Show Notes
Is evolutionary psychology merely a way of excusing outdated behaviours? Is it instead culture which really defines how we behave? As with the animal kingdom, we see human behaviour as the product of elemental drives to survive and reproduce. Evolutionary psychology has taken this a stage further - seeing violence, social hierarchy, and sexual promiscuity as a product of evolutionary drives. But might this be a misleading and dangerous approach? Murder rates have fallen seventy-fold since the Middle Ages, and across the globe birth rates are a fraction of what they were a hundred years ago. Fathers are actively involved in child care and we've radically changed our outlook on social issues like gender identity - suggesting ideas and culture drive behaviour rather than evolution. Should we conclude that evolutionary psychology is a blind alley with no predictive power? Are we capable of overcoming behavioural traits and therefore wholly responsible for our actions? Or is evolution an inescapable force and behavioural change a result of altered circumstances while our core nature remains identical? Critic of evolutionary psychology Subrena E. Smith, philosopher of mind Keith Frankish, and clinical psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen debate the significance of evolutionary psychology. Hosted by Güneş Taylor.
Don't hesitate to email us at [email protected] with your thoughts or questions on the episode! To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/ And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/ You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimes See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
More from Philosophy For Our Times
Description Does the left really need to be more conservative? What is the difference between capital C and lowercase c conservatism? Is the Blue Labour movement the best tool against the MAGA agenda and right wing nationalism?
Should we give up seeing evidence as the truth and instead see it as a persuasive argument? Does evidence settle the matter or is a counter-narrative always possible? And if evidence is not the truth, how are we to choose between competing perspectives and models of the world? We turn to evidence to settle the matter. And we imagine it is evidence that confirms a scientific theory, or the guilt of an accused. But perspective can result in evidence being interpreted radically differently. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. More broadly some argue all so-called 'facts' are context or theory dependent. And if evidence depends on perspective, it is no longer clear what counts as evidence in the first place. Unlike the French legal system, that assumes evidence determines truth, the English system embeds opposing narratives, each employing their own 'evidence' to support a case. The same is true when physicists operate with different models of reality, recognising that alternative frameworks can be used.
Are homo sapiens the only organisms capable of creating and experiencing beauty? Can we find beauty in God? Why do we see the hand of an Artist in the Natural, if God does not exist?
What does it mean for rationality to be ‘permissive’? Is rationality more limited than we would like to admit? Does the idea that ‘truth is the aim of belief’ still stand?
What makes humans different from nature? What do Confucianism and Daoism have to do with physics? Is science too realist? In part 2 of our interview with Carlo Rovelli, we help unpick the history of the philosophy of science. From uncovering how millennia old Chinese philosophers were debating Enlightenment philosophical principles, to finding whether the self and consciousness are functionally identical, Rovelli's argument finds a home in a single statement: we must rehumanise science.