r/science argues against evolution

Most people misunderstand what working backwards from the conclusion means as a fallacy. Think of it like this:

1) Scointist one finds the number 3.5 in one of his experiments. He believes that 3.5 is a number on the number line and models the number line as 1,2,3.5,4,5, too make the model fit his conclusion.

2) Scointist two has seen 0,1,2, and adds another one too 2 and finds a three. The natural evidence has taken him too the truth that the number line is 1,2,3,4,5. He is concluding on forming his model based on the evidence available.

The redditor is correct too the degree that it is almost impossible too apply the scientific rigor of physics or biology too the social sciences due too how much social behavior evolves and alters from generation too generation, but what they miss is that in the model of 1,2,3.5,4,5,6, 3.5 is still accurate enough too the extent of being a number larger than 2 and smaller than 4 and works well as a fill in data point while a better answer is found via following the far slower tendrils of rigorous research and development based on evidence reaching too conclusion.

That is, evolutionary psychology is a shortcut just as all social sciences are a shortcut because the hard sciences would take centuries too give the accurate measures but society already needs answers and even partial answers work right now too get the job done and are indeed better than nothing.

In conclusion, evolutionary science is useful as long as it benefits you too use it, and just as any other social science field, for you the layperson, the utility does not lie in being 100% accurate, but in being correct more often than if you didn't have access too the social sciences data.

Jewish lives matter.