geo wrote:ant wrote:Those last comments were excellent and is the justso scientific explanation i am looking for.
Great!
Exactly! You are looking for a just-so explanation so you easily dismiss possible naturalistic explanations without having to put forth an actual argument or even think about it too much. This has been your agenda from the start. Thanks for being honest!
The article offers anything but a just-so explanation. It offers
possible explanations based on the limited data we have. The author of the article makes it perfectly clear that the science is speculative. More data is needed. The definitive, reductive conclusions are merely your own strawman.
Its not me thats looking for them Geo. Its specific fields of science that arouse controversy like evolutionary psychology that develops untestable , unfalsifiable explanations for behavior.
You seem to think that just because its not a supernatural answer anything else is a natural explanation therefore it must be the correct answer regardless if it is testable or not.
Those are called justso explanations if they can not be sugjected to methodological verification.
But you dont understand that and would rather rattle on about it being natural and all, while throwing empirical standards out the window.
And you enjoy thinking you administered a "ggotcha!" at me.
Do you understand how you too can make up a justso scientific explanation and not have to test it?
Let me know if you have any questions. Ill clarify further. Or if you like, just say "culture explains behavior scientifically" and be done with it.