Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology/Archive 3

Chomsky and Kropotkin
The quote by Chomsky introduced with doesn't seem to support that summary to my eye. Daask (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Science vs Philosophy, and Natural vs Human Sciences, discrepancies.

Ethics as science and ethics as moral philosophy discern. Only the latter is prescriptive.

Evolutionary psychology is a subfield of biology, a hard science, and also consequently makes no prescription of right or wrong, as well as any axiological hipotetization.

"My" argument only ruminates on Pinker as a source, deconstructing in detail the matter and his statements.

Statements about natural phenomena have no relationship at all with moral conclusions.

The discussion on the entry fell into infinite regress due to fallacy fallacy fallacy based on this erroneous interpretation that biological fitness has anything to do with "rightness" from exclusive human science perspectives.

We are not dealing with humans as subjects, but with humans as animals, as any other animal, in the topic.

Also, psychology in general is not limited to human mind, nor evolutionary psychology.

Why are you mixing things up? They do no mix.

This is a natural science, not philosophy of science. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your statements above are not relevant. Read WP:No original research. I had to revert your last string of edits because it was full of stuff that was not cited to any source. All material must be cited to a source. Read WP:V and WP:Cite your sources. Also, do not add material in front of an existing source that does not come from that source, thus making it look like it is supported when it is not. A bit of your material did have sources, so only that may be re-added if every point in it is supported by those sources. Also, when it comes to conflicting viewpoints from sources, keep WP:NPOV in mind. We as editors do not decide which side is right and which wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) You also need to write more simply and clearly. Stuff like "only the latter axiological/value prescriptive, and in concepts and arguments absolutely nontangent due to the indiscretion in between natural and human sciences" is not plain English as required by WP:MOS. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Pinker is the source. All of them posit the same argument.

The supposed "critics" are using is-ough problem to attack the idea on moral grounds in place of attacking the rationale behind the idea, which would be the correct atitude in dealing with a natural science.

There is no axiology proper on a biological approach. If they want to discuss ethics they can discuss ethics, but is has nothing to do with the validity of EP Claims. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are the ones decidiny to talk politics in place of english proper.

The current state of this topic is misleading. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC) ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)