Cape Cod Institute
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology


Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread January 8th, 2009, 09:42 AM
ToddStark ToddStark is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 174
Arrow Buller's Critique of EP

David Buller doesn't doubt that EP, in the sense of looking for the adaptive functions underlying the mind, is the right approach in general. He just doubts that we can ever actually do it properly with the kinds of methods and evidence that we're left with.

Unlike most other critiques, like Gould's general and largely implausible spandrels arguments regarding the mind and Fodor's somewhat ironic arguments against higher level modularity, Buller focuses on evaluation of specific experimental cases.

The problems raised by Buller:

1. Methdological problems inherent in trying to identify adaptive problems that are both unique to humans and universal to all humans. The compelling argument for Pleistocene mind arguments are based on the time span of human evolution, more than our having identified a common EEA.

2. A primary tool of adaptation analysis, the comparison of species which share a common ancestor, is rendered problematic by our lack of knowledge other hominid species any closer than chimps.

3. Buller doesn't buy the time argument for the Pleistocene EEA at either end. He insists that rapid evolutionary change since the Pleistocene is potentially relevant, and points out the difficulties distinguishing adaptations of the Pleistocene from those far more ancient.

4. Buller has specific critiques of several of the major EP experimental programs, questioning how their data relates back to evidence for adaptations.

Obviously none of these is a knock-down argument against human adaptation analysis, and I think Buller's pessimism goes too far in places. But for right now, it remains one of the best thought out cautionary tales and Buller is far more familiar with the work he criticizes than Gould was, making his critique often more interesting and useful.

Sci Am article, Four Fallacies

Book, Adapting Minds
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.