Reddit mentions of From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology (Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science)

I'm going to try to engage in discussion here, hopefully something useful or interesting will come of it.

1. Why do you think social science makes up concepts? If it were so simple, then why don't social scientists just do that instead of carrying out all that research to empirically support and demonstrate the existence of their concept?
   
   
2. As pointed out by someone else, the possible problems with social science doesn't make evo psych any more or less valid.
   
   
3. How do you deal with the fact that most of the criticisms against evolutionary psychology come from biologists; e.g. Jerry Coyne:
   
   >The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary
   psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies
   the evolutionary roots of human behavior.
   
   >...
   
   >Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically
   testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then
   evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly.
   
   Russell Gray:
   
   >In its enthusiasm to repudiate behavioral creationism and social construction EP has embraced a
   cartoon version of Darwinism.
   
   And there's a whole book of them here: From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology.
   
   If you were able to present solid criticisms of aspects of social science (and they do exist) which are as damning and as evidence-based as the criticisms against evo psych, then I'd guarantee that most people here would accept them.
   
   I understand that you're pretending to dismiss an entire section of science because you want to wind some people up, and sure, do what you like if it gives you the jollies, but maybe in this comment string we can put away the childish taunts and actually discuss an interesting topic.