövel. I den mån han har rätt också är det bara tillfälligt. Han kunde inte (mycket tidigare) svara på min kritik mot EP och ville bara förolämpa mig.On a related note, EP also falls down on computational grounds:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001109
"A large part of EP's emphasis on massive modularity drew from artificial intelligence (AI) research. While the great lesson from AI research of the 1970s was that domain specificity was critical to intelligent behaviour, the lesson of the new millennium is that intelligent agents (such as driverless robotic cars) require integration and decision-making across domains, regularly utilize general-process tools such as Bayesian analysis, stochastic modelling, and optimization, and are responsive to a variety of environmental cues . However, while AI research has shifted away from an emphasis on domain specificity, some evolutionary psychologists continue to argue that selection would have favoured predominantly domain-specific mechanisms (e.g., ). In contrast, others have started to present the case for domain-general evolved psychological mechanisms (e.g., ,), and evidence from developmental psychology suggests that domain-general learning mechanisms frequently build on knowledge acquired through domain-specific perceptual processes and core cognition . Both domain-specific and domain-general mechanisms are compatible with evolutionary theory, and their relative importance in human information processing will only be revealed through careful experimentation, leading to a greater understanding of how the brain works ."
It's kind of embarrassing.
Skeptikerrörelsen är en vits.