The objection you want to make to SB is not taht it's evolutioinary theory, or even that its evolutionary explkantion od psychology, but that (a) many of the purpoirted explanations are shoddy in concrete ways depending on the particularities -- Yoshie has the right general idea of how to go about attacking and SB explanation, despite her confusiuon about nature and nuture and other mistakes, such as focus on the historical period, and (what is really bugging you, I think) (b) that much SB is just to justify existing injustices.
--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, there are refinements, but that's the core of
> it.
> > I wasn't, however, going into all the
> refinements.
> > The fine-tuned definition of reproductive success
> > wasn't my topic. I was just pointed out that there
> is
> > plausible SB explanation
>
> You have just repeated the phrase that more than
> anything else throws
> doubt on the whole SB project, "plausible
> explanation." That is
> precisely the trouble, that the whole edifice rests
> on mere
> plausibility, or as Gould and others labelled them,
> Just-So Stories.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs