I wish your last two paragraphs were longer. I want to see more discussion.
I agree with you that science communication is more humane.
But if responsible practice in science communicating was adhered to by everyone, 99.99% of the internet wouldn’t exist.
*Who* does the science communicating? Where, when and how? How is it regulated?
This is ultimately a political question though. And since, if I recall correctly, you don’t like writing about politics, we won’t see you writing about this…
Unrelatedly, I’d like to see you write about pedophiles in your next book. I’d read it. You like writing about controversial topics, right?
“Based on our data,” they write, “we can conclude that by describing the causes of male aggression as anchored in evolution, evolutionary psychology may prescribe an increased tendency to hold victims of rape more culpable..."
"Prescribe"?!!
As Donald Symons wrote in The Evolution of Human Sexuality, evolutionary theories of sex differences may be especially problematic for people who have difficulty distinguishing between a description vs. a prescription, as do these authors.
The issue should not be whether the truth is "problematic" -- the problem is the erroneous thinking of those folks who make the description / prescription fallacy (naturalistic and moralistic fallacies). That erroneous thinking is what needs to be challenged. Attempts to suppress or conceal actual facts are far worse in the long run.
I read that differently. I assumed it basically said “evolutionary psychology may [by effect] prescribe an increased tendency to hold victims of rape more culpable..."
I added “by effect”
I really don’t think these researches sincerely believe that evolutionary psychology is a prescription
“By effect” means that certain people will blame evolutionary psychology for their own shitty behavior rather than taking accountability for themselves.
People will attribute their own shitty behavior to anything. That has no bearing (pun intended) on the veracity of the theory or facts to which they are making the attribution.
I wish your last two paragraphs were longer. I want to see more discussion.
I agree with you that science communication is more humane.
But if responsible practice in science communicating was adhered to by everyone, 99.99% of the internet wouldn’t exist.
*Who* does the science communicating? Where, when and how? How is it regulated?
This is ultimately a political question though. And since, if I recall correctly, you don’t like writing about politics, we won’t see you writing about this…
Unrelatedly, I’d like to see you write about pedophiles in your next book. I’d read it. You like writing about controversial topics, right?
“Based on our data,” they write, “we can conclude that by describing the causes of male aggression as anchored in evolution, evolutionary psychology may prescribe an increased tendency to hold victims of rape more culpable..."
"Prescribe"?!!
As Donald Symons wrote in The Evolution of Human Sexuality, evolutionary theories of sex differences may be especially problematic for people who have difficulty distinguishing between a description vs. a prescription, as do these authors.
The issue should not be whether the truth is "problematic" -- the problem is the erroneous thinking of those folks who make the description / prescription fallacy (naturalistic and moralistic fallacies). That erroneous thinking is what needs to be challenged. Attempts to suppress or conceal actual facts are far worse in the long run.
I read that differently. I assumed it basically said “evolutionary psychology may [by effect] prescribe an increased tendency to hold victims of rape more culpable..."
I added “by effect”
I really don’t think these researches sincerely believe that evolutionary psychology is a prescription
“By effect” means that certain people will blame evolutionary psychology for their own shitty behavior rather than taking accountability for themselves.
People will attribute their own shitty behavior to anything. That has no bearing (pun intended) on the veracity of the theory or facts to which they are making the attribution.