Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology - History of The Debate

History of The Debate

See also: Biopsychiatry controversy and Evolutionary theory and the political left

Critics and supporters have debated various aspects of evolutionary psychology. The history of debate from the evolutionary psychology perspective is covered in detail in books by Segerstråle (2000) and Alcock (2001). Also see recent overviews of EP with rebuttals to critics in Confer, et al. (2010), as well as relevant chapters in D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology.

The history of the debate from the critics' perspective is detailed by Gannon (2002). Critics of EP include the philosophers of science David Buller author of Adapting Minds, Robert C. Richardson author of Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, and Brendan Wallace, author of Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won't Work. Other critics include Neurobiologists like Steven Rose who edited "Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology", and biological anthropologists like Jonathan Marks and social anthropologists like Tim Ingold and Marshall Sahlins.

Critics of EP have argued that evolutionary psychology is based on misconceptions of biological and evolutionary theory.

Read more about this topic:  Criticism Of Evolutionary Psychology

Famous quotes containing the words history of the, history of, history and/or debate:

    “The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.”
    —Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)

    “Culture, the acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world, and thus with the history of the human spirit.”
    —Matthew Arnold (1822–1888)

    “No cause is left but the most ancient of all, the one, in fact, that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny.”
    —Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)

    “A great deal of unnecessary worry is indulged in by theatregoers trying to understand what Bernard Shaw means. They are not satisfied to listen to a pleasantly written scene in which three or four clever people say clever things, but they need to purse their lips and scowl a little and debate as to whether Shaw meant the lines to be an attack on monogamy as an institution or a plea for manual training in the public school system.”
    —Robert Benchley (1889–1945)