CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorPhilosophy and History of ScienceAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Are Evolutionary Explanations Unfalsifiable? Evolutionary Psychology and the Lakatosian Philosophy of Science

Ketelaar, Timothy, Ellis, Bruce J.·2000·Psychological Inquiry
DOI 10.1207/s15327965pli1101_01
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Are the methods and strategies that evolutionary psychologists use to generate and test hypotheses scientifically defensible? This target article addresses this question by reviewing principles of philosophy of science that are used to construct and evaluate metatheoretical research programs and applying these principles to evaluate evolutionary psychology. Examples of evolutionary models of family violence, sexual jealousy, and male parental investment are utilized to evaluate whether the procedures for developing and testing evolutionary psychological models are consistent with contemporary philosophy of science. Special attention is paid to the generation of competing theories and hypotheses within a single evolutionary framework. It is argued that this competition is a function of the multiple levels of scientific explanation employed by evolutionary psychologists, and that this explanatory system adheres to the Lakatosian philosophy of science. The charge that evolutionary theories and hypotheses are unfalsifiable is unwarranted and has its roots in a commonly accepted, but mistaken, Popperian view of how science operates. Modern evolutionary theory meets the Lakatosian criterion of "progressivity," based on its ability to digest apparent anomalies and generate novel predictions and explanations. Evolutionary psychology has the hallmarks of a currently progressive research program capable of providing us with new knowledge of how the mind works.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327965pli1101_01

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evolutionary explanations might stimulate novel, testable predictions that researchers who are not evolutionarily minded would overlook.

    “Evolutionary explanations might also stimulate novel, testable predictions that researchers who aren't evolutionarily minded would overlook (Ketelaar and Ellis 2000;De Bruine 2009).”

    From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Ketelaar and Ellis 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

23 of the 151 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J.
ORCID
Ellis, Bruce J.
Venue
Psychological Inquiry
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-03
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 1047-840X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7965
DOI
10.1207/s15327965pli1101_01
OpenAlex
W2161807128
Cited by
176
References
151
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
15.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Inquiry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
evolutionary psychology, unfalsifiability, research programs, progressivity, Popperian falsificationism, domestic violence, sexual jealousy, male parental investment, metatheory, competing theories

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review