How to Trick a Human Being with Words
John Searle is the inspiration for this section on how philosophers can trick humans and
perhaps even trick themselves. We don't know if John Searle invented this tricking scheme
on purpose in a conscious sense of the word or on purpose in a subconscious sense.
I am trying out www.questia.com service to see how I can read books on-line and copy out text
portions and paste them elsewhere. I can often see three or so pages on Amazon and about the
same on Google, but this service lets me highlight and copy out sections of text whereas the
other services do not. This service, OTOH, is not free.
Here is a section of a book on Evolutionary Psychology:
Why Evolutionary Psychology Is Not Mere Speculation or "Just So" Stories: With Examples from
Human Sexuality and from Narratives.
by Russell Eisenman
Contrary to what some of its opponents claim, evolutionary psychology is not mere
speculation, or "just so" stories which are incapable of being tested. Many believe these
critiques. In fact, a former colleague of mine, now a journal editor, recently stated them to me
in an e-mail. He mentioned Stephen Jay Gould, who has made such criticisms (Gould, 1997).
Influential people like Gould have advanced these critiques, and they were once somewhat
true, when evolutionary psychology was called sociobiology. In the early days of sociobiology,
there was much speculation with little empirical or quantitative assessment. In fact, I was
initially turned off by that reality. But, this is no longer true. Sociobiology, with its emphasis
on biological explanations of apparent social realities (E. Wilson, 1975) has evolved into
evolutionary psychology, with its emphasis on how the brain evolved over time, and how our
desire to survive and to spread our genes into future generations determines much of what we
do (Barkow, Cosmides, & Toby, 1992; Buss, 1999; Dawkins, 1989). Sociobiology or
evolutionary psychology both now use empirical methods of observation, and subject data to
statistical analysis. Of course, any science uses speculation, theory, etc. But, these are used
in the service of a scientific approach, and the old criticisms are now mostly inaccurate. The
concept of evolution is the unifying concept in biology. Bringing this concept into psychology
has provided many new insights. Evolutionary psychology is one of the most important new
theories of our time, applying Darwin's insights about evolution and natural selection
(Darwin, 1859, 1868, 1871, 1872) to human psychology.
There has been, in my opinion, a paradigm shift in psychology, such that many things
explained in terms of social causation--or not explainable well at all--are now explained in
evolutionary psychology terms. Thus, evolutionary, biological explanations have become more
frequent in psychology, while explanations in terms of social psychology, learning or culture
have become seen as less useful. Nature and nurture work together, so these other areas are
not rejected, they just are not used as much anymore as the primary explanation of things. I
shall provide examples of how the new evolutionary psychology explanations provide
important insights, not previously available.
It seems to work quite well.
My question to you is, “Are you one who has taken sides in the sociobiology wars?” In other
words, have you taken the side of Lewontin, Gould at al against E. O. Wilson’s book,
Sociobiology? I know that you read Steven J. Gould’s book on the Cambrian Explosion,
(Wonderful Life, I believe??) but I am not sure that you agreed with his philosophy of placing
politics ahead of science.
Here is a better definition from my previous notes on the subject. I retrieved them by using
Google Desktop search feature:
Sociobiology Debate
A controversy raged in the year’s after Edward O. Wilson’s book Sociobiology was published.
The sociobiology debates between E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith and
others on one side, and Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Science for the People on
the other.
U. Segerstrale wrote a good book on the subject: SEGERSTRALE, ULLICA Defenders of the
Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond
Because in the end, we see that the whole “sociobiology debate” wasn’t really a scientific
debate at all. The moral and political arguments were what created and drove the controversy
all along. And reminds us all too strongly of something that’s easily forgotten ... that science is
(and will always be) a human pursuit. Driven by the same human emotions that drive all other
pursuits. As Segerstrale herself says in the book’s final words, two features often thought alien
to science -- emotion and belief -- turn out to be omnipresent. They may not drive science,
but they do drive scientists. And this book is a truly remarkable look at the controversy, the
characters and the way science really works. It deserves to be read as widely as possible.
For me, it may not be possible to separate science from the scientist or the scientist completely
from politics, but I didn’t like Steven J. Gould’s philosophy of not even attempting to separate
science from politics.
