Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
>
> As far as I can see there is not contradiction between Marx's basic
> insights into human history and the narrow hypothesis that societies,
> psychology, and "thought" are constrained and guided by our biological
> make-up and thus to some large extent are a result biological
> evolution.
This is what bothers me most about evolutionary biology and related forms: their basic premises are (a) tautological and (b) _trivial_ tautologies: i.e., at most have a poetic advantage over other ways of saying the same thing.
To put it another way: I have yet to see one single proposition in evolutionary psycholgy which does not fit one of two categories: (a) true, but one does not need to know a fucking thing about biology to demonstrate it is true, or (b) it's a just-so story, which can only be abstractly affirmed rather than demonstrated, and offers no guidance whatever to understanding either biology or society.
Carrol