Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Evolution theorizing

The NY Times has lots of evolutionist theorizing. Now, it is on Kansas science, gay genes, and female orgasms.

What is notable here is that the evolutionists seem so sure of their arguments, and so sure that others are wrong, and yet there is a dearth of any empirical support for their views or even any way of testing their hypotheses.

Steve Pinker is impressed by a study that homosexual men are attracted to male scents (and alleged pheromones) in a manner similar to women.
The difference in the brain responses of gay and straight men does not, by itself, prove that homosexuality is innate; after all, learned inclinations, like innate ones, must reside somewhere in the brain. But in this case nature probably does trump nurture. Gay men generally report that their homosexual attractions began as soon as they felt sexual stirrings before adolescence. ...
I don't see how this is any evidence at all. First, people are likely to self-report feelings in a way to validate their current lifestyle, and may not even remember those feelings. Second, it may be that sex role identifications start to form during adolescence or even shortly before, but would not be evidence for any sort of innate or genetic orientation.

There are 21 theories about the female orgasm. Most of the arguments are silly. I don't know what is wrong with the obvious evolutionistic argument -- that if women seek pleasure from sexual relations, then they are likely to have more offspring.

No comments: