This article link
will take you to the rantings of an idiot by the name of Tony Ortega who argues not only that evolutionary psychology is
stupid but specifically the people working at my university.
my comment to his featured blog:
Great job Tony, you managed to attack an entire field of science
without providing any supportive evidence to back up your claims.
That's truly impressive. The fact that you were able to write 850 words
and yet do so without even accidentally forming one logical thought is
a feat not easily accomplished. I find it absolutely astounding that
the big shots at Scientific America have failed to find someone as
wonderful as you to write for them. I can tell you this Tony that I
plan at once to cancel my subscription to their awesome magazine until
they stop hiring scientifically trained writers who have silly jobs
such as being the Director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture at
a major university. Instead I hope they get any joe ortege off the
streets who relies on passion and emotion rather then scientific data
to tell others what is and is not science.
Also I might add Tony it was a nice touch to begin the blog by citing
one very extreme racist researcher that used science to push his own
agenda. Relying on this as your only example of the evils of
evolutionary psychology. If MacDonald had believed that their was a
gene for anti-Semitism, would it be correct to then argue that all
geneticists are agenda pushing genocidal maniacs.
Tony then goes on to argue that almost all evolutionary psychologists
who study sexuality are male sex crazed perverts. The blatant ignorance
of your argument leads me to assume that you have not read any research
being produced in the area nor have you attended any conferences
otherwise you would have noticed that their are a lot of women who also
study this. The fact that you believe that only men would be interested
in studying sexuality makes you the sexist not them.
Obviously you know little about reproductive behaviors, steaming no
doubt from your own lack of experience, and that is probably why you
fail to see the need in studying it. Science focused on trying to
understand aspects of the anatomy and morphology of the penis and
vagina using evolutionary theory or understanding behavioral
adaptations toward sexuality is not dirty and it is definitely not
pseudoscience. I would actually attempt to explain this to you in
further detail and I would be able to do so through providing empirical
work rather then just saying it’s stupid, if I thought it would not be
lost on you. Do you understand what I am getting at? If you want to
take the time to attack a particular theory you need to provide
evidence as to why something is incorrect. This is best accomplished by
branching out from using one source (Reischel) and actually reading the
studies that are actually being produced in the area. While your doing
this I would also recommend looking over what the scientific method
entails because you seem a bit confused.
I think it would be better for all parties involved Tony if you would
take the time to do some research next time you try to attack something
that your only knowledge of comes from one girl named Reischel.