Scientific infanticide, 22 Oct 2005

By	Stephen A. Haines (Ottawa, Ontario Canada) - See all my reviews

Unfortunately, instead of fiction, this series purports to be works of science. The authors are well-known in the scientific community. Yet each blithely ignores the actual expressions of those scientific peers they heartily condemn. They simply categorize without evidence, or twist words to fit some preconceived niche. They have no qualms about inserting words and meaning into a science that they both fail to comprehend nor have worked in themselves. The common target of these authors is the new science of evolutionary psychology, a derivative of Edward Wilson's Sociobiology, published a generation ago. Without reserve nor hesitation, the authors condemn this nascent field as "determinist," "fatalistic," or "simplistic." In short, just plain wrong.

What compels a task force of scientists to attack an emerging science? Wilson's 1975 call for further research in animal behaviour resulted in a wealth of new information - but much of it on "other" animals. The authors here ignore that work entirely. The basic issue, of course, is how dependent human behaviour is on the evolutionary process. It's impossible to discern what alternative to evolution there is in determining our roots. Certainly, none of these essays proposes other mechanisms. What is terribly awkward about these essays is not simply that they're wrong, but wrong and misleading in so many ways.

While all of these essays are built upon contrived issues and arguments, three stand out as particularly noxious examples of politicized science. [We will pass over the departed Gould's final sally attempting to restore his discredited idea of "punk eek."] Hilary Rose attempts to discredit Darwin on the basis of his being a man of his times. Her essay reminds us that there is a clear distinction between a "feminist scientist" and a woman researcher such as Helena Cronin. Steve Rose carries politicization of science to almost desperate extremes in the concluding essay, asserting evolutionary psychology is an "ideology" [which it most certainly is not]. He, along with the other authors, falls back on the tired and tiresome cliché of EP research as "Just So" stories. Of all the essays in this set, it is Mary Midgley's on memes that evokes the deepest emotions. Hilarity, compassion, resentment, unease, all arise as a result of reading this wandering, facile attempt disparage something she's wholly unable to understand. She begins with a wrong definition of the term, then wanders, phantom-like, over the philosophical countryside "in her stout British walking shoes" to arrive - simply lost in her own rhetoric. Her presence in this collection is an embarrassment to friend and foe alike.

The only value this book has is its demonstration of the mind-set of a few self-deluded and outmoded commentators. The title itself is a giveaway. "Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology" is no more valid than "Arguments Against Cosmology," or "Quantum Physics" or "Paleoanthropology" or whatever science is striving for standards in assessing elusive evidence. The book does not, can not, even answer its own opening question: "Why is this book important?" None of these authors work in the field [Midgley, for example is a "philosopher"], and none deal directly with the research involved. They are outsiders, sniping away at a science they neither comprehend nor are qualified to critique. How then, do they expect a reading public to take them seriously? If you must read this book, do so, but don't encourage such twaddle by spending your money on it. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

 Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you?