Fiddick,L.

Comments on the article by T. Ketelaar and B. J. Ellis (see record 2000-03233-001) that discussed the methodologies of evolutionary psychology in relation to the Lakatosian philosophy of science. The present author states that although Ketelaar and Ellis did an admirable job of arguing that evolutionary psychology conforms to the standards of scientific practice, such success only raises doubts about whether this defense of evolutionary psychology is what was called for. It is further suggested that accepting Ketelaar and Ellis's argument that evolutionary psychology is a proper science raises a further question: Why is evolutionary psychology in particular singled out as being "unscientific?" Why not other branches of biology or psychology as well? Turning evolutionary psychology back on itself, the current author proposes a domain-specific, adaptationist account of evolutionary psychology that addresses the specific concerns of the skeptics.

Fiddick, L. (2000). The content of their discontent: How do the folk interpret evolutionary psychology? Psychological Inquiry, 11, 26-29.

Publication year	2000
Document type:	Article
Publication status:	Published
External URL:
Categories:
Keywords:	*evolutionary psychology*methodology*philosophies*psychology*theory of evolutiongenetics [2510].humanphilosophy [2630]