Comments on: John Dupré reviews What Darwin Got Wrong for Philosopher’s Magazine http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/07/john-dupre-reviews-what-darwin-got-wrong-for-philosophers-magazine/ Humanist perspectives on the here and now Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:47:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: C.J. Wilton http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/07/john-dupre-reviews-what-darwin-got-wrong-for-philosophers-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-3308 C.J. Wilton Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:09:46 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=3540#comment-3308 Hey Sarah; I'm not all that familiar with Evolutionary Psychology, is it not a very respected field? Dupre seems to think so; - "The decline of this intellectual monolith is generally to be welcomed, not least because it may be expected to bring down with it some of its less appetising academic fellow travellers, most notably Evolutionary Psychology." I read this review in the Skeptics Society newsletter a couple of weeks back. The book is basically an early stocking-filler for creationists. If memory serves, the authors Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini have basically cashed in on the lucrative anti-evolution market by arguing that much of Darwin's original theory was wrong, without acknowledging later confirmatory developments. Dupre also notes that neither of the authors possess qualifications in science or biology, they are in fact philosophers who are in over their heads. I hate philosophers who presume to pontificate on subjects outside of their field, especially so brazenly on subjects like evolution, which are steeped in "false" controversy. One last thought, is John Dupre related to Ben Dupre author of "50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need To Know"? Hey Sarah;

I’m not all that familiar with Evolutionary Psychology, is it not a very respected field? Dupre seems to think so; –

“The decline of this intellectual monolith is generally to be welcomed, not least because it may be expected to bring down with it some of its less appetising academic fellow travellers, most notably Evolutionary Psychology.”

I read this review in the Skeptics Society newsletter a couple of weeks back. The book is basically an early stocking-filler for creationists. If memory serves, the authors Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini have basically cashed in on the lucrative anti-evolution market by arguing that much of Darwin’s original theory was wrong, without acknowledging later confirmatory developments.

Dupre also notes that neither of the authors possess qualifications in science or biology, they are in fact philosophers who are in over their heads. I hate philosophers who presume to pontificate on subjects outside of their field, especially so brazenly on subjects like evolution, which are steeped in “false” controversy.

One last thought, is John Dupre related to Ben Dupre author of “50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need To Know”?

]]> By: Sarah http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/07/john-dupre-reviews-what-darwin-got-wrong-for-philosophers-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-3223 Sarah Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:52:42 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=3540#comment-3223 If I had stayed in psychology to do my MA I would have chosen Evolutionary Psychology as my field. It only makes sense to study the effect evolution has on the way our brains work. Any study of the brain out of its evolutionary context will always be lacking the depth provided by considering questions of 'why'. Why have our brains developed they way they have, how does this affect the way we choose to organise ourselves, how does this relate to crime, happiness, sex, concepts of gender, empathy and any other human behaviour? Given that evoltion is the basis of all life as we know it, how can we possibly hope to consider the complexity of the human brain without an eye on the processes driving its development? If I had stayed in psychology to do my MA I would have chosen Evolutionary Psychology as my field. It only makes sense to study the effect evolution has on the way our brains work. Any study of the brain out of its evolutionary context will always be lacking the depth provided by considering questions of ‘why’. Why have our brains developed they way they have, how does this affect the way we choose to organise ourselves, how does this relate to crime, happiness, sex, concepts of gender, empathy and any other human behaviour? Given that evoltion is the basis of all life as we know it, how can we possibly hope to consider the complexity of the human brain without an eye on the processes driving its development?

]]>