- - - - - -
Another “war” has been over Freud. Many people have declared much of what he said to be
wrong. There were long debates in the New York Times review of books which were published
in a book by Frederick Crews called: The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute (New York
Review Book, New York, 1995) It appears to have become a classic because the only copy of it
on Amazon/Used books is going for 4 times what was the new book price, when it was “in
print”.
Here is what they (Amazon) say about the book:
This volume collects Frederick Crews's two controversial essays on Freud from the New York
Review of Books, "The Unknown Freud" and "The Revenge of the Repressed," as well as some of
the critical letters provoked by their original publication in 1993 and 1994. In these essays,
Crews elaborates upon his belief that "the relatively patent and vulgar pseudoscience of
recovered memory rests in appreciable measure on the respectable and entrenched
pseudoscience of psychoanalysis." Recovered memory therapy, according to his thesis, is a
grossly negative practice that, in turn, has its origins in Freudian assumptions about
psychoanalysis--assumptions that Crews charges were based on fraudulent data and
intellectual bullying. As the reader responses indicate, these ideas were like a grenade tossed
into the center of psychoanalytic culture, made all the more powerful by Crews's lively prose.
I have many friends who still believe in Freud and didn’t hear about his being tossed on the
garbage heap of civilization. I am reminded of this by the newest book in my collection called
Consciousness by J. Allan Hobson, who, I find, is quite anti-Freud. I looked him up on my
new questia.com account and didn’t find Consciousness, but did find other books and articles
of his. Quite a convenient service.
Actually the verdict on Freud is quite mixed. Some of what he said was good and other things
off-base. A woman who I met on-line about 8 years ago said that when she got a PhD in
psychology, she only studied Freud for one day. Willard Quine had a seminar group of young
psychiatrists at Harvard in the late 1980s which he called “Freudians Anonymous”.
According to Hobson, “Freud’s theory, as science, had long since gone stale and sterile. And,
no doubt, many readers will wonder why anyone would still struggle with a theory that
probably should have been rejected out of hand to begin with. One reason for its persistence
is that so many psychiatrists fell for it. Subsequently, many other branches of scholarship
have fallen for it, and are continuing to do so.”
Well, so much for my ranting about www.questia.com services and my pet philosophical
projects.
I imagine that you have access to much of the scientific literature because of your professorial
status.
Philosobot
John Searle is the inspiration for this section on how philosophers can trick humans and
perhaps even trick themselves. We don't know if John Searle invented this tricking scheme
on purpose in a conscious sense of the word or on purpose in a subconscious sense.
I am trying out www.questia.com service to see how I can read books on-line and copy out text
portions and paste them elsewhere. I can often see three or so pages on Amazon and about the
same on Google, but this service lets me highlight and copy out sections of text whereas the
other services do not. This service, OTOH, is not free.
Here is a section of a book on Evolutionary Psychology:
Why Evolutionary Psychology Is Not Mere Speculation or "Just So" Stories: With Examples from
Human Sexuality and from Narratives.
by Russell Eisenman
Contrary to what some of its opponents claim, evolutionary psychology is not mere
speculation, or "just so" stories which are incapable of being tested. Many believe these
critiques. In fact, a former colleague of mine, now a journal editor, recently stated them to me
in an e-mail. He mentioned Stephen Jay Gould, who has made such criticisms (Gould, 1997).
Influential people like Gould have advanced these critiques, and they were once somewhat
true, when evolutionary psychology was called sociobiology. In the early days of sociobiology,
there was much speculation with little empirical or quantitative assessment. In fact, I was
initially turned off by that reality. But, this is no longer true. Sociobiology, with its emphasis
on biological explanations of apparent social realities (E. Wilson, 1975) has evolved into
evolutionary psychology, with its emphasis on how the brain evolved over time, and how our
desire to survive and to spread our genes into future generations determines much of what we
do (Barkow, Cosmides, & Toby, 1992; Buss, 1999; Dawkins, 1989). Sociobiology or
evolutionary psychology both now use empirical methods of observation, and subject data to
statistical analysis. Of course, any science uses speculation, theory, etc. But, these are used
in the service of a scientific approach, and the old criticisms are now mostly inaccurate. The
concept of evolution is the unifying concept in biology. Bringing this concept into psychology
has provided many new insights. Evolutionary psychology is one of the most important new
theories of our time, applying Darwin's insights about evolution and natural selection
(Darwin, 1859, 1868, 1871, 1872) to human psychology.
