I didn't ever once say that I debunk the principle - but if the pervasive practice of something is so deeply flawed that it, for example, holds the Bateman principle up as scientific truth, then the field itself is too tainted to be taken seriously. I write all the time about how the way our ancient ancestors lived could potentially inform and impact the choices that we make today. But, I also write all the time about the variety from culture to culture and from time period to time period. As a student of sociology, I care about the nuances of culture and how they shape behavior.

I asked you before if you knew of any EP types who acknowledge how useless the Bateman principle is to understanding actual human mating strategies and you sidestepped it by hypothesizing what David Buss might say - without actually stating what he does say about it. Its continued evasion of the very deep flaws of the methodologies of this field. If three quarters of the people who worked in a given profession proclaimed as truth that the earth is flat, I'd say that profession was a joke, and I wouldn't hire them - despite the fact that in theory, they might be on track about some other things.

Going back to the Bateman principle, is it possible to learn something about reproductive success by studying the mating habits of fruit flies? Yes, of course - although it's not an automatic correlation to humans, you can look at Mendalian principles, but if your scientific methodology is so poor that you draw conclusions that aren't supported by the research, then it's junk and bunk. Similarly, if you look at the social dynamics of Victorian England and tell people that the conclusions you draw from that tell us about what people were doing and thinking 200,000 years ago, it's worse than worthless - it's misleading and flat out wrong. Is there any value to studying how the social dynamics of Victorian England still impact us today? Maybe, but you have to admit that's what you are doing - not pretend that it's actually Paleolithic social dynamics you are investigating.

A field is valid or not depending on the way they go about reaching their conclusions - not in theory, but in actual practice. That's what I care about. Clearly, you don't agree, but I find that to be pie-in-the-sky and so divorced from reality as to be pragmatically useless. And that, I guess is the crux of our disagreement.