There has been, in my opinion, a paradigm shift in psychology, such that many things
explained in terms of social causation--or not explainable well at all--are now explained in
evolutionary psychology terms. Thus, evolutionary, biological explanations have become more
frequent in psychology, while explanations in terms of social psychology, learning or culture
have become seen as less useful. Nature and nurture work together, so these other areas are
not rejected, they just are not used as much anymore as the primary explanation of things. I
shall provide examples of how the new evolutionary psychology explanations provide
important insights, not previously available.
It seems to work quite well.
My question to you is, “Are you one who has taken sides in the sociobiology wars?” In other
words, have you taken the side of Lewontin, Gould at al against E. O. Wilson’s book,
Sociobiology? I know that you read Steven J. Gould’s book on the Cambrian Explosion,
(Wonderful Life, I believe??) but I am not sure that you agreed with his philosophy of placing
politics ahead of science.
Here is a better definition from my previous notes on the subject. I retrieved them by using
Google Desktop search feature:
Sociobiology Debate
A controversy raged in the year’s after Edward O. Wilson’s book Sociobiology was published.
The sociobiology debates between E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith and
others on one side, and Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Science for the People on
the other.
U. Segerstrale wrote a good book on the subject: SEGERSTRALE, ULLICA Defenders of the
Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond
Because in the end, we see that the whole “sociobiology debate” wasn’t really a scientific
debate at all. The moral and political arguments were what created and drove the controversy
all along. And reminds us all too strongly of something that’s easily forgotten ... that science is
(and will always be) a human pursuit. Driven by the same human emotions that drive all other
pursuits. As Segerstrale herself says in the book’s final words, two features often thought alien
to science -- emotion and belief -- turn out to be omnipresent. They may not drive science,
but they do drive scientists. And this book is a truly remarkable look at the controversy, the
characters and the way science really works. It deserves to be read as widely as possible.
For me, it may not be possible to separate science from the scientist or the scientist completely
from politics, but I didn’t like Steven J. Gould’s philosophy of not even attempting to separate
science from politics.
- - - - - -
Another “war” has been over Freud. Many people have declared much of what he said to be
wrong. There were long debates in the New York Times review of books which were published
in a book by Frederick Crews called: The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute (New York
Review Book, New York, 1995) It appears to have become a classic because the only copy of it
on Amazon/Used books is going for 4 times what was the new book price, when it was “in
print”.
Here is what they (Amazon) say about the book:
This volume collects Frederick Crews's two controversial essays on Freud from the New York
Review of Books, "The Unknown Freud" and "The Revenge of the Repressed," as well as some of
the critical letters provoked by their original publication in 1993 and 1994. In these essays,
Crews elaborates upon his belief that "the relatively patent and vulgar pseudoscience of
recovered memory rests in appreciable measure on the respectable and entrenched
pseudoscience of psychoanalysis." Recovered memory therapy, according to his thesis, is a
grossly negative practice that, in turn, has its origins in Freudian assumptions about
psychoanalysis--assumptions that Crews charges were based on fraudulent data and
intellectual bullying. As the reader responses indicate, these ideas were like a grenade tossed
into the center of psychoanalytic culture, made all the more powerful by Crews's lively prose.
I have many friends who still believe in Freud and didn’t hear about his being tossed on the
garbage heap of civilization. I am reminded of this by the newest book in my collection called
Consciousness by J. Allan Hobson, who, I find, is quite anti-Freud. I looked him up on my
new questia.com account and didn’t find Consciousness, but did find other books and articles
of his. Quite a convenient service.
Actually the verdict on Freud is quite mixed. Some of what he said was good and other things
off-base. A woman who I met on-line about 8 years ago said that when she got a PhD in
psychology, she only studied Freud for one day. Willard Quine had a seminar group of young
psychiatrists at Harvard in the late 1980s which he called “Freudians Anonymous”.
According to Hobson, “Freud’s theory, as science, had long since gone stale and sterile. And,
no doubt, many readers will wonder why anyone would still struggle with a theory that
probably should have been rejected out of hand to begin with. One reason for its persistence
is that so many psychiatrists fell for it. Subsequently, many other branches of scholarship
have fallen for it, and are continuing to do so.”
Well, so much for my ranting about www.questia.com services and my pet philosophical
projects.
I imagine that you have access to much of the scientific literature because of your professorial
status.
Philosobot
 | |  | |  | |  |